I don't know if it is a law on the books, but the supreme court ruled that insurance isn't interstate commerce and therefore regulation of it should be up to the state. skrum referenced those court cases in a previous thread.

I assure you it is still the law of the land. Regardless of the court case you reference. In fact it is an issue in the 2012 presidential election.

If you are unfamiliar with the law: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574360923109310680.html

Wait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._South-Eastern_Underwriters_Association

Ruled that insurance fell under the commerce clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act

Exempted insurance from many federal regulations in response to that court ruling.

God damnit, I was right that federal government could use the commerce clause to regulate insurance but when given the chance it punted it back to the states and gave us the fucked up system we have today.

But yeah I am being a little lazy with my thoughts here.

I think have simple federal guidelines that states must work under is a good thing, prevents discrimination etc..

One of my main issues with states rights is more of a social issue than economic, I fear if given the chance many red states would turn the clock back on education and be much more prescriptive with codifying certain social mores that would limit freedoms.

ps monte- im not offended

but i think im going to channel your long-winded-postedness and rant on education. prolly in a post or two.

If we are going to stick to the theme of the thread, I predict that withing the next decade there will be a TParty-esque situation that arises from rural america, but it will be more center-left than deep red.

Sam: "One of my main issues with states rights is more of a social issue than economic, I fear if given the chance many red states would turn the clock back on education and be much more prescriptive with codifying certain social mores that would limit freedoms."

I think those fears are over blown and to some extent it already happens; but unfortunately instead of being on a state level it happens on the federal level. ie. Ban on Internet Gambling.

fcuku: "If we are going to stick to the theme of the thread, I predict that withing the next decade there will be a TParty-esque situation that arises from rural america, but it will be more center-left than deep red."

I also hold this opinion.

so deadcode, as an example, do you think the MTA should be privatized and run for profit?
LOL

A quote from the South Eastern Underwriters case:

"In short, a nationwide business is not deprived of its interstate character merely because it is built upon sales contracts which are local in nature."

The holding of the court is that the business of insurance is interstate commerce, and the business can be so regulated, but the Court appears to admit that from the individual buyer's point of view it is a local contract. So, from a non-buyer's point of view, the Court would have to make the additional step that non-buying of insurance would be part of a chain of causality that could be linked up with interstate commerce. Perhaps the argument could be made that if everybody had to buy insurance that the operation of the insurance industry would be affected, therfore it would be part of interstate commerce, but then the argument would seem to be circular. The statute has a big enough impact on the insurance company that it has an interstate nature, therefore, the statute, if upheld, affects interstate commerce, therefore it should be upheld.