4 ms·

The labelling of ACA as "Obamacare" will allow Republicans to save face while they preserve much of the substance of the law. Personally, I say leave it to the

The labelling of ACA as "Obamacare" will allow Republicans to save face while they preserve much of the substance of the law. Personally, I say leave it to the states...

banku_brougham 10y ago
So many things could be better or much worse if left to the states.
- dexterdog 10y ago
  What would be worse except maybe the military?
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Education would probably be worse in some states if there were no federal standards or oversight.
  - wlesieutre 10y ago
    Voting Rights Act of 1965?
    - dexterdog 10y ago
      Funny, I thought people do nothing but complain about what a mess voting is.
      - wlesieutre 10y ago
        It's not perfect, no. But the 1965 act is specifically the part that protects voting rights of minorities. Would voting be better without that? Especially given that one party has turned voter suppression into an integral part of their strategy for winning elections? If it were left up to states, a large portion of them would deliberately not have these rules. And the nonstandardization of rules across the other states would mean that even in cases where they existed, the laws and associated court precedents would be a gigantic mess, making it a lot harder to litigate cases. For reference on situations where minority voting rights are still a problem: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ohio-hit-lawsuit-over-gop-passed-voting-restrictions http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ohio-hit-lawsuit-over-gop-passed-... http://www.southeastgeorgiatoday.com/index.php/8-newsbreaks/35373-georgia-settles-voting-rights-lawsuit http://www.southeastgeorgiatoday.com/index.php/8-newsbreaks/... http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/federal-appeals-court-strikes-controversial-north-carolina-voting-restrictions http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/federal-appeals-... http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20170111/lawsuit-detroit-suburb-denies-blacks-equal-voting-rights http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20170111/lawsuit... http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Appeals-court-upholds-judge-s-order-in-Pasadena-10907579.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/a... https://www.justice.gov/crt/cases-raising-claims-under-section-2-voting-rights-act-0 https://www.justice.gov/crt/cases-raising-claims-under-secti... etc.
  - vacri 10y ago
    Customs, water rights, environmental protections, trade agreements, equal rights, bill of rights, sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health...
  - geofft 10y ago
    If every state had its own FDA, it'd be as hard for a restaurant / fast food chain, a brand of groceries, etc. to start selling in a new state as for them to start selling in a new country. Same with drug manufacturing. If every state had its own immigration standards, you'd have to have border checkpoints between states as you do between countries. Even, e.g., Canada and the US have serious border checkpoints. Apart from the inconvenience, it would kill the economy of cities on state borders. (Imagine people from New Jersey commuting into work in Manhattan!) If every state had its own DMV, you wouldn't necessarily be able to drive between all states.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      There's lots of effort to harmonize laws across states. No reason that Minnesota would do much other than rubber stamp a drug approved in Wisconsin (assuming Wisconsin was not famously bad at approving drugs). Also, is your last paragraph sarcasm? Every state does have its own vehicle regulations. The feds use project funding as a carrot to get states to do things, but the regulation is mostly at the state level.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Every state definitely does have its own DMV, with its own regulations (for instance: some states have Graduated Drivers License programs for teenagers). The situation with interstate recognition of licenses is interesting: neither the full faith and credit clause nor the dormant commerce clause actually require states to recognize each other's drivers licenses, and in fact many don't recognize each other's learners permits.
    - dionidium 10y ago
      "Imagine people from New Jersey commuting into work in Manhattan!?" There's no need to imagine what it would be like https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/25/el-paso-juarez-us-mexican-border-life-binational-city https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/25/el-paso-juare...
- masonic 10y ago
  Of course. So, for those states that are better run, people will generally migrate there. Similarly, people who seek greater publicly-funded benefits will migrate to those areas that provide more.
geofft 10y ago
There are a lot of things worth leaving to the states, but the way insurance works, the financial feasibility depends a lot on how big the buying group is. It's why healthcare bought on behalf of a company is cheaper and better than healthcare bought by an individual, and it's why PPACA created marketplaces for individual insurance buyers. It's almost certain there are things that are feasible when the US has a certain healthcare policy that aren't feasible on the state level. I'd guess that single payer is one of them.
throwaway2016a 10y ago
Leaving it to a states is great in theory but the one thing that I think needs to be done is something that only the federal government has the power to do. Which is open up competition across borders for insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. Including international borders but I'd be happy just to be able to buy insurance from the state next door.

The labelling of ACA as "Obamacare" will allow Republicans to save face while they preserve much of the substance of the law. Personally, I say leave it to the states...

banku_brougham 10y ago

So many things could be better or much worse if left to the states.

dexterdog 10y ago
What would be worse except maybe the military?
- burkaman 10y ago
  Education would probably be worse in some states if there were no federal standards or oversight.
- wlesieutre 10y ago
  Voting Rights Act of 1965?
  - dexterdog 10y ago
    Funny, I thought people do nothing but complain about what a mess voting is.
    - wlesieutre 10y ago
      It's not perfect, no. But the 1965 act is specifically the part that protects voting rights of minorities. Would voting be better without that? Especially given that one party has turned voter suppression into an integral part of their strategy for winning elections? If it were left up to states, a large portion of them would deliberately not have these rules. And the nonstandardization of rules across the other states would mean that even in cases where they existed, the laws and associated court precedents would be a gigantic mess, making it a lot harder to litigate cases. For reference on situations where minority voting rights are still a problem: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ohio-hit-lawsuit-over-gop-passed-voting-restrictions http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ohio-hit-lawsuit-over-gop-passed-... http://www.southeastgeorgiatoday.com/index.php/8-newsbreaks/35373-georgia-settles-voting-rights-lawsuit http://www.southeastgeorgiatoday.com/index.php/8-newsbreaks/... http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/federal-appeals-court-strikes-controversial-north-carolina-voting-restrictions http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/federal-appeals-... http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20170111/lawsuit-detroit-suburb-denies-blacks-equal-voting-rights http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20170111/lawsuit... http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Appeals-court-upholds-judge-s-order-in-Pasadena-10907579.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/a... https://www.justice.gov/crt/cases-raising-claims-under-section-2-voting-rights-act-0 https://www.justice.gov/crt/cases-raising-claims-under-secti... etc.
- vacri 10y ago
  Customs, water rights, environmental protections, trade agreements, equal rights, bill of rights, sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health...
- geofft 10y ago
  If every state had its own FDA, it'd be as hard for a restaurant / fast food chain, a brand of groceries, etc. to start selling in a new state as for them to start selling in a new country. Same with drug manufacturing. If every state had its own immigration standards, you'd have to have border checkpoints between states as you do between countries. Even, e.g., Canada and the US have serious border checkpoints. Apart from the inconvenience, it would kill the economy of cities on state borders. (Imagine people from New Jersey commuting into work in Manhattan!) If every state had its own DMV, you wouldn't necessarily be able to drive between all states.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    There's lots of effort to harmonize laws across states. No reason that Minnesota would do much other than rubber stamp a drug approved in Wisconsin (assuming Wisconsin was not famously bad at approving drugs). Also, is your last paragraph sarcasm? Every state does have its own vehicle regulations. The feds use project funding as a carrot to get states to do things, but the regulation is mostly at the state level.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Every state definitely does have its own DMV, with its own regulations (for instance: some states have Graduated Drivers License programs for teenagers). The situation with interstate recognition of licenses is interesting: neither the full faith and credit clause nor the dormant commerce clause actually require states to recognize each other's drivers licenses, and in fact many don't recognize each other's learners permits.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    "Imagine people from New Jersey commuting into work in Manhattan!?" There's no need to imagine what it would be like https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/25/el-paso-juarez-us-mexican-border-life-binational-city https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/25/el-paso-juare...
masonic 10y ago
Of course. So, for those states that are better run, people will generally migrate there. Similarly, people who seek greater publicly-funded benefits will migrate to those areas that provide more.

geofft 10y ago

There are a lot of things worth leaving to the states, but the way insurance works, the financial feasibility depends a lot on how big the buying group is. It's why healthcare bought on behalf of a company is cheaper and better than healthcare bought by an individual, and it's why PPACA created marketplaces for individual insurance buyers. It's almost certain there are things that are feasible when the US has a certain healthcare policy that aren't feasible on the state level. I'd guess that single payer is one of them.

throwaway2016a 10y ago

Leaving it to a states is great in theory but the one thing that I think needs to be done is something that only the federal government has the power to do. Which is open up competition across borders for insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. Including international borders but I'd be happy just to be able to buy insurance from the state next door.