Pre-emption and State's Rights - Insurance

Mr. Rob Hotakainen, correspondent for the Minneapolis Star Tribune Washington writes on April 24, 2006 that Minnesota (among others) is about to lose a key provision of states rights is Senators in Washington pass pre-emptive legislation...to wit "Over the years, Minnesota legislators have passed many laws telling health insurers exactly what they must pay for. In fact, there are over 25 Minnesota specific health insurance mandates in place.

Now, there are two ways to view this interesting debate. First, you have to know a bit about history in Minnesota and the Minnesota culture. Don't know Garrison Keiler...don't worry, but the stark reality is that Minnesotans take pride in their Scandinavian heritage and their progressive politics. So, progressive moves to assure all players have at least a threshold benefit package is nothing new to Minnesotans. A point of pride?

Second, and I'm not constitutional expert, but there is this little provision that states that all matters not specifically granted to the federal government to regulate is left to the purview of the states (a notion known as state's rights). Things like the regulation of medical licensure and insurance regulations are, by definition, state's rights. Perhaps we should start abrogating other state's rights?

A closer look at the law (e.g. who's on what side of the issue) makes the debate much easier to understand).

But both sides have great sound bites!