3 ms·

No, it just cements the idea that the Government can't do anything.

by mhurron 13y ago

hga 13y ago
Why not apply the federalism principle. This comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6622746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6622746 by protomyth on another Obamacare topic points out "The writers of the law wanted a top-down centralized approach and that isn't how the US Constitution or US States are structured." and why we shouldn't be surprised by it's abject top level failure. ADDED: to the initial responses to this: no, not even close. E.g. explain where the Federal government has a role in this beyond the FDA's standards establish what can be sold, which are in part an economy of scale. E.g. the Naval Observatory and NIST each maintain independent ultra-precise time bases for the nation, which strikes me as just right. At the national level, Daylight Savings Time is promulgated, but states like Arizona (minus the big NE Indian Reservation) and Hawaii where it's not a good idea don't observe it. But most things should be left to the "50 Petri dishes" of the states (or groups of them, e.g. the Multi-State Lottery Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-State_Lottery_Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-State_Lottery_Association ). Romneycare? Sure, why not try it? Obamacare? I think you know my answer to that. And please don't make replies that don't factor in the Federal government's interference in this starting with WWII.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Why not apply the federalism principle. You mean, set national standards and leave the implementation to the states within those standards, with feds only stepping in if the states refuse or fail? That's exactly what PPACA does for most things -- including the exchanges.
  - jerf 13y ago
    "You mean, set national standards and leave the implementation to the states within those standards, with feds only stepping in if the states refuse or fail?" No, that's a modern bastardization of the idea, where the Federal government claims to be following the letter of the idea but steps in with all sorts of central mandates and requirements even so. They've got some pretty good rackets going on with "optional" compliance to programs tied to truckloads of money, too. Federalism would be... let the states handle it. No Federal requirements. No Federal interests. No Federal laws. If Vermont wants full on state health care with no private option and Texas wants full private healthcare with little more than disability assistance, let them. Washington DC interferes with neither. The PPACA hasn't got a drop of Federalism in it. Whether you consider that a problem is up to you. I'm just explaining that it doesn't have any.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  Kind of an ironic story to bring that up with. Perhaps if more states had taken advantage of their freedom to apply the federalism principle, things would have gone better.
bicknergseng 13y ago
Cept put men on the moon, build an expansive national system of roads and tracks and bridges and tunnels, develop technologies like the internet, atomic energy, and others. Why did I reply to this.
- mhurron 13y ago
  You seem to think I agree with the view. However, you do have to be somewhat blind to see that a large segment of the population, it's the Republican platform for instance, genuinely believe the government can do nothing right. Every failure, no matter how small, supports that position. No amount of facts change that position. In a more general way, less and less peoples views seem to be swayed by any facts that disagree with their worldview. Everything has become an us vs them, my team is better, right and perfect view of the world.
  - barney54 13y ago
    You are misrepresenting the R's position. It's not that government can do nothing right, it's that government does things less efficiently than private enterprise.
    - crusso 13y ago
      The irony there is that his post ranted about people not being swayed by facts while misrepresenting an easy-to-understand fact for anyone not grinding some biased political axe.
    - RokStdy 13y ago
      Coincidentally this view seems to be held most strongly by those actively trying to prevent the government from functioning efficiently (or at all). It's like purchasing a car, never doing any maintenance, and then when it dies saying: "whelp, all Fords are shit! I should have bought a Chevy"
- hga 13y ago
  Everything you've mentioned except transportation, not counting the Interstate system, was done for national defense purposes, which are very much a duty of the Federal government. Mercury through Apollo were political stunts. The sequence goes like this: Eisenhower let the Soviets orbit the earth first to let them establish an "Open Space" president; prior to that they were saying any satellites orbiting over their territory were illegitimate. However at the same time we were competing for allies among the Third World, and our claims of technological superiority took a big hit. So the "space race" began. First was of course Mercury, put a man in orbit, then a couple of years later JFK committed us to "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" But it was just a stunt, leaving no infrastructure in place, heck, even finished Saturn Vs were left outside to rot (due to the inevitable delays, Nixon had to cancel the last planned Moon missions because of the sunspot cycle making them too dangerous). The Interstate system was based on the German Autobahns, and President Eisenhower's experience trying to move on troops on our old system. However we've had a long and very mixed history of Federal involvement in transportation systems, such as the transcontinental railroad scams (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_America_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_America... or which went bankrupt (hint: the land grants were the real prize)). The Internet was developed by/for/with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to allow the sharing of the then very expensive computers. I trust we all know what pushed the initial development of atomic energy in the US, and as I understand it our first reactors developed to specifically produce power were for submarines, where they made a massive qualitative difference.

No, it just cements the idea that the Government can't do anything.

by mhurron 13y ago

No, it just cements the idea that the Government can't do anything.

hga 13y ago

Why not apply the federalism principle. This comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6622746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6622746 by protomyth on another Obamacare topic points out "The writers of the law wanted a top-down centralized approach and that isn't how the US Constitution or US States are structured." and why we shouldn't be surprised by it's abject top level failure. ADDED: to the initial responses to this: no, not even close. E.g. explain where the Federal government has a role in this beyond the FDA's standards establish what can be sold, which are in part an economy of scale. E.g. the Naval Observatory and NIST each maintain independent ultra-precise time bases for the nation, which strikes me as just right. At the national level, Daylight Savings Time is promulgated, but states like Arizona (minus the big NE Indian Reservation) and Hawaii where it's not a good idea don't observe it. But most things should be left to the "50 Petri dishes" of the states (or groups of them, e.g. the Multi-State Lottery Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-State_Lottery_Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-State_Lottery_Association ). Romneycare? Sure, why not try it? Obamacare? I think you know my answer to that. And please don't make replies that don't factor in the Federal government's interference in this starting with WWII.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Why not apply the federalism principle. You mean, set national standards and leave the implementation to the states within those standards, with feds only stepping in if the states refuse or fail? That's exactly what PPACA does for most things -- including the exchanges.
- jerf 13y ago
  "You mean, set national standards and leave the implementation to the states within those standards, with feds only stepping in if the states refuse or fail?" No, that's a modern bastardization of the idea, where the Federal government claims to be following the letter of the idea but steps in with all sorts of central mandates and requirements even so. They've got some pretty good rackets going on with "optional" compliance to programs tied to truckloads of money, too. Federalism would be... let the states handle it. No Federal requirements. No Federal interests. No Federal laws. If Vermont wants full on state health care with no private option and Texas wants full private healthcare with little more than disability assistance, let them. Washington DC interferes with neither. The PPACA hasn't got a drop of Federalism in it. Whether you consider that a problem is up to you. I'm just explaining that it doesn't have any.
maxerickson 13y ago
Kind of an ironic story to bring that up with. Perhaps if more states had taken advantage of their freedom to apply the federalism principle, things would have gone better.

bicknergseng 13y ago

Cept put men on the moon, build an expansive national system of roads and tracks and bridges and tunnels, develop technologies like the internet, atomic energy, and others. Why did I reply to this.

mhurron 13y ago
You seem to think I agree with the view. However, you do have to be somewhat blind to see that a large segment of the population, it's the Republican platform for instance, genuinely believe the government can do nothing right. Every failure, no matter how small, supports that position. No amount of facts change that position. In a more general way, less and less peoples views seem to be swayed by any facts that disagree with their worldview. Everything has become an us vs them, my team is better, right and perfect view of the world.
- barney54 13y ago
  You are misrepresenting the R's position. It's not that government can do nothing right, it's that government does things less efficiently than private enterprise.
  - crusso 13y ago
    The irony there is that his post ranted about people not being swayed by facts while misrepresenting an easy-to-understand fact for anyone not grinding some biased political axe.
  - RokStdy 13y ago
    Coincidentally this view seems to be held most strongly by those actively trying to prevent the government from functioning efficiently (or at all). It's like purchasing a car, never doing any maintenance, and then when it dies saying: "whelp, all Fords are shit! I should have bought a Chevy"
hga 13y ago
Everything you've mentioned except transportation, not counting the Interstate system, was done for national defense purposes, which are very much a duty of the Federal government. Mercury through Apollo were political stunts. The sequence goes like this: Eisenhower let the Soviets orbit the earth first to let them establish an "Open Space" president; prior to that they were saying any satellites orbiting over their territory were illegitimate. However at the same time we were competing for allies among the Third World, and our claims of technological superiority took a big hit. So the "space race" began. First was of course Mercury, put a man in orbit, then a couple of years later JFK committed us to "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" But it was just a stunt, leaving no infrastructure in place, heck, even finished Saturn Vs were left outside to rot (due to the inevitable delays, Nixon had to cancel the last planned Moon missions because of the sunspot cycle making them too dangerous). The Interstate system was based on the German Autobahns, and President Eisenhower's experience trying to move on troops on our old system. However we've had a long and very mixed history of Federal involvement in transportation systems, such as the transcontinental railroad scams (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_America_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_America... or which went bankrupt (hint: the land grants were the real prize)). The Internet was developed by/for/with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to allow the sharing of the then very expensive computers. I trust we all know what pushed the initial development of atomic energy in the US, and as I understand it our first reactors developed to specifically produce power were for submarines, where they made a massive qualitative difference.