You bring up some good points. Some states create problems for them selves. They don't have to accept federal money. Good point. They allow themselves to be controlled for the money. I was living (stationed) in Texas when Nixon (the man who destroyed the republican party :-) imposed the national speed limit of 55 MPH. Texas put up the signs but never enforced the speed limit until the fed threatened to stop their highway funds. If they want to be as independent as they think they are, they wouldn't have cared about losing the funds.<quoted text>I don't know if the cost of drugs has dropped or climbed. I don't keep up with it;-) Not my problem.
While the Feds do control Federal programs, any state can opt out of myriad Federal programs. They can take on the burden themselves without imposing on all taxpayers by accepting Federal subsidy. But, they don't. Nope. They have come to rely on Federal tax dollars to finance much of their services to residents. See the problem? If you don't want the Federal Government involved in how you run your state public welfare programs, stop taking their money. Problem solved. Take care of your own residents with their tax contributions to the state. True, that doesn't apply to Federally mandated healthcare, but California accepts Federal money for County Health Departments too, and those operations take and serve for free ANYBODY who qualifies as a resident period based on income level. So, state taxpayers pay for illegal immigrants to have blepharoplasty (droopy eyelid fix), bunion surgery, and myriad other optional treatments - or, at least they did until maybe recently.
I lived in L.A. for over twenty-five years from 1990. I saw what happened with Prop 187, and we can chalk up the failure to Appeal to Gray Davis letting the period for expire - intentionally. We'll never know if it would have held up at SCOTUS, but there are plenty of smart folks who believe it would have been. The Ninth Circuit has an embarrassing array of rulings which have been struck down. They like to legislate from the bench and for political purposes.
But, I don't believe we should give the states so much power that they can mess around with a national standard of health care services and treatments. I just don't. I wouldn't want to become ill driving through Mississippi if we start letting states control those sorts of things. Would you?
Now, good luck to Arizona if SB1070 is upheld. Here's the problem. The state cannot deport. They can identify, take into custody and house illegals until DHS comes calling. But DHS only has 45,000 beds available nationwide, and they tend to release anybody who isn't a criminal with a notice to return for an immigration hearing in anywhere from a few months to a few YEARS. So, what happens when the same illegal immigrant is back on the streets in Phoenix within three weeks of turning him over to DHS? Is he good to go, and does
As far as a health standard goes. There is a medical standard. There should be a basic medical standard set by the medical profession. A medical standard is used in court cases involving law suits. A state like Mississippi would have to meet the standard. The feds impose further mandates beyond the standards of medicine that usually involves an ideology, as your examples, instead of regulating to be sure the states meet basic medical standards.
I think Arizona laws, most of them, will pass SCOTUS scrutiny because the laws do require federal prosecution. I think they may have a problem with the initial probable cause. Otherwise, they are enforcing federal law. I can see states looking the other way when it comes to arresting money counterfeiters if it goes the other way.:-)