First off, the definition of what is covered is so broad that I can drive my truck through it.
"(c) "Health care" means care, services, supplies, or plans related to the health of an individual and includes but is not limited to:
(i) preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance, or palliative care and counseling, service, assessment, or procedure with respect to the physical or mental condition or functional status of an individual or that affects the structure or function of the body,"
Where's the language relating to reproductive "health care"?
Given the recent flap between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church, not only should that have been on the radar, but very clearly spelled out in this legislation as well.
Problem two:
(4) The commission shall collect information and data to assist the member states in their regulation of health care, including assessing the performance of various state health care programs and compiling information on the prices of health care.
The commission shall make this information and data available to the legislatures of the member states. Notwithstanding any other provision in this compact, no member state shall disclose to the commission the health information of any individual, nor shall the commission disclose the health information of any individual.
What you wrote and what will actually happen are two very different things.
Identity theft is a major problem in America, and it's growing. A problem that is re-enforced in today's paper.
The federal government has to contend with data breaches all the time. Why should the state be expected to fare any better?
Three,$29-billion is an awful lot of money.
According to the last budget numbers that I've read, HHS spending for 2013 is projected to be $21.7-billion.
Why is there an increase tucked in there?
And lastly, if we're talking about the Constitution, I looked up the state's role in this area. Here's what it had to say:
Art IV § 51 Public health and general welfare.
Sec. 51. The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared to be matters of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection and promotion of the public health.
Progressives love to say that the federal government can do whatever it wants because of the "general welfare" clause (so does a sitting members of congress...but I digress). There is a big difference between providing something and promoting it. So where does anyone from Lansing get off saying that this is even remotely a legitimate function of state government?
