Shocking News: "Dems' Health Plans Cover More People, Cost Less Than Bush's"

IHateGovernment said:
Yes Darla I am aware of that. But I think the solution to states using racism in their public policy it to have government oversight to ensure they are not violating the 14th amendment.

This does not mean however that having state planned and funded initiatives should be thrown out entirely.

Beyond that centrally planned initiatives are part of the reason of the blue state/red state phenomenon. The Blue tax base funds the red states. Therefore there is no pain for their mismanagement of their systems. Thus they cruise by by offering sub standard education and subsistence benefits programs. Then the politicians down there rail against the national policies that have benefitted them since the populace of these states is not aware of the actual benefit being siphoned to them by other states in the union.

Federalism will force these states to clean up their act. As it is now we have perpetual welfare for states like Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama.
Click to expand...

IHG: I still think you're imagining a problem that doesn't exist. Nobody, to my knowledge is comtemplating a command-and-control healthcare system run out of some basement in Wash., DC.

The states are already given broad authority to implement and manage federal-funded health care initiatives. Given that federal tax dollars are used, a modest amount of federal oversight, and broad federal guidelines are not that onerous to meet.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Yes Darla I am aware of that. But I think the solution to states using racism in their public policy it to have government oversight to ensure they are not violating the 14th amendment.

This does not mean however that having state planned and funded initiatives should be thrown out entirely.

Beyond that centrally planned initiatives are part of the reason of the blue state/red state phenomenon. The Blue tax base funds the red states. Therefore there is no pain for their mismanagement of their systems. Thus they cruise by by offering sub standard education and subsistence benefits programs. Then the politicians down there rail against the national policies that have benefitted them since the populace of these states is not aware of the actual benefit being siphoned to them by other states in the union.

Federalism will force these states to clean up their act. As it is now we have perpetual welfare for states like Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the blue states fund the red states, and you make some really good points here. I don't have the definitive answer, but your points are important and I'll keep them in mind when checking out the various health care plans.
 
IHG: I still think you're imagining a problem that doesn't exist. Nobody, to my knowledge is comtemplating a command-and-control healthcare system run out of some basement in Wash., DC.

The states are already given broad authority to implement and manage federal-funded health care initiatives. Given that federal tax dollars are used, a modest amount of federal oversight, and broad federal guidelines are not that onerous to meet.

The fed gov has a track record of using government funds to strong arm states into complying with what the feds with to instate as virtual federal law. For example states have been forced to raise drinking ages to 21 or have highway funding cut off. States cannot very well refuse because their citizens are still taxed for the roads so they would be taxed without benefit.

I am wary of funds being used as leverage to make the states bow to federal power. What if a state wishes to make marijuana decriminalized or even medical marijuana legal. The federal government may very well say that such a thing is not in the interest of national health and cut off funding. The fed is even likely to coerce states into accepting national views by cutting of health funding even for unrelated issues.

Funds for federal programs are used to reward states for conforming to Washington's will and punish those who don't.
 
Yes and strangely enough this federal funding issue is used most by cons who are supposedly for states rights, or at least used to be for them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top