issue of states'' rights versus federal rights. Advocates of expanding states' rights argue that state politicians are more responsive to their constituents' needs than the federal government and should be granted more authority to regulate health care and other social services (Wilson & Masso, 1994, p. 6). Opponents of expanding states' rights counter that the current system already creates a situation where there is no consistency from state to state regarding health care and social service regulation.
Advocates of greater states' rights in the provision of health and social services argue that the test for the preemption of state law must be the existence of a national goal that overrides states' rights for control in a given area (Wilson & Masso, 1994, p. 6). There is a fear about the "one-size-fits-all solutions" concept (Wilson & Masso, 1994, p. 6). State leaders know how hard it is to change a federal program once such a program is in place. The rural states are especially concerned because they feel they have unique problems that will get lost in the shuffle of federal policy development. There clearly is a need for some federal uniformity, but that need does not extend to all facets of all social service
...