Agreed.

The last year and half has probably been Bush’s best period of his Presidency, basically because he hasn’t been able to get anything done.

The best period of his presidency will be the day he leaves the White House for the final time so the presidential chopper can dump him on his ranch and get him out of our lives.

I never said that McCain’s healthcare plan is some libertopia. It is far from it, but it is certainly better than the democrats gov’t takeover of the entire healthcare system. Because once we go to a gov’t system for healthcare there is no going back.

My point, however, is that Obama will be able to pass everything he wants and congress will be able to pass everything they want with an Obama Presidency. The only thing stopping them possibly will be the Senate if the republicans don’t lose to many seats. McCain will not be able to pass everything he wants and Congress will also not be able to pass everything they want either with a McCain Presidency. There will likely be some compromising to pass some crappy legislation, but on the whole I would rather have divided gov’t, even with a crappy President such as McCain, then an undivided gov’t headed by Obama.

This doesn’t mean I will vote for McCain but in our current situation I would rather have McCain with a democratic Congress than Obama with a democratic congress. If the republicans were in control of Congress I would rather have Obama over McCain.

But the idea that an insurance policy can be sufficient in one state but not in another is beyond absurd.

That’s not the idea, though. The idea is that even if there is some magical set of regulations that qualifies as optimally “sufficient”, we mortals don’t know what it is. Therefore each state is free to take its best stab at it. It’s the same as how blue laws vary from state to state. The only difference is that alcohol isn’t a national electoral issue these days.

Frankly, I can see how any sales tax can be considered a protectionist tariff. They apply first and foremost to all goods physically sold inside the state. Even if they ever managed to tax all internet orders, that would still do nothing more than level the playing field. Sales taxes are nothing more than an indirect tax on the people of the state. There’s nothing about them that assists local producers.

Clearly, though, the congress does have the authority to implement McCain’s plan; It is blatantly interstate commerce. I just don’t think it’s a good idea to do so. Mark, you’re continuing to focus on the guy in Nevada that would like access to a cheaper, less regulated plan available to his friend in Arizona. Don’t undervalue the fact that the friend in Arizona, at least, is able to get a less regulated policy.

If you nationalize it, it’s only a matter of time before the high regulations become par for the course and then society will lose all perspective about the cost of various regulations. If nothing else, at least the status quo gives us “50 laboratories” that give us meaningful comparisons.

If you really really really want to make things easier for the legal/marketing departments of insurance companies, you should at least make your national mandates flexible. Create a set of “high”, “medium”, and “low” regulations and then let each state adopt the one they feel is appropriate. At least try to retain a little bit of diversity.

What’s new about it, UC?

Because of how they tax those things you order. With Amazon, for example, since it’s a national chain you don’t normally pay taxes on the things you order. However, the state of Kansas was exceedingly unhappy about what they perceived as a detriment to local businesses and a loss of tax revenue so, since Amazon has a major distribution center in Coffeyville everyone who ordered a product from Amazon that went through the Coffeyville distribution center therefore had to pay state sales tax, whereas people purchasing through the same distribution center in other states don’t. It’s basically a tariff by the state of Kansas.

Of course, Amazon figured a way around this by no longer shipping goods ordered in Kansas from their Coffeyville center, the end result being that while you don’t pay sales tax on those goods it takes longer to get what you order. But they shouldn’t have to do that and the point is that this is the kind of thing that the commerce clause was designed to avoid.

Actually I’d use what Mark just said as a response to your question.

Exactly- and under the Constitution, this is supposed to be prohibited. One of the things that the Constitution did that any libertarian ought to love was that it tried to provide a guarantee of free trade between the states; this guarantee is why, for instance, a state can’t decide that a licensed driver in another state is prohibited from driving on that state’s roads. The problem is that rather than apply a (relatively) strict view against restrictions on trade as is laid out in the Constitution, the courts over time decided that restrictions on trade ought to be subject to what is effectively a balancing test(the exact boundaries of which I don’t feel looking up right now).

But the idea that an insurance policy can be sufficient in one state but not in another is beyond absurd. What McCain’s proposal does, on this point at least, is eliminate that absurdity.

That’s a verbose way of saying that each state would no longer be able to set the ground rules for their state.

Actually, I think Mark may be onto something on that. There’s been a creeping incrementalism in how states handle commerce that originates in other states (especially in the Internet age, with places like Amazon, for example) where it’s using state regulations to function as tariffs and protectionism without calling it such.

I tend to favor states’ rights too, but that doesn’t mean I believe states should be able to do whatever the hell they want without federal interference when there appears to be a solid argument in the Constitution for federal intervention.

instead it is a valid and appropriate exercise of the commerce clause that as far as I can tell would merely say that any health insurance valid in one state is equally valid and buy-able in any other state.

That’s a verbose way of saying that each state would no longer be able to set the ground rules for their state.

I think that state prohibitions on the type of insurance that can be purchased in that state are quite likely unconstitutional under a textualist constitutional interpretation. We tend to forget that state restrictions on trade with other states is strictly prohibited by the Constitution.

I don’t see how that’s the case. Every state is free to regulate any business taking place in that state subject only to the limitations imposed by their state constitution. Health care only stands out because it happens to regulated to a higher degree than most other businesses.

Those are some valid points about interstate commerce. I’d tend to agree with Jeff, however, that it’s opening up the door for future abuse by the feds. But then that’s just as likely to happen if we left it as is, so I tend to favor your argument on that. My concerns, however, are on whether he intends to use price controls which, frankly, some of his proposal seems indicate he’s in favor of. Particularly once he gets into things like controlling costs by dealing with smokers. If he’s for price controls, there’s still no way we should back his proposal, whether or not he’s correct about the interstate commerce angle.

Frankly, I think that state prohibitions on the type of insurance that can be purchased in that state are quite likely unconstitutional under a textualist constitutional interpretation. We tend to forget that state restrictions on trade with other states is strictly prohibited by the Constitution. I believe that, in effect and intent, these state level regulations do exactly that. McCain’s proposal merely overrides the effect of those discriminatory restrictions on trade.

I do not read his proposal, however, as requiring that insurance companies offer their policies nationwide – just as permitting insurance companies to offer their policies nationwide.

The part about allowing health insurance to be carried and purchased across state lines is actually less a function of increasing regulation of the insurance industry as it is a way of overcoming over-regulation of the insurance industry on the state level.

Make sure you use your experience to think big picture on this. Nationalizing health care regulations may result in a net decrease in regulations in the short run, but I’ll bet my bottom dollar the the long term result will be at least as much regulation as we have now and we’ll no longer be able to escape it by moving to reasonable states.

Not worth it, in my mind.