Should states regulate healthcare

The federal government on its part has the machinery to drive changes while maintaining its grip of the costs. The paper interrogates both positions and presents the results. State governments are not ready to handle the burden of managing healthcare. Reasons For Grassroots Contact While many assume that the healthcare market is monolithic with similar concerns, the reality is that the market is incredibly segmented. People need different things at different times. They forget that some states have already shown that it is possible for these governments to manage healthcare effectively. One of the best examples of state intervention is the program in Massachusetts. The initiative nursed and brought to fruition by former governor Mitt Romney reduced the number of uninsured by a significant margin (Brill, 2015).

The model continues to attract study due to its performance. Many will admit that the state and its peers have shown how states can manage their healthcare systems. In fact, the Tea Party Movement and its remaining vestiges like Congressman Kevin McCarthy can trace their origins to the healthcare debate. It has become fashionable to craft the debate as one between far away Washington and local residents. The only way to break this narrative is to show that the process has nothing to do with federal overreach and everything to do with healthcare. Having a debate at the federal level allows for emotion and partisanship to rule the debate. It becomes an Us versus Them fight where the facts disappear into the abyss of partisan fighting (Hansard, Hyde, Granter, & McCann, 2016).

However, the current senator avoids speaking about the issue by maintaining focus on President Trump’s ideas (Josh, 2018). The senators would rather talk about the need to protect the president than talk to their people about healthcare reform. State legislators do not have that luxury. They have to confront local issues without seeking a national scapegoat or talking point. Local leaders often face immediate political consequences for their political positions. In almost every situation the healthcare sector is the first to suffer the consequences of cost-cutting. Power The United States has the most privatized healthcare system in the country, and that has made sure that healthcare providers and insurance companies enjoy sweeping powers. By design, states do not have much regulatory power of insurance firms and healthcare providers apart from the federal guidelines already in place.

Intense lobbying has made sure that the private entities retain the balance of power. One of the results is that states cannot even negotiate the price of drugs without violating federal statutes (Joshi, 2015). One can begin with the Voting Rights Act. The legislation became necessary after all the states in the American south enacted policies specifically designed to keep black people from voting. These same states were so discriminative that the federal government had to enact the Civil Rights Act. Time and time again, state governments have proven that they need the4 guiding hand from the feds. The fact is that the United States has a long history of discrimination when it comes to healthcare. Additionally, there is a history of discrimination to worry about though this factor is not as significant in 2019.