Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree and disagree.

Firstoff, it will reduce the costs to employers in these states because they won't be burdened with those costs. If more people move in, you could change residency and eligibility requirements so that someone coming in from another state won't be eligible until they meet those requirements.

That being said, I am still against the plan of moving health care to the state and/or federal level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment wouldn't allow this. I've seen a bunch of laws restricting welfare benefits to people that have been in a certain state for a certain amount of time, or else putting up some other requirement, struck down as violating this clause.

[AzDesertRat]

Look at the way residency requirements are written for instate colleges and universities and they can be used as a guide. Those have passed judicial and other tests and I am sure they can be modified for use at the state or local level.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the way residency requirements are written for instate colleges and universities and they can be used as a guide. Those have passed judicial and other tests and I am sure they can be modified for use at the state or local level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been wondering about in-state tuition and how it's allowed (we haven't touched that yet in ConLaw). But it's clear that residency requirements for welfare benefits are unconstitutional.

Although, I can definitely see some exemption being allowed for the states' 'compelling interest' (or whatever) in providing free health care for those who have shown an intent to stay in the state. There must be some kind of exemption, as is evidenced by in-state tuition laws.