Quote:
Originally Posted by cologal
John McCain recently wrote this:
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would
provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by
the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
After the last week perhaps he has changed his mind.
http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf |
Perhaps a review of the business practices the state government employ upon themselves is a good place to look at how state "regulation" works. There are darned few states which can balance budgets without multi-point tax increases, and no standards of performance ever seem to be levied against how they do things.
I'm not saying that some regulation is not necessary - but what kind? Is the regulation to provide a performance standard for types of care? or a formula to measure costs (and subsequent profit)? or to detemrine distribution of products/services? or to determine individual/company qualifications to dispense certain types of care? or to levy reporting requirements for specific data only wanted by government?
"Regulation" covers a lot of area, and to de-regulate certain elements (such as some arcane reporting requirements or distribution scheme not in line with today's technology) is only good sense.
Before we get upset of "de-regulation," let's first examine which regulation and what it covers is being targeted for extinction or amendment. It's not always a bad idea.