3 ms·

I'm 100% opposed to federal health care, but would be in favor of letting the states do whatever they want. How about that? Like you said, small countries alre

I'm 100% opposed to federal health care, but would be in favor of letting the states do whatever they want. How about that? Like you said, small countries already do this. When 2/3 of the states can agree on a system then we make it federal. This is more like what Sweden does, their counties finance and administer health care according to agreed upon federal standards. The U.S. government has already made a huge mess out of health care- the biggest in the world it appears. I don't trust them. We've already been screwed by industry lobbyists. They need to take a back seat and let the states run with this for now. As per our constitution. I am 100% in favor of various plans at a state level. Vermont was going to do single payer before Obamacare. That's what I want to see. States will copy successful systems, and an amendment can eventually be passed once enough states agree on a federal system.

krupan 7y ago
So if one state offers free health care for all, how do they avoid the freeload problem? When I lived in Washington near the Oregon border, we Washingtonions loved shopping sales tax free in Oregon. What prevents us all from going to Vermont as soon as we get cancer and overwhelming their system?
- mikem170 7y ago
  That would seem to be a concern, but it didn't stop Massachusetts from implementing Romneycare, nor Vermont from passing a single payer system, nor NY and California making plans for the same. It was happening before the feds got involved. Besides the fact that is how it's supposed to work in this country. The constitution doesn't give the fed the power to regulate health care. That is supposed to require an amendment, which requires something more than a 51% majority because it is a big deal.