"You mean, set national standards and leave the implementation to the states within those standards, with feds only stepping in if the states refuse or fail?"
No, that's a modern bastardization of the idea, where the Federal government claims to be following the letter of the idea but steps in with all sorts of central mandates and requirements even so. They've got some pretty good rackets going on with "optional" compliance to programs tied to truckloads of money, too.
Federalism would be... let the states handle it. No Federal requirements. No Federal interests. No Federal laws. If Vermont wants full on state health care with no private option and Texas wants full private healthcare with little more than disability assistance, let them. Washington DC interferes with neither.
The PPACA hasn't got a drop of Federalism in it.
Whether you consider that a problem is up to you. I'm just explaining that it doesn't have any.
No, that's a modern bastardization of the idea, where the Federal government claims to be following the letter of the idea but steps in with all sorts of central mandates and requirements even so. They've got some pretty good rackets going on with "optional" compliance to programs tied to truckloads of money, too.
Federalism would be... let the states handle it. No Federal requirements. No Federal interests. No Federal laws. If Vermont wants full on state health care with no private option and Texas wants full private healthcare with little more than disability assistance, let them. Washington DC interferes with neither.
The PPACA hasn't got a drop of Federalism in it.
Whether you consider that a problem is up to you. I'm just explaining that it doesn't have any.