4 ms·
Those blocks are supposed to be states. The states and population (senate and house) are supposed to both have to agree on something for it to pass congress, wh
by jimmaswell 7y ago
Those blocks are supposed to be states. The states and population (senate and house) are supposed to both have to agree on something for it to pass congress, which is a high barrier by design, since it affects everyone. You have state governments for things people in a state want.
- rayiner 7y agoI mean that’s the folly. People destroyed federalism, devolving all power to the federal government, and now they’re upset that the voting system in the federal government is stacked against them. If they hadn’t made healthcare, for example, a federal issue, folks in Maryland wouldn’t need folks in Alabama to get on board to have “Marylandcare for All.”
- learc83 7y agoIs there anything stopping them from having Marylandcare for All now? The ACA establishes minimums, but does it prevent a state from offering expanded care. My state has their own insurance for pregnant women and children for example.
- mises 7y agoNo, see California. They are considering expanding their state healthcare much further, even to criminal aliens (reported this morning). I don't agree with the policy, but can approve of them trying to avoid forcing the rest of the nation to go along with them. As long as it is legal by their constitution, it's their prerogative.
- tptacek 7y agoHold on. I was with you until you picked this example. How does Maryland run a single-payer system for Marylanders when sick Delawareans can move across the state line to access that care and still commute to their current jobs?
- jimmaswell 7y agoJust eat the cost of a few people doing that. It would balance out on the whole once most states did it anyway.
- tptacek 7y agoThe entire premise of Rayiner's point is that most states won't do the same things, and that states should be encouraged to try different things (the "laboratories of democracy" idea). I buy it, but don't see how health care is a workable example.
- rbritton 7y agoStates with state income taxes already tax their citizens' income regardless of where it's earned (AFAIK -- the states I've dealt with do, but I'm not familiar with the east coast). Wouldn't that cover it? If residency of Maryland is a requirement for the medical coverage, that would also achieve the tax collection to pay for it.
- tptacek 7y agoHow does that solve the problem? Live in a low-tax state until your medical risk reaches a threshold, move (perhaps across a nearby state line, as would likely be the case with states like Illinois and Maryland where the major metros are a short drive away from red-state borders) to a higher-tax state when the payoff becomes worth it. Isn't this a textbook adverse selection problem?
- rayiner 7y agoI mean that’s definitely part of the problem. Arguably, expansive interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause (as in Saenz v. Roe, which held that a one-year waiting period for drawing on welfare benefits violated the “right to travel” implied by the privileges and immunities clause) is part of the trend of broadly construing federal power and rights to destroy federalism. Narrowly construed, there might be room for say waiting periods to be eligible for state welfare or similar measures that would be sufficient to curb some of that free-riding behavior.