Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (21262)	12/23/2003 5:14:04 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793725

For instance if there were a Sars outbreak in Ohio, would that be left to local authorities to handle? Our system has provisions for the Feds to come in an help out local areas in emergencies. That's what FEMA does for floods and such. No reason the CDC shouldn't jump on a SARS outbreak. Especially given that a local SARS outbreak left unchecked could become a national emergency and a national security threat. There's a difference between a boost to states and localities from Mr. Deep Pockets on a situational basis and creating a permanent role for the Feds in an area that is assigned to the states in the Constitution. And certainly a difference between a SARS bailout and a new enumerated citizen entitlement. Or do you think the Constitution is just a guideline that we can ignore whenever the price of cough syrup or xrays goes up? People are beginning to think they have a right to subsidized health care. People tend not to read the Bill of Rights very carefully. I tend to think that's a problem. And that's only the Constitutional issue. Then there's the snowballing cost issue triggered by boundless demand... Ah, you say, you then put bounds on the demand, as in rationing. Or maybe wage and price controls. Yep, great idea. Not.