states+cp

8/8/2019 States+CP

1/61

States CP Loyola HS

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................................................................

***NEG*** ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ......

1NC States ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ...... ..

States are best at solving social issues education, crime and welfare prove ...............................

States Solve: Decision Making ........................................................................................................................................................................

States are better decision makers than the federal government ....................................................

States Solve: General .......................................................................................................................................................................................

States Solve: General .......................................................................................................................................................................................

So far the states have provided the only real social services .........................................................

On a state level you can get the most effectiveness per dollar spent.............................................

Efficiency ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...

While some might seek federal solutions to resource management, we may also have to consider that the federal government is not well-

organized to address certain problems. Its own agencies may have multiple and conflicting charges in management, policy and research

Not only might various branches of a single agency have little contact with each other, but also, and perhaps more importantly,

communication between agencies is limited. Agencies have growing responsibilities through piecemeal legislative action over time,

which are defended by turf battles during appropriation hearings. New program initiatives become ways to fund existing programs

through re-packaging. Little consideration has been given to the best ways to organize and manage for sustainable resource managemen

overall. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Flexibility ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...

Uniformity Good .................................................................................................................................................................................. ...... .....

The counterplan forges links between states to create uniform social services ............................ 1

Uniformity Bad ................................................................................................................................................................................................

States Solve Courts .......................................................................................................................................................................................

States solve they take many more cases than the federal courts............................................... 1

State courts can review law on the grounds of constitutional rights .............................................. 1

(SONJA RALSTON ELDER, editorial assistant for duke journal of law STANDING UP TO

LEGISLATIVE BULLIES: SEPARATION OF POWERS, STATE COURTS, AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS

)...................................1

States Solve Poverty ...................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ...... ...

States have experience in administrating programs directed at poverty ...................................... 1

States Solve TANF .................................................................................................................................................................................. .....

TANF is a state run program .......................................................................................................... 1

States Solve Tax Credit ..................................................................................................................................................................... ...... .....

States can implement tax credits .................................................................................................. 1

1

8/8/2019 States+CP

2/61

States CP Loyola HSHealth Care: Generic Solvency .......................................................................................................................................................................

States solve health care better - local............................................................................................ 1

Holahan, Weil, Wiener, 3 (John Holahan, director of Health Policy Resaerch Center at the Urban

Institute; Alan Weil, director of the Urban Institutes Assessing the New Federalism project,

Joshua M. Wiener, principle research associate at Urban Institue; Federalism and Health Policy

an overview, http://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.html, July 2003).......................1

States solve better labs of democracy (also, states take initiative in health care) ......................1

Holahan, Weil, Wiener, 3 (John Holahan, director of Health Policy Resaerch Center at the Urban

Institute; Alan Weil, director of the Urban Institutes Assessing the New Federalism project,

Joshua M. Wiener, principle research associate at Urban Institue; Federalism and Health Policy

an overview, http://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.html, July 2003).......................1

Health Care: Solvency Variety Pack ...................................................................................................................................................... ...... ...

States solve better - innovation ..................................................................................................... 2

States solve better tailoring programs key to long-term care ..................................................... 2

States solve better administration .............................................................................................. 2

States can do healthcarefederal law only hurt............................................................................ 2

Healthcare: Immigrant Specific .......................................................................................................................................................................

States can fund their own healthcare programs for undocumented immigrants ...........................2

States have discretion to give health coverage to illegal immigrants............................................ 2

Welfare: Generic ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

The federal government has empirically failed to provide adequate social services.....................2

And the States Solve better State governments can compete with federal governments for

social service programs. ............................................................................................................... 2

John O. McGinnis* and Ilya Somin; Northwestern University Law Review Fall, 2004 99 Nw. U.L

Rev. 89; Symposium: The Rehnquist Court: Federalism Vs. States' Rights: A Defense Of Judicia

Review In A Federal System; BIO: * Class of 1940 Research Professor, Northwestern Law Schoo

B.A., Harvard, 1979; M.A., Oxford, 1980; J.D., Harvard, 1983. ** Assistant Professor of Law,

George Mason University School of Law; B.A., Amherst College, 1995 ......................................2

Welfare: Generic ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

States are better at providing welfare services than the USFG the CP Solves .............................2

Grimes 98 (Richard Grimes, Charleston Daily mail writer, News, page P1C, 2/19/98, LexisNexis

Academic page 1-4)....................................................................................................................2

Welfare: Flexibility ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ...

States have successfully been implementing welfare programs flexibility ................................... 2

Veterans ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

The states can provide better access to social services for veterans ............................................ 3

Food Stamps: Variety Pack ........................................................................................................................................................................ .....

States control food stamps implementation .................................................................................. 3

2

8/8/2019 States+CP

3/61

States CP Loyola HSEducation: Generic Solvency ..........................................................................................................................................................................

Solvency State governments key to HeadStart........................................................................... 3

States can provide pre-school education programs ....................................................................... 3

Education Funding ........................................................................................................................................................................................

Prisons ............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Broadband: Generic .........................................................................................................................................................................................

State and local governments are investing in IT technology in the squo .......................................3

Business Wire 07 (Government Insights Forecasts State and Local IT Spending by Program

Areas; .........................................................................................................................................3

Social Services Leading the Way, 8/27/07, Business Wire)......................................................3

Broadband: Generic .........................................................................................................................................................................................

Greater state funding and broadband development solves the digital divide they can facilitate

both internet access and technological literacy programs ............................................................. 3

States Solve- Flexibility ...................................................................................................................................................................................

States have a greater understanding about the people in their state, and are more effective to

make policies around their preferences......................................................................................... 4

Murray in 2006 (Tammy, Indiana University School of Law Indianapolis, Indiana Health Law

Review, Indiana Health Law Review, no date)............................................................................4

States Solve Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................. .....

States create a highly competitive global economy ....................................................................... 4

Deficit Spending Good ........................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ...

AT: Funding Stops Solvency ...........................................................................................................................................................................

It is in States jurisdictions to create welfare policies, the federal government ceded control overwelfare to the states and solve better even with financial barriers ................................................4

Pascal 08 (Rutgers Law Journal, 39 Rutgers L.J. 863, Summer 2008, welfare rights in state

constitutions, Elizabeth Pascal, Associate, Hodgson and Russ LLP, Buffalo, New York,

LexisNexis Academic page 3-4)..................................................................................................4

AT: States Dont Have Funds ..........................................................................................................................................................................

States budgets can support stimulus proves.............................................................................. 4

States control budget use.............................................................................................................. 4

Stateside Dispatch 7 (Why States Matter,

http://www.progressivestates.org/content/685/why-states-matter#1, 7/1/07)...........................4

Promoting localized social services improves the states economy and helps the citizens thrive ..4

Robinson 06 (April 2006, State human services organization: strategies for improving results

National Conference of State Legislatures, Susan Robinson is a private consultant to

international, national, state and community organizations seeking to improve the lives of

vulnerable children, families and other individuals,

http://204.131.235.67/programs/cyf/hspubintro.htm#execsumm, introduction page 75-76).....4

3

8/8/2019 States+CP

4/61

States CP Loyola HSAT Perm ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

States wish to take action by themselves ...................................................................................... 4

Grant Reeher; associate professor of political science at Syracuse University's Maxwell School

Citizenship and Public Affairs. Syracuse University Will States Get Help From Feds This Time?

The Post-Standard (Syracuse, New York) August 24, 2008 Sunday Earlier this month, Govs.

David Paterson, D-N.Y., and Martin O'Malley, D-Md., wrote in this space about the hard

economic times currently facing state governments ("Feds must help states through toughtime," Aug. 3)..............................................................................................................................4

Links to Federalism: ....................................................................................................................... 4

AT: Perm - Federalism ......................................................................................................................................................................... ...... .....

AT: Perm - Federalism ......................................................................................................................................................................... ...... .....

Expanding federal power undermines state competence .............................................................. 5

Federalism is vital to a clear division of labor between state and federal governments, it is key

maximizing US leadership ............................................................................................................. 5

AT: Perm Federalism Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................... ...... .....

Leadership stops multiple global nuclear wars & a new Dark Age ................................................. 5

Perm Tyranny .............................................................................................................................................................................................

AT:50 State Fiat ...............................................................................................................................................................................................

AT: Race to the Bottom ...................................................................................................................................................................................

AT: States Politics DA ........................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ...

Federal social services also trigger the state politics links states hate federal administration ....5

States Modeled Internationally ........................................................................................................................................................................

States are modeled nationally ....................................................................................................... 6

Federal Modeling ........................................................................................................................................................................................ .....

The federal health care bill is modeled after the Massachusetts system .......................................6

States can create federal action on poverty, minimum wage laws prove ......................................6

***NEG***

4

8/8/2019 States+CP

5/61

States CP Loyola HS

1NC StatesText: The 50 States and all relevant territories should uniformly

____________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

All relevant actors will defer to the mandates of the counterplan. Funding and enforcement are guaranteed

through all necessary means.

Observation One Its Legit

A. Specific evidence proves our evidence advocates coordinated state action over federal policies.

B. Key to ground the counterplan is necessary to test that the aff is defending a truly federal policy and to

prevent affs from claiming generic policy advantages without a defense of the fed.

Observation Two It CompetesAny permutation would have to sever out of federal action to solve our net benefits severance is a voting

issue because it allows the aff to make the plan conditional and shift throughout the debate, destroying neg

ground.

Solvency:

States are best at solving social issues education, crime and welfare prove

Wills 98 (Gary, The war between the states and Washington, 7/5/98, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/05/magazine/the-war-

between-the-states-and-washington.html?pagewanted=all, AD: 7/5/09) TR

The change is not just a matter of theory. States and localities are manifesting a new energy, almost a frenzy, instarting, altering or killing programs. In education alone, they have pioneered charterschools, vouchers forprivate schools, the canceling of affirmative action in colleges, the retrenchment of bilingualism, new rules for immigrant children,

different approaches to truancy and various approaches to teaching religion in public schools or allowing religious groups togather on public grounds. In crime, states have reintroduced capital punishment and passed ''three strikes'' laws. Theyhave experimented with ''truth in sentencing'' (no parole), mandatory sentencing, alternative sentencing and victims'compensation.In politics, they have promoted term limits, tax caps, mandatory spending percentages, public campaignfinancing, the control of union dues and extensions of the ballot initiative. On sexual morality, the states have enacted or reversedbills on gay rights, repealed sodomy laws, supported unmarried partners' benefits and proposed or opposed marriage between

homosexuals. On welfare, the states have tried different forms of job training and placement, compulsory work,public employment or compensated private employment and various forms of benefits for mothers on welfare (includingchild care and health insurance).On the environment, they have regulated business, formed new protected areas and successfully

defied Federal regulations (for example, on the disposal of nuclear waste in New York v. United States in 1992). On health, theyhave considered regulations on assisted suicide, H.M.O.'s, late-term abortions and insurance affecting AIDS patients. On guns,they have passed bills to protect concealed weapons or to impose local restrictions. They have defeated Federal restrictions on

guns near schools (Lopez, 1995) and the attempt to use local sheriffs to implement the Brady Bill (Printz, 1997). On a wholerange of such issues, the states have been out ahead of Federal programs, reversing a long-term trend. In theProgressive era, regulation of corporations was sought at the national level. In the Bull Moose movement, and during WoodrowWilson's first term, intellectuals aspired to policy roles in Washington. With the New Deal, their drift toward the center became astampede. From that point on, an overlapping series of crises (Depression, world war, cold war) led to central mobilization and

control of resources. But now, with the end of this half-century of crisis,people with new ideas and a passion for public policyare turning away from Washington and attacking social issues at the state and local levels.

5

8/8/2019 States+CP

6/61

States CP Loyola HS

States Solve: Decision Making

States are better decision makers than the federal government

Calabresi, Associate Professor Northwestern School of Law,95[Stephen, Michigan Law Review December, 1995 94 Mich. L. Rev. 752 SYMPOSIUM: Reflections on United States v. Lopez: "A GOVERNMENT OF LIMITED AND ENUMERATED

POWERS": IN DEFENSE OF UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, p. ln] mtc

d. Improved Quality of Governmental Decisionmaking and Administration. Decentralized governments make better decisions than centralized ones for reasons additional to

whip they feel from competition. Decentralization ensures that "those responsible for choosing a given social policy are made

aware of the costs of that policy." n74 This helps ensure a more informed weighing of costs and benefits than often

occurs at the national level where taxpayers often may be less cognizant of the social costs of particular legislation

In addition and just as importantly, governmental agency costs often may be lower at the state level than at the national level be -

[*778] cause monitoring costs may be lowerwhere fewer programs, employees, and amounts of tax revenue are involved. The smaller size of the sta

governmental jurisdictions thus makes it far easier for citizens to exercise a greater and more effective degree of

control over their government officials. n75 For this reason, it often makes sense to lodge dangerous and intrusive police powers over crime and over controversial socissues in the states where government officials may be monitored more easily by the citizenry. Conversely, state governments also may find that they are able to enforce criminal laws and

regulations of social mores less coercively than the national government because of the lower costs and greater ease of monitoring citizen behavior in a smaller jurisdiction. n76 Indeed, ideall

small jurisdictional size will lead to less populous state legislative districts, thus producing a greater congruencebetween the mores of the legislators and of the people than can exist in a continental-sized national republic that

necessarily must have enormously large legislative districts and other units of representation. n77 The greater congruence of mobetween citizens and representatives in state governments in turn may produce greater civic mindedness and community spirit at the state level. n78 This might ameliorate the highly corrosive

decline of public spiritedness at the national level that has occurred as a result of the current perception that there exists a discongruence of mores between members of Congress and the public.

Finally, decentralization improves the quality of governmental decisionmaking by improving the information flow

from the populace to the relevant government decisionmakers. Centralized command and control decisionmaking

is often economically inefficient beyond a certain point in all social organizations. This point holds true for the military, for corporationthat contract out for many goods and services, and for government as well. Large, multilayered bureaucracies cannot process information successfully. n79 Decentralization alleviates this crucial

problem by leading to better informed decisionmaking. As our society and economy grow in complexity, the amount of information that

government must pro- [*779] cess increases as well. n80 This is why overly centralized, top-down command and control

mechanisms are even less desirable in today's complex modern economy than they were during the Model-T era o

Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Ironically, the decentralized federalism of the horse-and-buggy era is better suited to the needs of our information economy than is the overlcentralized, outmoded nationalism of the New Deal.

6

8/8/2019 States+CP

7/61

States CP Loyola HS

States Solve: General

States solve social services better prefer our evidence its comparative

Clayton 9 (Brinn, Staff Writer The Coerced States of America, 6/3,http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/03/the-coercestates-of-america/, AD: 6/3/09) TRFederal encroachment does not stop at the state government. It extends to our city and county governments in the areasof our local board of education and department of social services. How a group of politicians in Washingtoncan think they can decide what is best for the people of Roxboro and Person County is beyond reason. Theypass one-size fits all laws that end up not fitting anyone. I just hope they dont start passing laws governing underwear.

State-run social services are privatized, increasing their success and political support

Johnson 1 (Robin A, director of the Privatization and Government Reform Center at the Reason Public Policy Institute, March/April2001,The Heartland Institute, States Expand Privatization of Social Services,http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/98/States_Expand_Privatization_of_Social_Services.html, AD: 6/3/09)

During the 1990s, a quiet revolution occurred in the way social services are provided by state governments,and it continues into the new century. Across the United States, state government agencies are increasingtheir privatization of social services. It has been generally assumed that social services are more difficult toprivatize than other government functions, because defining and measuring performance is more challenging. Picking upgarbage is easier to oversee and monitor than ensuring foster children are properly placed. But survey results and real-worldexperience demonstrate that innovative state officials are overcoming those challenges.A 1997 Council of StateGovernments survey found that social service agencies were the state departments most likely to report increasingtheir use of privatization over time. More than 85 percent of the responding agencies reported they hadincreased privatizationin the five years prior to the survey. Seventy-five percent of respondents indicated they planned toincrease privatization in the next five years. Child care is contracted out most often, with 15 states reporting privatized servicedelivery. Consultants, specialists, and independent living support services are privatized by 14 states, while food stamp issuance,domestic violence programs, emergency shelters, and refugee services are contracted by 12 states. According to the survey, more

than half (53 percent) of the state agencies privatized more than 15 percent of their functions. Among the states that privatized themost social services programs are Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Michigan, and Utah. The force driving the trendtowards more privatization is the lack of agency personnel and expertise. Over 57 percent of respondingofficials cited this as the major reason for increased use of privatization. Cost savings have been less of a factorbecause savings from privatized social services were relatively modest. Most officials (76 percent) who estimated cost savings saidthey saved less than 5 percent, and none reported savings of more than 15 percent. However, a majority of respondents reported

they expect cost savings to take on greater importance in the future. As agencies successfully privatize functions, electedofficials see the benefits and become more comfortable with expanding privatization opportunities. Amajority (57 percent) of agency officials surveyed expect that increased support by political leadership willlead to more privatization in the future. Also important, the survey found that social service contractors are morelikely than other private contractors to be carefully monitored.While 57 percent of states responding to the survey

reported they do not have an overall, standardized process for monitoring contracts, 57 percent do have such a system inplace for social services. Highly visible problems with some social services may have caused state officialsto be more vigilant about monitoring outcomes.

7
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/03/the-coerced-states-of-america/http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/03/the-coerced-states-of-america/http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/03/the-coerced-states-of-america/http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/03/the-coerced-states-of-america/http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/03/the-coerced-states-of-america/http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/98/States_Expand_Privatization_of_Social_Services.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/98/States_Expand_Privatization_of_Social_Services.htmlhttp://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/03/the-coerced-states-of-america/http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/03/the-coerced-states-of-america/http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/98/States_Expand_Privatization_of_Social_Services.htmlhttp://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/03/the-coerced-states-of-america/

8/8/2019 States+CP

8/61

States CP Loyola HS

States Solve: General

So far the states have provided the only real social services

DanaNeacsu, Head of Public Services at Columbia Law School Library, 2008, The Red Bookleton, Feminist Equality. Instead oManifesto

Postmodernism has produced theories to assuage the elites' quest for meaning, but none of them can successfully

promote the cause of the ignored Other: they are too many and much too hungry and ill to be happy with one supper orone band-aid or one pill to cure their many diseases. They do not need unreliable charity; they need social services that

can be provided daily and relied upon daily. So farsuch services have only been [*137]provided consistentlyby state institutions. Where such state institutions have been denied, religious ones - such as those subsidized by Hamas orthe Muslim Brotherhood or our own faith-based initiatives - have taken over with their own theoretical attitudes

On a state level you can get the most effectiveness per dollar spent.

Browning, Prof Econ, 08(Edgar Browning, Prof Econ @ Texas A&M, Stealing From Each Other: How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spir196, 6/30/08)

Welfare programs operated by state, local, and nongovernmental entities can also be expected to be more

effective per dollar spent than welfare administered at the federal level. Not only arc the formerentities closer toand more familiar with the problems faced by the poor but they also have greater flexibility in designingand carrying out programs of assistance. One of the virtues of a decentralized approach, as in a federal system, is thatdifferent states and organizations will utilize different approaches and can learn from both the successes and failures realized. Itshould not be forgotten that the welfare reform of 1996, widely regarded as one of the few successes among welfare policy

reforms, was built upon the experiences of several states experimenting with different approaches. These states had toreceive waivers front the federal government just to try alternative approaches, but with the federalgovernment out of the picture there would be a great deal more experimentation, which would lead overtime to more effective policies.

8

8/8/2019 States+CP

9/61

8/8/2019 States+CP

10/61

States CP Loyola HS

Efficiency

States know the problems of the people due to locality and are more efficient in implementation of policies

Koontz 2 (Tomas M., Ph.D. in Environmental Studies, Federalism in the Forest: National Versus States Natural Resource Policy, pg6., A.D.: 7/6/09) JHSome scholars stress the benefits of policymaking by lower-level governments in a federal system.They typically emphasize the advantages in terms of three key elements: citizen involvement,responsiveness, and cost efficiency. First, the existence of a diverse array of local governmentspromotes citizen involvement in self-governance; individuals are less likely to fall into the "central

government trap" of waiting for distant officials to solve problems for them. The very roots of ournation's history are firmly planted in local governance, with New England town hall meetings andThomas Jefferson's vision of an American democracy based on citizens who actively participate inlocal governance because they can shape it directly. Second, lower levels of government are expectedto be more responsive to local citizens and better suited to understand local needs and preferences.

Moreover, responsiveness is assured by citizens' ability to "vote with their feet" -moving tojurisdictions that provide their preferred mix of services and taxes. Third, lower levels of governmentare likely to be more cost effective than higher levels. For services such as trash collection, policeprotection, and road maintenance, having multiple local governments nearby encourages citizens tocompare costs with neighboring jurisdictions and demand more efficient government Furthermore,devolution of responsibility to lower levels can lead to better matching of who pays with who benefits.

This matching increases tendency of citizens to demand higher levels of services for which they don't have to pay.

National politics supersede effective policy efficient implementation by states key to avoiding waseteful

spending

CSM 1 (News division of James Madison University, Featured in Associated Women in Science Magazine, Federalism,http://csm.jmu.edu/brakke/Asset/Publications/AWIS_columns/Federalism_/federalism_.html, A.D.: 7/6/09) JHWhile some might seek federal solutions to resource management, we may also have to consider that the federal government is

not well-organized to address certain problems. Its own agencies may have multiple and conflicting charges in management,

policy and research. Not only might various branches of a single agency have little contact with each other, but also, and

perhaps more importantly, communication between agencies is limited. Agencies have growing responsibilities through

piecemeal legislative action over time, which are defended by turf battles during appropriation hearings. New program

initiatives become ways to fund existing programs through re-packaging. Little consideration has been given to the best

ways to organize and manage for sustainable resource management overall.

10

8/8/2019 States+CP

11/61

States CP Loyola HS

Flexibility

State Flexibility Solves current Problems

NGA 4 (National Governors Association, 3/01, Enhancing the Capacity for Cross-Systems Innovation,http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.9123e83a1f6786440ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=2cf4303cb0b32010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD) CH

State officials note that federal funding silos, different eligibility and reporting requirements, and conflicting regulations canmake it difficult to serve families comprehensively and effectively. Under the flexibility provided by the 1996 TANF

legislation, some states developed programs to deliver coordinated services through initiatives employing imaginative cross-program integration. Their initial promise has heightened interest in identifying new opportunities and addressing remainingbarriers to such integration.

States allow for the ideals of federalism to be upheld by: catering policies to their constituents, checking

tyranny, and serving as innovators and models for the federal government.

Pham 6 [Huyen. Associate Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Columbia; A.B., 1992 Harvard College; J.D., 1996 Harvard LawSchool. The Constitutional Right Not to Cooperate? Local Sovereignty and the Federal Immigration Power. University of CincinnatiLaw Review Summer, 2006 74 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1373 Lexis AD 07/08/09] JL

Federalism is a rich and complex topic with its contours, implications, and even its merits the subject of much policy and academic debate. By contrast, its widelyaccepted definition is simple: the allocation of power between federal and state governments. n109 Why do we care about correctly allocating power between thedifferent levels of government? Though the application of federalism principles in recent cases has often resulted in the boosting of state sovereignty, n110 wevalue state sovereignty not as an end in itself but for the positive effects that state sovereignty generates when correctly calibrated within our system of federalism.These positive effects are what is meant by "federalism values." The values of federalism that are traditionally acknowledged by courts and scholars can begrouped into three categories: enhancing democratic rule by creating governments more responsive to their [*1397] constituents, preventing tyranny by diffusing

power between the federal and state levels of government, and encouraging policy innovation among states. n111 The first federalism value of enhancing

democratic rule is complex, intertwining theories about representative government and federal structure. The essence of this value is that federalism benefitsdemocratic rule by creating local governments that, because of their smaller size and physical proximity to their

constituents, are more responsive to those constituents' needs. Flowing from the creation of more responsive governments arethe related benefits of(1) better government reflecting constituents' diverse social values (a responsive local government ismore likely to provide the specific governing policies that its constituents want), (2) increased political participation (becausethere is more opportunity for political involvement at the local levels), and (3) more political accountability (constituents

involved in local political processes will more closely monitor government officials and demand accountability). n112 Thesecond value - preventing tyranny - has been the focus of the Supreme Court's recent federalism cases. According to supporters of

this value, federalism prevents tyranny by diffusing governmental power between the federal and local governments. "Justas the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the

accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal

Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front ." n113 Any law that significantly expands the power of one levelof government at the expense of the other level threatens federalism and, thus, liberty. n114 The third value of policy innovation is often explained by reference to

Justice Brandeis's famous suggestion thatthe states "serve as a laboratory" to "try novel social and economic experiments withoutrisk to the rest of the country." n115 Supporters of this federalism value point to anti-discrimination laws, no-fault

insurance programs, and unemployment compensation as successful social programs that originated in states. n116

11

8/8/2019 States+CP

12/61

8/8/2019 States+CP

13/61

States CP Loyola HS

Uniformity BadUniformity reduces innovation and experimentation, decreasing program flexibility in a rapidly changing

world

Ribstein 99 (Larry E., Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University Law School, "Limited Partnerships Revisited," Summ

1999, University of Cincinnati Law Review, Lexis, AD: 7-8-9) MWUniformity also has its drawbacks. First, uniformity reduces a federal system's beneficial effect of letting parties easily escape oppressive laws. A locallymandatory rule may become optional when viewed from an interstate perspective, just as it may from a choice-of-form perspective. n62 Although this might beinefficient when harm from the permissive statute spills over into mandatory states, it is unlikely to be a problem in internal governance of business associations

because the affected parties contract with each other, thereby minimizing their ability to impose uncompensated costs on others. Second, uniform laws

reduce innovation and experimentation. As this Article demonstrates, drafting a limited partnership statute involves balancing

many considerations. No set of provisions can meet perfectly all the applicable criteria at any given time, much less for a

significant amount of time in a rapidly changing world. NCCUSL does not seem to realize this drawback. It produces a series of drafts overseveral years, some quite different from their predecessors. Then the process stops and the act is pronounced completed. What changes would NCCUSL have made

in its next draft had there been one? The stopping point is as arbitrary as the end of a game of musical chairs. By contrast, competition [*965] among the

states would continue testing and refining state law. n63 The collective wisdom of fifty-one legislatures, spurred by lawyers and business peopleall motivated to achieve the right result, is far greater than that of NCCUSL. As Hayek observed, "if left free, men will often achieve more than individual human

reason could design or foresee." n64 Third, apart from whetherexperimentation and innovation is likely to produce a better product, it may produce

an optimal variety of rules suited to particular uses. For example, states may decide to design their statutes for smaller firms that rely more heavily

on default rules, for larger firms that rely on customized contracting, or for both types of firms. n65 Some statutes may be suited for family limited partnerships,while others are better suited for more sophisticated venture capital-type firms. Fourth, uniformity's resistance to change, cited above as an advantage of

uniformity, n66 also may be a curse. n67 Freezing law into place in a rapidly changing world is a dubious proposition . States adheredto the Uniform Partnership Act for seventy years despite drastic changes in how partnerships were used. Re-RULPA may, for example, freeze the law aroundrestricted partner exit even if changes in the tax law make this provision undesirable. n68

Uniformity doesnt matter decentralization allows for direct constituent connection and innovation.

Super 5[David A. Associate Professor, University of Maryland School of Law. Rethinking Fiscal Federalism. The Harvard LawReview Association Harvard Law Review June, 2005 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2544 Lexis AD 07/08/09] JL

Pluralist Theories. - Absent clear reasons to insist upon a single, uniform national policy, pluralists urge decentralization ofauthority. n44 First, pluralists argue that this decentralization allows the states to become laboratories of democracy n45from which other states can learn about a variety of different responses to common problems. n46 This variety permitspeople that feel strongly about a particular matter to move to a state whose approach is more to their liking n47 or, looked at theother way, "makes government more responsive by putting the States in competition for a mobile citizenry ." n48 Further,pluralists argue that even if citizens are not mobile, preferences may differ geographically and states can better accommodatethose preferences when free from federal restraint. n49 Conversely, voters can hold state officials more closely accountablethan they can more remote federal officials. Second, pluralists see the diffusion of power among the fifty states as protectionagainst a dangerous aggregation and abuse of power at the federal level. n50 Finally, allowing states to craft policies in responseto local circumstances can reduce unnecessary intrusions upon the operation of the market. n51 On the other hand, mostpluralists acknowledge that power should be retained at the federal level when the nation needs to speak with one voice, whenstates are incapable of addressing a problem themselves, or when national uniformity would be more economically efficient. n52

13

8/8/2019 States+CP

14/61

States CP Loyola HS

States Solve Courts

States solve they take many more cases than the federal courts.

Thomas E., Baker, Alvin R. Allison Professor of Law, Texas Tech University, Spring 1995 Case Western Reserve University, 45 CaW. Res. 705)

Due to their size, in the aggregate, the state courts are far more important for our nation's judicial future than arethe federal courts. The state courts dominate the federal courts statistically. An estimated 95% to 99% of alllitigation at the trial level in the United States occurs in state courts . n42 While the state trial courts of generaljurisdiction have 15 times as many judges as the U.S. district courts, state trial judges handle 83 times as many criminal casesand 41 times as many civil cases as their federal colleagues. n43

State courts can review law on the grounds of constitutional rights

(SONJA RALSTON ELDER, editorial assistant for duke journal of law STANDING UP TO LEGISLATIVE BULLIES:SEPARATION OF POWERS, STATE COURTS, AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS

)

One reason frequently given for the need for restraint and deference from the federal courts is that the federal governmentas a whole is one of limited powers.38 Article III courts were established in direct rejection of the English common lawsystem of courts in which final appeal rested with the House of Lords, which frequently mixed policymaking with judicial

determinations.39 On the other hand, states are sovereigns with legislative and judicial powers broader thanthose of the federal government,40 and state courts have inherent powers as well as statutorily grantedones.41 Article III courts are also subjected to substantial limits on their powers through the Constitution's jurisdictionalrestraints.42 Many state courts are not similarly restricted.43 Moreover, nearly all state courts are common lawcourts, directly engaged in crafting the law as well as applying it.44 Common lawjurisprudence is inherently apolicymaking enterprise because the process of selecting a legal test [*pg 763] for tort liability or good faith dealing, forexample, rests in large part on what values the court decides to uphold and then on how such values can be promoted through

rules, tests, and doctrines.45

It is therefore not out of place for state courts to engage in the policymakingdecisions necessary to enforce and uphold constitutional rights.

14
http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F38http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F39http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F39http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F39http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F40http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F41http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F41http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F41http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F42http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F42http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F42http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F43http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F43http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F44http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F45http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F45http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F38http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F39http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F40http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F41http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F42http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F43http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F44http://reunion2001.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?57+Duke+L.+J.+755#F45

8/8/2019 States+CP

15/61

8/8/2019 States+CP

16/61

States CP Loyola HS

States Solve TANF

TANF is a state run program

NCCP, Columbia University, Mailman school of Public health 9-04 (National Center for Children in Poverty, "receipt of GovernmeSupports Varies Widely by State" http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_543.pdf)

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance is primarily a state-run program, although it is subjectto some federal rules. TANF receipt is quite low among children in low-income families, only 12 percent of childrennationwide receive TANF. Again, this varies quite dramatically across states, from 3 percent in Idaho to 25 percent in RhodeIsland (the District of Columbia is higher at 35 percent) (See Table). Interestingly, the lowest rates of TANF receipt areconcentrated in southeastern states, where there is a fairly high rate of food stamp use. On the other hand, many of the westernstates with low food stamp use also have the lowest rates of TANF receipt. Northeastern states show the highest rates of TANFreceipt (see Map 3).

16

8/8/2019 States+CP

17/61

States CP Loyola HS

States Solve Tax Credit

States can implement tax credits

Golonka, program director NGA center social, economic, and workforce programs division, and Hoffman, sr. policy analyst, 6-5- 0(Golonka, Susan and Hoffman, Linda, "State strategies to Reduce Child and Family Poverthttp://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0806POVERTYBRIEF.PDF p.6-7)

Create or expand a state earned income tax credit. Twenty-two states are supplementing the federal EITC with a state earned

income tax credit. State EITCs are generally set as a percentage of the federal EITC, typically between 5 percent and 30percent. In 15 states, the credit is refundable, enabling low-income individuals who did not pay taxes toalso receive the credit. New York, whose refundable credit is set at 30 percent of the federal credit ,significantly expanded the state EITC program beginning in 2000 and now offers the credit to noncustodial parents who maketheir child support payments on time. Noncustodial parents are eligible for the credit on a sliding-scale income basis with the

credit worth as much as $1,030.28 In 2008, Indiana expanded the states earned income tax credit by 50 percentin order to assist more low-income families.

17

8/8/2019 States+CP

18/61

States CP Loyola HS

Health Care: Generic Solvency

Health officials have determined states are the best agents for health care regulation

Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner 9 (5/21/2009, News Release: Kreider joins national debate onhealth care, http://www.insurance.wa.gov/news/dynamic/newsreleasedetail.asp?rcdNum=646, AD: 5/30/09) TR

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler met with members ofCongress and their staff, Nancy-Ann DeParle, Director of theWhite House Office of Health Reform, and Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebeliusthis week in Washington D.C. on the need for urgency in enacting health care reform this summer. The economic crisis hasgiven us a unique opportunity to reshape the future of our health care system, said Kreidler. Im encouraged by the progressbeing made at the national level to guarantee everyone health coverage. While I had hoped that we could tackle health carereform at the state level, the severe impact of todays economy stymied most legislative initiatives, he added. I appreciate thisopportunity to inform key Congressional members and the Obama Administration about my proposal for universal catastrophicand preventative health insurance benefits. Kreidler was joined in the nations capitol by 35 of his fellow insuranceregulators, stressing the importance of maintaining state-based insurance regulation. The insurance commissioners sharedwith members of Congress and the administration that despite the erratic economic environment, insurance regulation has stayedrelatively constant for the last 150 years and the public has benefited from this oversight. Some members of Congress areattempting to lump insurance regulation in with other national financial reforms. In addition to discussing his ideas for health carereform, Kreidler urged that the regulation of insurance stay at the state level. The American people want more financialstability, not less, and they need health care reform today, he said. States, including Washington, have led the way increating important consumer protections, such as the Patient Bill of Rights. We need to continue to be at the table, sharing

our local perspectives as the reform debates move forward.

States are key regulators of health care delivery

Weissert 6 (Dr. William G., Professor of Health Policy, Florida State University, Governing Health, pg. 295, JHU Press,http://books.google.com/books?id=3kzU-Dh3GeIC, AD: 6/3/09) TR

Few would question the role of state governments as key actors in health care in the United States.They serve as theproviders, financiers, administrators, initiators, and regulators of health care delivery. Their reach cuts across traditionalhealth providers, insurers, businesses, educational institutions, and of course, citizens. State governments are capable of

adequately performing all their roles and representing all the groups and citizens they serve.They are the innovators andcreators of many of the most promising ideas considered in the naitions capital and elsewhere.They are probablythe mostpivotal government actor in health care, since they implement and help define federal policies, define and implement their

own policies, and define and oversee local health-related activities.

18

8/8/2019 States+CP

19/61

States CP Loyola HS

Health Care: Generic SolvencyStates solve health care better - local

Holahan, Weil, Wiener, 3 (John Holahan, director of Health Policy Resaerch Center at the Urban Institute; Alan Weil, direct

of the Urban InstitutesAssessing the New Federalism project, Joshua M. Wiener, principle research associate at Urban Institu

Federalism and Health Policy: an overview,http://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.html , July 2003)

The disadvantages of a federal model center on the fact that health care is delivered locally. The statesdiffer in their reliance on hospital inpatient care, the importance of specialists as opposed to primary carephysicians, and the extent to which managed care has penetrated the health care market. Medicaid allows states to adapt more

readily to local conditions and permits more program innovation than a federal model would. Change is arguably harder in a federal program because nationalpolitics are more polarized and the implications of any significant change are so far-reaching . Medicare still lacks a drugbenefit and protection against catastrophic illness, despite years of debate. A final concern is that national minimum standards of coverage would probably be setbelow the level of the most generous states. In fact, states that have greatly expanded their coverage couldmaintain current standards only by using their own funds, and they might well choose to cut back. Thiscould be avoided if the national program were structured in a way that created few losers among thestates. But a policy that creates only winners will be very costly for the federal government, particularly if eligibility is expanded significantly in the new acute care program. Hurley and Zuckerman point

to a number of important innovations states have made in managed care. California's two-plan model provides away to contract with mainstream plans while protecting safety net providers. Florida maintained access to a wide range of providers and preservedbeneficiaries' choice of providers by establishing a system of competing health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and primary care case managers . Texas, Virginia, andNew York also have multiple models, often differing in rural and urban areas, demonstrating the ability of states to refinestrategies and adapt them to local conditions. Many states were faced with a major challenge in the late 1990s because of the exit of commercial plans, mostly due to l ow payment rates. NewYork responded by increasing payment rates and expanding its reliance on health plans sponsored bysafety net providers. New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington contracted with fewer plans, primarily thosethat serve only the Medicaid population. Other states, such as Georgia and Vermont, went back to relyingon primary care case management. State flexibility allowed this variety of responses.

States solve better labs of democracy (also, states take initiative in health care)

Holahan, Weil, Wiener, 3 (John Holahan, director of Health Policy Resaerch Center at the Urban Institute; Alan Wedirector of the Urban InstitutesAssessing the New Federalism project, Joshua M. Wiener, principle research associate at Urb

Institue; Federalism and Health Policy: an overview, http://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.html , July 2003)

In their capacity as laboratories of democracy, states have brought about change in many areas of theMedicaid program. Innovations have been made in data systems, reimbursement methodologies, developmentof preferred drug programs, and extension of drug coverage to older people. The majority of state initiativeshave centered on three areas: expanded coverage, managed care, and design of long-term care systems. Chapters 6, 7, and 8focus on innovation in those areas of Medicaid.

19
http://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.html

8/8/2019 States+CP

20/61

States CP Loyola HS

Health Care: Solvency Variety PackStates solve better - innovation



SCHIP, enacted aspart of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, enabled states to expand coverage for children . Alan Weiland Ian Hill examine the program and ask whether the model has promise for further expansions of health insurance coverage. States responded to the new opportunityenthusiastically, and most of them implemented the program rapidly. Enrollment grew slowly at first butreached 3.6 million by June 2002. States made major efforts to improve outreach and simplify enrollmentprocedures, and more than a dozen states have extended coverage to children with family incomes ofmore than twice the federal poverty level. Other states have extended coverage to parents of SCHIP enrollees, arguing that it will lead to greater participation among children.

States solve better tailoring programs key to long-term care



The primary argument for greater state responsibility for long-term care is the ability of states to tailorprograms to local conditions and preferences, something that is critical to long-term care because theservice is so personal. The main argument for a strong federal role is that the federal government already has primary responsibility for the older population's health care (through Medicare) and income support (throughSocial Security and Supplemental Security Income). Adding long-term care could result in better coordination across these programs.

States solve better administration



States also gained administrative expertise. They learned from Tennessee's experience that rapid implementation of Medicaidmanaged care could result in contentious relationships between the state and providers, which could endure for many years,and in slow implementation. Florida's experience with health plan marketing abuses led states to enrollment brokers to helpbeneficiaries choose plans, one of Medicaid managed care's most important innovations. Colorado, Washington, and Maryland

have been in the forefront of developing payment methodologies that protect plans from the financial risk of enrolling a largenumber of sick and disabled beneficiaries, and thereby encourage more appropriate care for these vulnerable populations.Massachusetts has added to its primary care case management program many of the desirable and effective features of morecomprehensive delivery systems.

States can do healthcarefederal law only hurt.

Christian Science Monitor, Ben Arnoldy, Staff Writer of the CSM, State and city healthcare reforms collide with a U.S. law, 2September2007, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p03s01-ussc.html

The healthcare plans in California and Massachusetts have been crafted with an eye to previous ERISArulings, and other states are watching to see if the innovations will hit upon a legally acceptable formula or hit another brick wall in court. "Many states are watching ... to see how this is panning out," says Joel Miller with the

National Coalition on Health Care in Washington. "What a lot of ... people who follow this hope for is that thestates will try to thread this needle." Twenty-one states have put forth universal coverage bills this year,according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). But Maryland's court losses dealt ablow to these efforts. The state's plan targeted large employers in effect, Wal-Mart only and stipulatedthat their employees must be given health insurance or the state would assess a fee per worker. A federalappeals court found early this year that this so-called "play or pay" approach constituted a benefit mandate by the state of thesort outlawed by ERISA. Because Wal-Mart would be the only company in Maryland affected, the court found that the statewas not really offering the company a choice to pay; it was simply creating a mechanism to force the retailer to extend health

benefits. Tapping employers to cover more workers, or to contribute to a healthcare pool, is one of the most

20
http://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/pubs/federalism/chapter1.html

8/8/2019 States+CP

21/61

States CP Loyola HS

attractive means for cash-strapped cities and states to reduce the ranks of the uninsured. After the ruling inthe Maryland case, adding businesses to the equation looked a lot harder.

Health Care: Innovation

State innovation is the building blocks for future government policies on healthcare.

DerGurahian 7 (Jean, staff writer, Modern Healthcare, States take the lead; While national efforts to standardize patient-safety

reporting are now under way, the states remain far ahead of the curve, L/X) CCWhen it comes to patient-safety reporting, not all systems are created equal. While more than half of states now tout publicreporting as an aid to the quality and safety of patient care, developing meaningful, relevant information and getting it into

patients' hands remains an obstacle. A perusal of various state health department Web sites indicates the myriad ways in which data are distributed toconsumers-through the sites themselves, written requests for information, or a trip to the department's office to read reports-and there's even a lack of agreement

over the types of data considered crucial to increasing awareness of quality-of-care issues. Butstates have made moves in the past decade tostandardize information and make reporting meaningful to consumers, says Jill Rosenthal, a program manager at the National Academy forState Health Policy, based in Portland, Maine. The NASHP, a not-for-profit, nonpartisan organization of state health policymakers, has been tracking state effortson safety issues since 1999, when the Institute of Medicine's To Err is Human report first called for a nationwide, standardized reporting system using evidence-

based data. Several groups at the national level have begun to develop patient-safety standards. The National Quality Forum has a list of 28 adverse events itrecommends hospitals report on, and the Joint Commission develops national patient-safety goals that facilities must meet to comply with accreditation. In 2005,the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act was signed into law to jump-start voluntary reporting of large data sets, although there are still no rules forenforcing that legislation. The Leapfrog Group and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement have integrated federal standards into their safety advocacy programs

as well. Driven by the states Ultimately, any federal effort is going to be the product of state initiatives, because states "are

laboratories of innovation" and have fostered a safe environment already, Rosenthal says. However, there is a growing desire in thehealthcare industry to see states take on even greater safety initiatives, she says. As of the end of October, 27 states, including the District of Columbia, haveadverse-events reporting systems, up from 15 in 2000, according to a NASHP study released this month (See map, p. 27). Many states have reporting systems forvarious clinical outcomes data; the NASHP's study tracks systems implemented by state governments to collect adverse-event data from healthcare facilities withthe intent of improving patient safety.

21

8/8/2019 States+CP

22/61

States CP Loyola HS

Health Care: Comparative

The states are empirically better than the federal government on healthcare reform.

LaFrance 7 (Arthur Birmingham, Professor of Law at Lewis & Clark Law School, published in Seattle Journal of Social Justice,Healthcare Reform in the United States: The role of the States, L/X) CC

By the autumn of 2007, the various candidates for the office of president--Republican and Democrat--had all addressed the issue of healthcare reform. Only theDemocrat candidates proposed sweeping reform, and of them, the most extensive proposal was that of Senator Clinton. She would create a mixed public/privatesystem, funded by rejecting Bush-era tax policies. Others would eliminate employer-based [*205] insurance. It is unclear which candidate holds the advantage.What seems clear is that national efforts are largely directed at funding for healthcare and, possibly, thereby extending the number of people covered.n32Yet,

rarely does anyone seriously propose the simple solution of universal healthcare on a national scale; only the states of

Massachusetts, California, and Vermont (and possibly New York) have addressed the possibility. Nor is anyone tackling

the difficult problems of quality, cost control, and effectiveness of the healthcare system. n33 Again, these have been

addressed chiefly at the state level. Thus, the real lessons in healthcare reform, whether for domestic reformers or those inother nations, are to be learned at the state level. It may be worth pausing to ask why reform has been stuck at the nationallevel and why the states have seemed to be able to move on a subject of national urgency when the federal government,despite providing the major source of funding, has been paralyzed. For this, it is worthwhile to examine the structure and contextof American healthcare.

States are empirically better than a single government system, the one-size-fits-all mentality ruins

innovation and kills competition.

Nathan 5 (Richard P., Professor of Political Science, University of Albany. Federalism and Health Policy,http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/health_care/2005-12-federalism_and_health_policy.pdf) CC

Although it is complex territory, we need to try to unpack the whys and hows of the state-push factor for Medicaid in U.S.

federalism. Intrinsic characteristics of federalism have put liberal/innovative states in a position to lead in conservative periods.Changes that states make in these periods, because they are easier to develop and test in relatively small places (as opposed

to having to be adopted nationally), have a demonstration/replication effect on other states. Such changes would not be as

likely to occur and be diffused in a unitary political system. When a particular state policy innovation is shown to be

substantively and managerially feasible, this gives activist leaders in other states confidence that they can do similar things,

providing them with a knowledge base for adopting new or changed policies and reducing apprehensions about doing so. Thisstate-push factor in the case of Medicaid in recent years has had a notable protective and expansionist influence, despite the U.S.political culture in which individualism and general skepticism about government's role in social policy is strongly manifest. Anunderlying reason why this occurs is that many federal grant-in-aid programs, including Medicaid, are structured to give

states flexibility in setting benefit levels and determining how benefits are defined. If there had to be one nationwide

standard ("one size fits all") for the benefits and services provided under social programs such as Medicaid, the ultimate

effect would be less expansive. This floor-setting accommodation to diversity in social policy (sometimes aided by federal waivers for human services for"demonstration-type" initiatives) permits establishing higher standards and benefits in some states. It has also been an instrument for providing federal matchingfunds for existing health programs (such as mental health and retardation, drug and alcohol treatment, and school health programs), such that in New York, as thesaying goes, "Medicaid is a verb," by enabling the state to use Medicaid funds for programs that are already part of a strong base of publicly supported health careservices.

22
http://www.lexisnexis.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.243035.95138534563&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1246853749223&returnToKey=20_T6901918421&parent=docview#n32http://www.lexisnexis.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.243035.95138534563&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1246853749223&returnToKey=20_T6901918421&parent=docview#n32http://www.lexisnexis.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.243035.95138534563&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1246853749223&returnToKey=20_T6901918421&parent=docview#n32http://www.lexisnexis.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.243035.95138534563&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1246853749223&returnToKey=20_T6901918421&parent=docview#n33http://www.lexisnexis.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.243035.95138534563&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1246853749223&returnToKey=20_T6901918421&parent=docview#n33http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/health_care/2005-12-federalism_and_health_policy.pdfhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.243035.95138534563&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1246853749223&returnToKey=20_T6901918421&parent=docview#n32http://www.lexisnexis.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.243035.95138534563&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1246853749223&returnToKey=20_T6901918421&parent=docview#n33http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/health_care/2005-12-federalism_and_health_policy.pdf

8/8/2019 States+CP

23/61

States CP Loyola HS

Healthcare: Immigrant Specific

States can fund their own healthcare programs for undocumented immigrants

Newman, 09 Policy Director for the Progressive States Network (Nathan, State Immigration Project: PolicOptions for 2009, http://progressivestates.org/files/reports/Immigration09.pdf)

Many states are providing health care to immigrants, both legal and undocumented, recognizing that long-term investments in education and health care will pay off with a more skilled and healthy workforce inthe future. More than half of the states spend their own funds to provide services to at least someimmigrants ineligible for federal services.

States have discretion to give health coverage to illegal immigrants.

Ortega, 9- J.D., Boston University School of Law, 2009(Adrianne Ortega, American Journal of Law & Medicine, And Health Care For All: Immigrants in the Shadoof the

Promise of Universal Health Care, Lexis-Nexis Academic)

The Welfare Reform Act also gives states discretion to expand coverage to undocumented immigrants.n65 Currently, twenty-two states affirmatively provide health care to immigrants by supplementingfederal funding with state funds, especially for prenatal care and SCHIP children's health insuranceprograms. n66 SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) is jointly financed by the state andfederal government and administered by the states. n67 In 2002, a federal regulation changed to permitstates to expand health care coverage to "unborn children" under their SCHIP program. n68 Theregulation matches state funds with federal funds to cover the unborn "targeted low-income child" in thewomb, regardless of the mother's immigration status. n69 Now, states can provide prenatal care withfederal money to undocumented immigrant women who were previously ineligible for prenatal care

services. n70 Several states implemented the SCHIP amendment including Arkansas, Illinois,Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. n71 Though theregulation expanded [*193] prenatal coverage, it did not affirmatively provide for coverage of themother. n72 Specifically providing coverage for the unborn legal citizen in the womb naturally begs thequestion whether a mother could be reimbursed for perinatal care that is solely in her interest.

23

8/8/2019 States+CP

24/61

States CP Loyola HS

Immigrants: Generic

State governments can give the proper documents to receive Social Security cards for immigrants

SocialSecurity.gov (Identity, How to apply for a social security card, http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10002.html, AD: 7/8/09) ANWe can accept only certain documents as proof of identity. An acceptable document must be current (not expired) and showyour name, identifying information and preferably a recent photograph. Social Security will ask to see a U.S. drivers license,state-issued nondriver identification card or U.S. passport as proof of identity. If you do not have the specific documents weask for, we will ask to see other documents including: Employee ID card; School ID card; Health insurance card (not a Medicarecard); U.S. military ID card; Adoption decree; Life insurance policy; or Marriage document (only in name change situations).

24
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10002.htmlhttp://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10002.html

8/8/2019 States+CP

25/61

States CP Loyola HS

Immigrants: Authority

States can determine immigrant eligibility for healthcare without federal oversight

Zimmermann and Tulmin 99 (Wendy and Karen, Authors, Patchwork Policies: State Assistance for Immigrants under WelfareReform, Urban Institute, Publications, http://www.urban.org/publications/309007.html, AD: 7/8/09) AN

Although the Congress has gone a long way toward undoing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct's (PRWORA) immigrant restrictions, it has left another of the law's legacies intact: the devolution of authority from thefederal government to the states to determine immigrants' eligibility for public benefits. Before PRWORA's passage, thefederal government had sole responsibility for deciding which immigrants had access to which benefits. In fact, the Supreme Courthad ruled that states could not even bar legal noncitizens from their own benefit programs. The new federal welfare law,however, allows states to bar noncitizens from their own cash and medical assistance programs and from TANF and

Medicaid, which are funded with federal dollars. By limiting immigrants' access to federal assistance and vesting states with theauthority to set eligibility rules for immigrants, the federal law implicitly gave states another choice: whether to create newstate-funded substitute benefits for immigrants.

Currently, states are the ones who make decisions on whether immigrants receive social services or not, CP

solves best

Laszewski 9 (Robert, N/A, SCHIP Bill Not a Good Sign for Major Health Care Reform, Health Care Policy and MarketplaceReview, http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2009/01/schip-bill-not-good-sign-for-major.html, AD: 7/8/09) AN

Senate Finance Democrats lost the support of the Republicans when they insisted on departing from last year's bipartisanagreement to leave existing policy on covering the children oflegal immigrants as is. As it now stands, a legal immigrantagrees not to apply for Medicaid and SCHIP benefits for the first five years they are in the country. Under the new rules stateswould have the option of covering legal immigrants. The new bill also left out provisions from the earlier bipartisan comprise tolimit benefits for higher income families.

States can give immigrants access to social services

The New American 7 (tackling illegal immigration on their own, 8/20/07) EL

When Congress failed to act, frustrated communities and states tackled the immigration issue themselves. While the Senate wasstill deadlocked in debate over its latest immigration legislation, Georgia had already pushed through legislation of its own.

In Georgia, companies working with local or state government agencies will be required to demonstrate registration to the

federal Eligibility Verification Program. This program targets companies with 500 or more employees. The program allowsparticipating companies to look up the worker status of new employees and determine if potential employees' Social

Security numbers are authentic. Plus, in order to drive or even own a car, citizens will need to present a valid Georgia

driver's license. The new law is causing many illegal immigrants to self-deport themselves to "friendlier" states or back

home to Mexico.More recently, New Haven, Connecticut, swung the proverbial pendulum the opposite direction and offeredillegal immigrants locally issued identification, granting them access to city services and giving them a way to provide legal

identification required by banks to open accounts. The ID card, which is furnished to all residents, regardless ofimmigration status, does not identify the holder as an illegal immigrant. "That is the last thing that we want to have happen,"said Kica Matos, who administers the program for New Haven.

25

8/8/2019 States+CP

26/61

8/8/2019 States+CP

27/61

States CP Loyola HS

Welfare: GenericThe federal government has empirically failed to provide adequate social services.

Weill 6 (James D. Weill, President of the Food Research and Action Center, The Federal Government the IndispensabPlayer in Redressing Poverty, Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, May-June 2006)

In this dispiriting context, the claim for a robust federal role may seem anomalous or dated. After all, the federal minimum wage is now lower (in real terms) than during any

other year but one in the last fifty years, while numerous states and localities have been raising theirminimum wages.14 The number of people without any health insurance has been increasing, without anymeaningful federal response. The dismal performance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 can shake anyones faith in the ability of the federal governmentto meet the most urgent human needs. And five years of huge tax cuts skewed to the wealthy, with federalsupports reduced for low-income people, are undermining antipoverty efforts and increasing inequality.15These are just a few of many examples of how the federal government has ignored the needs of low-income people or affirmatively harmed them . Even the most fervent believers in the federal social role are likely to have had their faith shaken by events during the last twenty-five years, if notby the last five years alone.

And the States Solve better State governments can compete with federal governments for social service

programs.

John O. McGinnis* and Ilya Somin; Northwestern University Law Review Fall, 2004 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 89; SymposiumThe Rehnquist Court: Federalism Vs. States' Rights: A Defense Of Judicial Review In A Federal System; BIO: * Class of 194Research Professor, Northwestern Law School; B.A., Harvard, 1979; M.A., Oxford, 1980; J.D., Harvard, 1983. ** Assista

Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law; B.A., Amherst College, 1995For the Founding Fathers and their generation, the main rationale for federalism was not diversity orcompetition (the most familiar modern arguments),but the role of the states as a bulwark against possible federal tyranny. n87 Asthe case of state efforts to forestall enforcement of the federal Fugitive Slave Act dramatically illustrates,n88 state governments can sometimes use their powers to block or mitigate federal violations offundamental [*111] individual rights. n89 On a more prosaic level, s tate governments can compete with the federalgovernment in providing public goods and social services . n90 For example, both state and federal governments engage in environmental and social regulation, both

try to foster a favorable "business climate" for industry, and both seek to win the support of a variety of interest group constituencies. Vertical competition, like horizontal, is not an unalloyed good. In some cases, states may usetheir competitive leverage to stymie federal efforts to eliminate highly oppressive state policies, such as

the southern states' ultimately successful resistance to Reconstruction-era efforts to protect the rights ofAfrican-Americans. n91 Nonetheless, some substantial capacity for competition is a major advantage of a federal system.

27

8/8/2019 States+CP

28/61

States CP Loyola HS

Welfare: Generic

States are better at providing welfare services than the USFG the CP Solves

Grimes 98 (Richard Grimes, Charleston Daily mail writer, News, page P1C, 2/19/98, LexisNexis Academic page 1-4)THE move is on across the country to get people off public assistance, and some states are having a great deal of success thanks to their innovative ideas. For example, according to the Council of State Governments, Maine has astate-funded program to provide financial, medical and support services to welfare recipients who are

pursuing a college or business school degree. Ohio has created a $ 5 million fund for its counties todevelop transportation options for welfare recipients who are searching for work or have found a job. This isnecessary because many people coming off welfare do not have private vehicles. South Carolina, meanwhile, is requiring agencies or organizationscontributing to that state's retirement fund (this includes schools) to target at least 10 percent of their jobsto welfare recipients who have just a high school diploma . Washington is providing incentive payments toprivate employers for placing welfare recipients in jobs. The bonuses a

states+cp

Documents