Shrug I’d have to see specific details to really take a stand, but off the top of my head I don’t have a problem with it. I imagine this would work like clean air standards – the federal government establishes a minimal baseline, and then individual states (say, California) could impose stricter standards if they felt it was necessary.
Agreed. But, I see lots of people in this thread arguing that the government controlling health care in the US would be a bad idea for many reasons. No one is yet arguing that it is unconstitutional, or illegal.
However, one could make this argument under the 10th ammendment that the feds would not be constitutionally allowed to play around with health care and that it should be left to the states. But, this is the ammendment that the US has chosen to ignore. shrug
We probably disagree here. My point was the feds play no role at all, so that states are free to have as much or as little gov’t role in health care as it’s citizens choose. I’ve got to say, though, that the shrug is somewhat surprising. I’d ask if there are any areas of public policy that you would be comfortable leaving completely up to the states. And if there are, why is health care different?
Probably matters which can be clearly restricted to the state’s boundaries, like the sales tax or traffic laws.
Probably for consistency with the schema of existing federal health-care plans, like Medicare. And because I do feel that a civilized society should provide a minimal level of health care for its citizens; at the very least, providing folks with the means to prevent/cure illnesses early would avoid more expensive treatments in the future.
I dont think anyone is arguing that top-of-the-line health care be provided by the government for everyone. As jrung I think meant to say: civilized society should make available a choice for a good minimum level of health care for its citizens. I agree.
The reasons for this are:
- less cost in treating major illnesses later on - better to treat illness before it become a greater problem for the individual and the society
- more civilised society - ethical thing - dont worry about this point if you cant get your head around it
- less likelihood for epidemics
- less cost in other parts of the economy - more healthy people in the workforce and participating in life
If you think the role of the government is only as police then I suppose I might as well be conversing with a 3 year old. Gee, inflammatory comments like that arent going to change your mind.
If the USA provides this already then there is no problem. It just seems from reading posts here that this is not the case.
i currently have no health care and i am in the usa. it sucks. the economy sucks, i am out of work. any work i do get will all mosst gauranteed not to have healthcare. if i get some terrible thing or severaly injured. what am i suppossed to do? be in debt for the rest of my life? die? if my house catches on fire the fire department will put it out. is my house more important than me?