States may be able to Opt-out

hmm...I'm not so sure that's a good idea. If we get a public option with an "opt-out", my state would most certainly take advantage of it. And there are people here who really need the good health care coverage that the public option could provide.

This is a fantastic idea.

Then the people who can't seem to get insurance on their own can relocate to the states that are willing to take on that burden.

It might help California fix its problem of a declining population base.

But they might not be a reliable tax base. I might have to rethink this one.

I could see this ending up in court with a decision that a state opting out is unconstitutional, correlate to Roe V Wade.

"States may be able to Opt-out" . .


Yeah, right . . . ..



steph

There is also some concern with states sovereignty if they do accept the government plan; read here in the Baucus Markup:

"If a state fails to adopt the changes in conformance with the new Federal minimum standards either by adopting the NAIC Model or through Secretarial approval, conflicting state laws would be preempted. In such a case, insurers would then offer coverage under Federal law and be overseen by HHS until the state adopts the necessary changes." on page 11.
"Reinsurance. As a condition of issuing commercial, major medical health insurance policies or administering benefit plans for major medical coverage in years 2013, 2014, and 2015, all health insurance issuers would be required to contribute to a reinsurance program for individual policies that is administered by a non-profit reinsurance entity that would function as described below. This requirement would be enforced at the state level in a manner consistent with new the insurance market reforms. National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) would be directed to develop a model for states to adopt. If the NAIC does not act or a state does not adopt the new requirements, new Federal regulations would preempt state laws that conflict with the new reinsurance requirements."
I believe that this is unconstitutional. We need to find different alternatives. I do like the State run idea, but it would be hard to balance.
Link to markup here:
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/100209_Americas_Healthy_Future_Act_AMENDED.pdf

(We are all citizens of the US FIRST and then of our state of residence.)

With all due respect, the the Constitution states:

Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved tot the States respectively, or to the people."

When you speak of equal rights, it is under the Code of Law, from modern times, and therefore can be challenged in the Judicial system. It is not constitutionally valid because it is not an amendment.

In Article IV, Section 4. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

It seems to me, that you prefer to follow Socialist values. Allowing the government to supply everything to the people. Be careful how you interpret things, and look into the Federalist Papers, written by the Founders. You will better be able to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and what our Country was founded for.
Socialism – 1.a. A social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. B. The theory or practice of those who support such a system. 2. In Marxist-Leninist theory, the building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/