4 ms·
Which would mark the second time in 241 years those states agreed upon something... In all seriousness, state run healthcare is a great idea, but the governmen
by verelo 9y ago
Which would mark the second time in 241 years those states agreed upon something...
In all seriousness, state run healthcare is a great idea, but the government is just such a big stakeholder in having a healthy population that I do not see a good reason for it [at some level] to stay out of that line of business. Single payer works, so much better than the current setup...why not start there and try iterate?
- dsfyu404ed 9y agoThat would all be fine and dandy if it weren't for that pesky 200yr old document that explicitly denies the federal government the right to micromanage except in very specific circumstances.
- verelo 9y agosure, so like i said...use the state government. The point i was trying to make is basically this: as a government [local, state, fed...you pick] my interest would be in having a productive and happy workforce. One of the best tools i have to influnce that would be healthcare...hence, i see no outcome where the government [again - local, state, fed...whatever] should probably be involved in that. ORRRRR....you do what you've done 27 times before, and you amend the 200 yr old document :) We all make mistakes, sometimes the best option is to own up to them and do something different.
- magicalist 9y ago> 200yr old document that explicitly denies the federal government the right to micromanage except in very specific circumstances. right, as long as you ignore 200 years of legal precedent in which it has...