"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." --Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I was sitting at my desk writing out checks to various doctors, clinics, medical labs and agencies for my co-pays, deductibles, and insurance premiums when I heard a discussion on one of the morning news programs about President Obama’s newest health proposals. He was suggesting a program that allows federal bureaucrats to review any premium increases by insurance companies. My first reaction was “that might be a good idea.” But then I started to think about it and changed my mind.

Every state has an insurance commissioner who is responsible for reviewing and approving or rejecting rate increases. We have a Madison County resident, State Sen. Ralph Hudgens, who is running for Georgia Insurance Commissioner in the fall elections. So any new federal agency dedicated to this cause would, once again, be taking away state responsibilities.

I realized as well that a federal office would try to force national standards on insurance rates. Again, sounds like a good idea until you realize that the cost of doing business varies widely between the states. Real estate, energy and labor cost in California, for example, are much higher than those in Georgia. Therefore, a federal ruling reducing rates in California might have the effect of increasing them in Georgia.

In addition, I can find nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to set prices within state borders. Such a bill, in my opinion would violate the tenth amendment.

But there is one way it can legally be done. That is to pass the Republican plan to allow people to buy insurance across state borders. In that case, insurance rates would legally fall under the interstate commerce clause and federal price controls would be legal.

Then my mind turned to the idea of opening up the state borders so that people can buy insurance from any state in the union. That would greatly increase the competitive nature of health insurance. People in the high rate states, like California, New Jersey and others could save a considerable amount of money that way.

But then insurance companies in those states would be forced to reduce their rates in order to compete with the out of state companies, and might very well find that they are not able to stay in business with lower rates.

I have a confession to make. I am not as smart as some of my fans think I am. (Nor as dumb as some of my critics say.) I have no idea which is the better plan. But neither do the members of Congress. That is why the health care debate is so confusing. Perhaps the states should allow more companies to function within their borders to increase competition. But Congress does not have constitutional power to require that.

That might be a good question to ask the candidates for Insurance Commissioner. Maybe one of them has the answer.

Copyright © 2010 by Frank Gillispie
frank@frankgillispie.com, Hull, GA