U.S. Politics, 15

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LoB,

Not a few of us on the libertarian side of the spectrum have been saying, for years, that the "red States" need to walk the walk and stop talking the talk. I'd be delighted if the "red States" just refused Federal funds. Then maybe the "blue States" would have the money they need to build their "hovercars".

[MinDonner]

Tsk Scot. Everyone knows that hovercars are not built, they are excavated.

[TrackerNeil]

There must be some reason why the above is unacceptable to the left. My sneaking suspicion is they're afraid that those states which govern conservatively will succeed, while those which govern progressively will fail—undeniable proof that their philosophy is unworkable. Or maybe they're just control freaks—take your pick.

I'll take that bet, SYM, and in fact the Affordable Care Act contains a provision for state-level innovation. Any state that can meet the federal benchmarks for coverage and affordability can experiment with its own health care plans. So it seems your wish is to some extent granted.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This is the situation I see coming down the road in just a few years with this monstrosity. It will be very heavily in debt almost from the outset and (legallly) cirvumvented at every turn, with no real prospects of serious reform or change. It baffles me that other people on this board seem utterly incapable of looking a few years down the road and seeing this situation.

I can't see it working either, at least not in the way we were told it was meant to work. I think the thought on the left is that it will work so badly it will force movement towards a single-payer system. Legislation by bad-faith deceit.

Not a few of us on the libertarian side of the spectrum have been saying, for years, that the "red States" need to walk the walk and stop talking the talk. I'd be delighted if the "red States" just refused Federal funds. Then maybe the "blue States" would have the money they need to build their "hovercars".

I see nothing inconsistent in arguing for the federal government to do less, but if that argument is lost, taking whatever you can get.

I fucking dare the red states to do this. I would love it!Florida, Texas, I see you smirking over there, barely not qualifying as bloodsucking leeches..

Well, LOB, their elected representatives generally have been trying to do exactly that. And if you look at that chart, Texas is one of the very few states that pays more in federal taxes then it receives, so I don't know why you're lumping them in there.

One thing that should be pointed out when looking at where money goes is that everyone in a given state doesn't share the same economic status or political views. I suspect that the money isn't necessarily going to the people within those states who support smaller government. For example, Mississippi has a lot of poor residents, and though it is a very "red" state, Obama still got 42% of the vote. If those folks are receiving a disproportionate amount of federal money, then there's no hypocrisy involved.

But look, if that's the way you feel, then you should support eliminating tons of federal programs and just making how to address them a problem for individual states. Deal?

I'll take that bet, SYM, and in fact the Affordable Care Act contains a provision for state-level innovation. Any state that can meet the federal benchmarks for coverage and affordability can experiment with its own health care plans. So it seems your wish is to some extent granted.

Not really. The states are permitted to "innovate" as long as the plans they come up with are designed to do everything the federal plan will do. That's a rather tiny box that would permit plans like Massachusett's, but bar any plans modelled along what the GOP offered as an alternative or that otherwise don't contain the same guarantees of coverage, etc..

Personally, I think pushing for greater state leeway with little or no federal direction is the best possible answer. If ACA plan, or even a full single-payer system, really is better for both businesses, you would expect to see them flocking to states that sponsored such plans, improving the overall economic outlook and business climate in those states.

[Lord O' Bones]

Well, LOB, their elected representatives generally have been trying to do exactly that.

I have seen no evidence of this.

But look, if that's the way you feel, then you should support eliminating tons of federal programs and just making how to address them a problem for individual states. Deal?

:lol:

I know I was but a twinkle in the board's eye in your heyday, and you've been MIA for a few years, but I've always supported that. I've just given up on it as being, ya know impossible. Special snowflake dontchaknow?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I have seen no evidence of this.

Well, did you look at the folks in Congress who voted against the stimulus and ACA? Disproportionately red-staters.

:lol:

I know I was but a twinkle in the board's eye in your heyday, and you've been MIA for a few years, but I've always supported that. I've just given up on it as being, ya know impossible. Special snowflake dontchaknow?

Hey, don't make me feel more like a geezer than I already am! But anyway, you always fight one battle at a time. Admittedly, it can be demoralizing as hell trying to find legislators who consistently stand up for limited government. All Republicans certainly do not fit in that mold. But we can still support those who are generally consistent on that issue, and look to find/support others.

What other option is there?

[Commodore]

I just don't understand why liberals insist that ALL reforms need to be done on federal level. It looks like they no longer even try to pass something on state level, despite the fact that Washington reforms suck. Why not try to pass UHC in some liberal state like Massachusetts, so people can see if it works or not. Or, if that idea is too radical why not pass at least statewide public option (no tax increases required so it's much less controversial). But nooo, let's spend all energy fighting the windmills in D.C.

If you enact controls at the federal level, they can't be avoided by fleeing to another state. You have to leave the country, which people are much less willing to do.

First, look at this chart.

Now punch yourself in the face. After all, I'm paying for it.

It looks like states with higher per capita incomes subsidizing states with poorer people. Which makes sense given our progressive tax structure. If it upsets you, join me in advocating for the abolition of the income tax.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If you enact controls at the federal level, they can't be avoided by fleeing to another state. You have to leave the country, which people are much less willing to do.

But why would anyone flee the state? According to what proponents of both a single-payer system and the ACA have told us, either will be good for business, and for individuals as well, compared to what we have now. So logically, you should have both people fleeing to such states, which should lead to ohter sttes then enacting similar laws, etc.

[Ken Stone]

Ken,

Regardless,its not purely hereditary. Diet plays a big role. As such can the Feds Mandate a "healthy" diet?

Sure diet plays a role, but it's different for everyone. A diet that is perfectly healthy for one person can cause sickness in another.

The big reason that the whole "Mandating Health Insurance is the same as Mandating Healthy Diet" is a false equivalent, is because one is mandating how you spend your money, and the other is mandating what you do with your body. I know many conservatives feel that mandating how you spend money is the worse offense.

[TrackerNeil]

Not really. The states are permitted to "innovate" as long as the plans they come up with are designed to do everything the federal plan will do. That's a rather tiny box that would permit plans like Massachusett's, but bar any plans modelled along what the GOP offered as an alternative or that otherwise don't contain the same guarantees of coverage, etc..

I'm glad you mentioned GOP alternatives, because the individual mandate was a GOP alternative fifteen years ago. Somewhere along the way it went from a mainstream Republican idea to Another Step on the Road to Socialism.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Sure diet plays a role, but it's different for everyone. A diet that is perfectly healthy for one person can cause sickness in another.

The big reason that the whole "Mandating Health Insurance is the same as Mandating Healthy Diet" is a false equivalent, is because one is mandating how you spend your money, and the other is mandating what you do with your body. I know many conservatives feel that mandating how you spend money is the worse offense.

Okay, fine. They don't mandate that you eat certain food. They just mandate that you buy it. Also, in terms of the other equivalency issues, whether a good diet is conclusively proven to improve health wouldn't be the legal issue. When legislation is based upon certain factual assumptions, the Court will show great deference to Congressional findings. In other words, if Congress were to conclude that this diet plan will improve health, the Court likely would assume that fact to be true, and then consider the legal issues. And once you do that, it is indistinguishable from the health insurance mandate.

[Commodore]

Sure diet plays a role, but it's different for everyone. A diet that is perfectly healthy for one person can cause sickness in another.

The big reason that the whole "Mandating Health Insurance is the same as Mandating Healthy Diet" is a false equivalent, is because one is mandating how you spend your money, and the other is mandating what you do with your body. I know many conservatives feel that mandating how you spend money is the worse offense.

One of the worst, certainly.

So it would be constitutional to force someone to purchase healthy food, you just can't make them eat it?

[MinDonner]

These arguments are entertainingly bizarre to people from countries with actual UHC. It's kind of like watching some Martians try to figure out the purposes of a sandwich toaster, or something.