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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (227328)	4/17/2007 10:11:16 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

States are becoming antiquated political entities. US needs to go regional for a lot of stuff. West from Oregon thru Californina for example. Then these social experiments would have more of a chance. One 6 year term for president would take politics out of the equation and bush would be gone already without the last two painful years.

To: neolib who wrote (227328)	4/17/2007 10:12:17 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The government already meddles- might as well have them meddle for good. Better to ask, should the CDC meddle in life styles? If there was a plague, would you want the government to meddle? Of course you would. Well, there is a plague of obesity, and it's probably causing as much death, and pain to people, as any viral or bacterial plague. I don't think I care whether the states do their health plans individually or whether the plans are done federally. You are basically going for the "little laboratories" argument- where the state plans are seen as little labs for various plans. That's fine. I don't really disagree. It might be better; it might not- but as long as we move forward I don't really care how we take the first steps.

To: neolib who wrote (227328)	4/17/2007 10:44:51 AM
From: lazarre	Respond to of 281500

Michael's regional plan and 6 year term limit might have a slight edge. Regionally, I'm thinking in terms of economy of scale and all the benefits that accrue...unless a state by state allocation would still fall under some vast buying power umbrella...but then, again, imo, your're defeating one of the prime savers of a single payer system...and that's the enormously beaurocratic, read: costly, administrative component...each state having it's own paperwork, i.d. cards ( oops .... but necessary as long as it didn't tie into your library borrows)...and then, when you have a person residing in NY moving to Iowa...the paperworks transmigration...or if he/she just visited Iowa and getting sick. Well, maybe the costs for an indy state implementation might be minimal and worth the effort, if in the long run, it serves to enhance good health for all of us.