Which politicians do you trust more to micromanage your health care: federal or state? That’s the false choice presented by two versions of “federalism” intended to divide responsibility for health policy between the national government and the states.

Real health reform is needed at both the state and federal levels. It will take a few more shovels first to bury most, if not all, of the Affordable Care Act and then to dig a way out to a market-based solution that relies on state-level policy innovation in key areas.  

Tom Miller's speech at the Pioneer Institute's health care policy luncheon and The Great Experiment book launch on March 13, 2012.

Legislation relating to the coverage, premium structure, and administration of federal deposit insurance has recently been introduced in both the Senate and House of Representatives.

Problems in the current system of federal deposit insurance relate to: banks now paying nothing for deposit insurance and the erosion of the real value of the $100,000 per account deposit insurance.

As part of the American Enterprise Institute project, Beyond "Repeal and Replace," insurance expert Scott E. Harrington argues that this new regulatory regime misdiagnoses the causes of health insurance problems and will worsen them.

Repeal of the current health law is a necessary, but not a sufficient, part of fixing our health care system. A credible “replace” proposal needs to deal with a number of important issues.

The Huntsman plan for regulatory reform is a good effort, but it fails to come close to accomplishing the one major goal that it highlights in its summary description — “ending” too-big-to-fail (TBTF).