Minor Thoughts from me to you

From today's Wisconsin State Journal (Federal health insurance bill draws wide opposition):

Senate Bill 1955 would let small businesses and trade associations band together and offer group health coverage on a national or regional basis. No law precludes them from doing that now, but a patchwork of state insurance mandates makes it cost-prohibitive and logistically impractical, said Craig Orfield, spokesman for Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., the bill's lead sponsor.

Currently, each state decides which benefits insurance companies must offer. In Wisconsin, the mandates include mammograms, alcoholism treatment, child wellness services and chiropractic care.

Some people are opposed to the bill:

The cancerous tumor in Nancy Restivo's breast was no bigger than a grain of salt when a routine mammogram discovered it in 1994. She credits the mammogram - paid for by her insurance company - with saving her life.

"I'd want that kind of coverage for as many people as possible," said Restivo, 59, a retired Janesville teacher.

I have a question for Ms Restivo. Your health insurance is more expensive because it covers all routine mammograms. For some people, that extra coverage makes their health insurance too expensive to afford. Do you want that kind of coverage mandated for everyone with health insurance if it means that some people will not be able to afford health insurance? Would you prefer that more people have basic health insurance or that fewer people have comprehensive health insurance?

I'm not sure yet whether or not I support this bill. On the whole, I'd prefer that the Federal government stick its fingers into as few pies as possible. I think regulation is best done by the states, not by Washington. On the other hand, this may be one of the few Senate bills that is actually permitted under the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause.