I like this. State governments are chosen by the people and can’t be trusted. Articles are created by a few individuals and can be trusted.
The problem with that John is that it turns each separate state into a self-insurance pool. The whole idea behind insurance is to spread risk over the largest possible group. Your idea would break the country up into enclaves with vastly different qualities of life very quickly.
Easily overcome by smaller states pooling resources if they felt it was in their interest to do so. Besides, that’s the way it is now for almost everyone.
True, and larger states (like California, New York, or Texas) have more than enough inhabitants to form a viable pool on their own.
There’s a word for that. It’s called federalism.
Even more easily dealt with by racing to the bottom…
Well the states did exactly that. In 1787…
You don’t need the largest possible pool.
You just need a reasonably large pool. I suspect a pool of a couple million people is perfectly sufficient to bring the cost of abortion care down to about as low as it can realistically get.
Okay, what reason do we have to trust the article?
Oh sure. I’m talking about health care/social welfare programs in general. How does Michigan handle unemployment? And who’d want to partner with them?
Not for the purpose of providing abortion funding. Unless you don’t think the power of the federal government has expanded just a teensie bit since that date.
It’s a reutable magazine.
Assuming you accept that abortions are a medical procedure and assuming that the states have banded together to pool risk for providing health care then, yeah, they did.
I don’t see your point here. Now you’re saying that states should NOT pool resources (i.e. federalize) for abortion funding? Make up your mind.
I’m saying they shouldn’t be forced to do so, as they are now.
No, they did not band together in 1787 in order to pool resources for providing health care.
Why shouldn’t they? Especially since some won’t do it otherwise.
Well, for one, I don’t care if they all do it or not. I’m pro-choice about more than just abortion.
Secondly, for the same reason they aren’t forced to pool resources to provide education, police forces, fire departments, and other public utilities.
That’s a logical fallacy. Even if they weren’t a reputable magazine, the assertions they make are supported or they aren’t. I’m quite certain you wouldn’t accept an unsupported assertion from the National Review.
I can’t force you to care, but “I don’t care” is not actually an argument against anything. Just for the record.
I don’t think the comparsion is sound, but, in point of fact, they do get federal subsidies for some of those things, and they are already getting it for health care.