More Republican “state’s rights?” hypocrisy
Senator Mike Enzi, R-WY, in 2000:
Among the handful of principles that are fundamental to any true protection for health care consumers, probably the most important is allowing states to continue in their role as the primary regulator of health insurance. This is a principle which has been recognized–and respected–for more than 50 years. In 1945, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a clear acknowledgment by the federal government that states are indeed the most appropriate regulators of health insurance. It was acknowledged that states are better able to understand their consumers’ needs and concerns. It was determined that states are more responsive, more effective enforcers of consumer protections. […] Wyoming has its own unique set of health care needs and concerns. Every state does. For example, despite our elevation, we don’t need the mandate regarding skin cancer that Florida has on the books. My favorite illustration of just how crazy a nationalized system of health care mandates would be comes from my own time in the Wyoming legislature.
Senator Mike Enzi, R-WY, in 2006, pushing a bill that would pre-empt state regulations on health insurance:
the hodgepodge of varying state mandates makes it difficult for a carrier or trade association to offer coverage on a multi-state basis
What’s the difference? Well, in 2000, he was against Federal regulation by way of a Patient Bill of Rights; in 2006, he’s against state regulations that might require insurers to cover people, or conditions, they’d rather not. (Like, say, mammograms; don’t worry, guys, your “magic” pills will still be covered, I’m sure.)
Philosophical consistency? Well, yes, it’s philosophically consistent. It’s just that the philosophy isn’t “state’s rights”, but rather “loosen regulation on my big campaign contributors.” (2006 election cycle? $113K+ from the insurance industry.)
(Original pointer to S.1955 via Universal Hub; Enzi’s 2000 statement found with a quick Google search.)
