4 ms·

If it's as successful as proposed, it would not take very long to most states to offer something similar. IMO this isn't clearly true. Lots of states (especial

If it's as successful as proposed, it would not take very long to most states to offer something similar. IMO this isn't clearly true. Lots of states (especially those that currently have the worst health care outcomes) seem far more driven by the ideology that has caused their problems than by this kind of pragmatism. Example 1: the ACA's Medicare expansion. Hell, it might even work the opposite way: proof that something worked in California could end up as an argument against it. "Candidate x wants to implement the same sort of government health care system that's taken over California. This November, send him a message that we don't do things that way here."

pc86 9y ago
That sounds like democracy working. Democracy means as many people as possible get the government they want. This get progressively easier as the government gets more local. Overall people are much happier with local, then state government than the federal government.[0] If the people Mississippi don't want single-payer health care, and the people in California do, I'm in favor of a system that gives both of them what they want. [0] http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/26/growing-gap-in-favorable-views-of-federal-state-governments/ http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/26/growing-gap-in-favora...
- glhaynes 9y ago
  Well, that's some type of democracy having some effect, yeah. But I was taking issue with the specific idea you put forward that good healthcare ideas would likely spread (in today's political environment) through the "laboratories of democracy" that are the states. It sounds good in theory; it's not so good if it doesn't happen in practice and you're poor and sick in Mississippi. You and I can move (and likely would have health care regardless). They mostly can't. EDIT: also, I think this framing can badly mislead us: "If the people Mississippi don't want single-payer health care, and the people in California do, …". We get a picture in our head of Mississippi residents monolithically not wanting it while Californians monolithically do. In actuality it may be that 49% of Mississippi residents want it and 51% of Californians do. This is of course a broader topic (the benefits and failings of democracy and of various electoral systems) but I do think it's worth being aware when certain ways of phrasing might distort. EDIT2: I don't at all mean to imply that your framing was intended to mislead; I don't think that at all.

pc86 9y ago

That sounds like democracy working. Democracy means as many people as possible get the government they want. This get progressively easier as the government gets more local. Overall people are much happier with local, then state government than the federal government.[0] If the people Mississippi don't want single-payer health care, and the people in California do, I'm in favor of a system that gives both of them what they want. [0] http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/26/growing-gap-in-favorable-views-of-federal-state-governments/ http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/26/growing-gap-in-favora...

glhaynes 9y ago
Well, that's some type of democracy having some effect, yeah. But I was taking issue with the specific idea you put forward that good healthcare ideas would likely spread (in today's political environment) through the "laboratories of democracy" that are the states. It sounds good in theory; it's not so good if it doesn't happen in practice and you're poor and sick in Mississippi. You and I can move (and likely would have health care regardless). They mostly can't. EDIT: also, I think this framing can badly mislead us: "If the people Mississippi don't want single-payer health care, and the people in California do, …". We get a picture in our head of Mississippi residents monolithically not wanting it while Californians monolithically do. In actuality it may be that 49% of Mississippi residents want it and 51% of Californians do. This is of course a broader topic (the benefits and failings of democracy and of various electoral systems) but I do think it's worth being aware when certain ways of phrasing might distort. EDIT2: I don't at all mean to imply that your framing was intended to mislead; I don't think that at all.