Yesterday (that would be Thursday the 25th), Vermont Governor Jim Douglas signed new legislation to (ostensibly) make health insurance more readily accessible and affordable.
Since this just popped up on my radar, I haven’t had time to really dig into it (as we did for Massachusetts’ efforts). On its face, it doesn’t look all that promising (new bureaucracy, taxes on smokes, employer penalties, yawn). But we’ll have an in-depth analysis shortly.
The point of this post, however [ed: was wondering when you’d get to that], is this observation:
While I’m not enamored of the mechanisms these states have chosen, I heartily approve of the method by which they are moving forward.
Surprised?
I am opposed to government take-over, whether by fiat or legislation, of healthcare. But this is a states’ issue; that is, there is nothing in the US Constitution granting the gummint the right to decide our healthcare, let alone the 15% of our economy it represents. The 10th Amendment, though, preserves for each state the right to address such matters as each sees fit. After all, folks (and employers) will vote with their feet: if the burden is too onerous, then jobs (and those that do them) will exit. If it’s not, well, good luck.
Each state is free to decide if and how to address the issue. I would much rather see it play out this way (as messy as it may well turn out to be) than to have the entrenched bureaucracy in DC enact its version.
Just my $.02
More later.
Posts
