[picapp align=”center” wrap=”false” link=”term=confederate+flag&iid=2622278″ src=”http://view4.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/2622278/confederate-flag-flies/confederate-flag-flies.jpg?size=500&imageId=2622278″ width=”234″ height=”363″ /]
Missouri has overwhelmingly decided against Obamacare. In my opinion, they certainly have the right to do so. Why should mandatory health insurance be a federal issue? It does no harm to anybody if not all states participate in this screwd up policy. Ultimately it comes down to the same old question: How much power should the federal government have?
History, economics, and logic, they all suggest that competition is healthy for governments, too. It reduces the risk of abuse of power. It opens up opportunities for differing solutions to identical problems, so that we can see what works and what doesn’t work.
There are certainly some issues where a federal policy may be more useful than 50 different solutions, for instance, a national defense policy, or interstate traffic networks, or rules for tarriff-free interstate commerce. Health insurance, however, can by no means be a federal issue. I have yet to hear a sensible point in favor of federal regulations.
As a matter of fact, the US Federal Government offends Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution, because they (and the Supreme Court) were so dumb (or shrewd) to say that insurance is no commerce (see McCarran-Ferguson Act 1945). This enabled states to shield their insurers from interstate competition. So it would be wise for the Federal Government to regulate less rather than more of the health insurance markets.
Frankly, in my opinion many states should think about secession again, if the Federal Government goes on infringing on their states’ rights, like they did with Arizona’s immigration law. History shows a never-stopping increase in federal powers, and if states don’t do something against it soon, they may end up being degraded to French-style departements, who simply follow orders from the President.