4 ms·

Get involved. Support local and regional elected officials or candidates that share your views on healthcare, the progressive movement is growing rapidly in the

Get involved. Support local and regional elected officials or candidates that share your views on healthcare, the progressive movement is growing rapidly in the US for this very reason. One of the biggest problems in American politics is that everyone is caught up in the blood sport that is Federal politics while not paying attention to what's going on in lower offices. Yes, healthcare is and will always be a Federal issue, but it's never too late to get involved in politics at any level.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lonelappde 7y ago
Sorry, but this is bullshit. When the government c disowns the basis for its legitimacy and starts teaming up with profiteers to imprison and kill people, the answer to fight back against violence with violence.
bhupy 7y ago
Why does healthcare have to be a federal issue?
- _jal 7y ago
  It theoretically doesn't, but practically speaking, you're talking about risk pools. Those work better when they're larger.
  - bhupy 7y ago
    Risk pools in other countries work pretty well, and their populations are <= that of pretty much every state in the Union. Denmark’s population is that of Wisconsin. The least populated state (Wyoming) would have a larger risk pool than Iceland, which seems to be doing fine.
    - _jal 7y ago
      Sure. For that matter, some bigger corporations in the US choose to run their own. But it is just math - bigger pools have more resources over a larger population, and so are better positioned to survive shocks.
      - bhupy 7y ago
        You’re not really refuting my point...by that logic the entire world should have one big shared risk pool, it’s just math! My point is that you can have adequate risk pools at a lower administrative level (the states), while not having to deal with having to build up political will among a large, heterogenous polity.
        _jal 7y ago
        That's because I'm not arguing with you. It is a complex topic, and the variety of "solutions" to the problem give us a lot to chew on. I don't personally think that's optimal - there are a number of problems US states have that nation-states don't. (Deficit financing, exclusion and latitude to make its own rules being larger ones.) Also, one cost of running "laboratories of democracy" is that some of them fail, and some of them are run incompetently or corruptly or cruelly. But if you like the idea of state level fixes, by all means pull for that. There is no single right answer.
        bhupy 7y ago
        > Also, one cost of running "laboratories of democracy" is that some of them fail, and some of them are run incompetently or corruptly or cruelly. That is true of nation states as well, and yet we trust them with sovereignty. In our Union, states have to abide by a baseline set of rules per the Federal Constitution (free speech, right to a fair trial, equal protection before the law, etc). US States aren’t run by Kings and Queens, they’re democracies with checks and balances, state Constitutions, judiciaries, legislatures, and executive agencies. Insofar as a state would be run corruptly or cruelly, it would be the will of the people of those states.
  - shantly 7y ago
    More important is that states can’t control immigration and cross-border trade, making a variety of policies infeasible or much more expensive, compared with the same implemented nationwide.
    - bhupy 7y ago
      Immigration and cross-border trade is free in the EU, and yet healthcare is a member-state level issue. In India, healthcare is explicitly a state issue, not a Union issue.
      - shantly 7y ago
        At a glance, it looks like both have mandates of some sort that keep states/countries from going full-on free rider, which is what I expected.
        bhupy 7y ago
        Right, the US-equivalent would be for States to tie their welfare programs to state residency, which is totally reasonable and within the realm of possibility.
mlevental 7y ago
I agree with you but this isn't a local issue. famously healthcare is under the umbrella of the interstate commerce clause.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lonelappde 7y ago

Sorry, but this is bullshit. When the government c disowns the basis for its legitimacy and starts teaming up with profiteers to imprison and kill people, the answer to fight back against violence with violence.

bhupy 7y ago

Why does healthcare have to be a federal issue?

_jal 7y ago
It theoretically doesn't, but practically speaking, you're talking about risk pools. Those work better when they're larger.
- bhupy 7y ago
  Risk pools in other countries work pretty well, and their populations are <= that of pretty much every state in the Union. Denmark’s population is that of Wisconsin. The least populated state (Wyoming) would have a larger risk pool than Iceland, which seems to be doing fine.
  - _jal 7y ago
    Sure. For that matter, some bigger corporations in the US choose to run their own. But it is just math - bigger pools have more resources over a larger population, and so are better positioned to survive shocks.
    - bhupy 7y ago
      You’re not really refuting my point...by that logic the entire world should have one big shared risk pool, it’s just math! My point is that you can have adequate risk pools at a lower administrative level (the states), while not having to deal with having to build up political will among a large, heterogenous polity.
      - _jal 7y ago
        That's because I'm not arguing with you. It is a complex topic, and the variety of "solutions" to the problem give us a lot to chew on. I don't personally think that's optimal - there are a number of problems US states have that nation-states don't. (Deficit financing, exclusion and latitude to make its own rules being larger ones.) Also, one cost of running "laboratories of democracy" is that some of them fail, and some of them are run incompetently or corruptly or cruelly. But if you like the idea of state level fixes, by all means pull for that. There is no single right answer.
        bhupy 7y ago
        > Also, one cost of running "laboratories of democracy" is that some of them fail, and some of them are run incompetently or corruptly or cruelly. That is true of nation states as well, and yet we trust them with sovereignty. In our Union, states have to abide by a baseline set of rules per the Federal Constitution (free speech, right to a fair trial, equal protection before the law, etc). US States aren’t run by Kings and Queens, they’re democracies with checks and balances, state Constitutions, judiciaries, legislatures, and executive agencies. Insofar as a state would be run corruptly or cruelly, it would be the will of the people of those states.
- shantly 7y ago
  More important is that states can’t control immigration and cross-border trade, making a variety of policies infeasible or much more expensive, compared with the same implemented nationwide.
  - bhupy 7y ago
    Immigration and cross-border trade is free in the EU, and yet healthcare is a member-state level issue. In India, healthcare is explicitly a state issue, not a Union issue.
    - shantly 7y ago
      At a glance, it looks like both have mandates of some sort that keep states/countries from going full-on free rider, which is what I expected.
      - bhupy 7y ago
        Right, the US-equivalent would be for States to tie their welfare programs to state residency, which is totally reasonable and within the realm of possibility.

mlevental 7y ago

I agree with you but this isn't a local issue. famously healthcare is under the umbrella of the interstate commerce clause.