The more local the government the more responsible the governance is to the people.
That's a fine general rule. And typically public health does get handled at the local level. But then, typically outbreaks occur at the local level. We're talking about outbreaks of measles.
I think, though, that general rules and other tools need to be applied appropriately. What applies to measles doesn't necessarily apply to ebola. When there is an outbreak, it is critical to control the spread. The spread is a function of the virulence of the bug, the destructiveness of the bug, and the mobility of the people. The appropriate governmental level for control of an outbreak is a function of the impact zone, not some arbitrary ideology. If you care about the consequences, that is. If ebola were to break out in some remote outpost of the US, then, sure, the locals can handle it. If it's in any city, you'd better bet that the control would defer to national and international authorities. If it didn't, you'd be dead, as in "no place left to live free, only to die." |
