We usually look to the news department of a media publication to break news items, and then the opinion page of that publication to opine on the news. Down in San Diego, the Union-Tribune’s Chris Reed continues to justify his statewide reputation for aggressive research as an editorial board member, and the lead editorial from the U-T today demonstrates it.
There has been an ongoing and growing theory that the aggressive proposal by Governor Schwarzenegger to impose massive government regulation on the health care insurance provided by private employers in the Golden State would violate a relatively obscure federal law passed in 1974 called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, known as ERISA (I should add that proposals by legislative Democrats also would be cross-wise with this federal law).
Reed spoke with a senior official with the U.S. Department of labor and apparently the Feds are quite cognizant of what is being discussed in California (as well as some other states) and don’t think that plans as proposal pass federal muster.
FR readers should definitely take the time to read this SDUT piece, which tops our main page today, but can also be read here.
My first thought, admittedly, when I hear this information is that the federal law should be repealed. As a federalist, I believe that in only a very narrow scope of policy areas where the federal government should be able to pre-empt state activities, and I don’t see healthcare as being one of them. As a matter of fact, the federal government should be completely out of anything to do with healthcare — that should be reserved to the people, and to the states.
Of course I have editorialized on this page ad nauseam about why the Governor’s health care proposal is flawed and terrible public policy. But Californian should have the freedom to succeed or fail in their policy goals unfettered from federal interference — at least in this area.
That having been said, as the SDUT piece points out, this is a very real problem that should be looked into as Sacramento politicians explore the effectiveness, and viability, of the various proposals.
While I am a federalist, it doesn’t mean I would lose much sleep if the liberals who have so perversely expanded the scope of the federal government created an impediment to more government expansion at the state level here in California! What a great irony…
May 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jon, you are incorrect to oppose the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on federalist grounds. The regulation of interstate commerce is a legitimate function of the federal government (check Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution). In fact, the need for this sort of regulation MORE THAN ANY OTHER provided the inspiration for the current United States Constitution that the Federalists proposed.
I would urge you to go back and read the history of the Annapolis Conference and the Articles of Confederation (this is the conference that called the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to draft our current Constitution in order to provide for better regulation of commerce between the states).
ERISA may have its flaws and there might be other reasons to oppose it, but federalism is not one of them. In fact, as a supporter of free trade among the various States, I would argue that our nation NEEDS something like ERISA to prevent every state or local city council across the country from seeking to compel nationwide companies to comply with conflicting local benefit rules.
If ERISA were ever repealed, you would quickly see that nationwide companies would stop offering any benefits at all because it would be impossible to comply with all the conflicting local rules. Maybe we would be better off if employers had to pay their employees with cash instead of a confusing mix of cash and benefits, but those kinds of issues should be left to employers and employees to decide (as part of their right to contract).