Vermont passes single-payer healthcare bill

[Matthias]

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/26/...-single-payer/

They still have to get a waiver from the federal government before it can be implemented, so not over yet. Nice to see some sanity in some states though. Hopefully this will give momentum towards the national movement, and hopefully other states will eventually follow suit.

[Menelik_I]

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/26/...-single-payer/

They still have to get a waiver from the federal government before it can be implemented, so not over yet. Nice to see some sanity in some states though. Hopefully this will give momentum towards the national movement, and hopefully other states will eventually follow suit.

Isn't Federalism a KKK Southern Confederate Racist Ideology

Isn't it good this way that each states implement the system that better suits them.

[Matthias]

Isn't Federalism a KKK Southern Confederate Racist Ideology

Isn't it good this way that each states implement the system that better suits them.

Actually, no, it's not better this way, because having 50 different systems in 50 different states would be impractical and inefficient.

As for your comment on federalism, the Confederates mainly just cared about federalism as far as their right to slavery. Actually, their big problem was losing an election, and federalism was one way they thought they could get around that. They didn't like democracy very much I guess.

Here, supporters eventually want to see universal healthcare be national policy. Not a very good comparison in other words.

[Menelik_I]

As for your comment on federalism, the Confederates mainly just cared about federalism as far as their right to slavery. Actually, their big problem was losing an election, and federalism was one way they thought they could get around that. They didn't like democracy very much I guess.

I was being facetious and playing the smear in reversal

Actually, no, it's not better this way, because having 50 different systems in 50 different states would be impractical and inefficient.

Why ? If the People in Texas or Oklahoma don't want this why should be burdened with a Vermont fetish or why should Vermont should be burdened with whatever Texas loves ?

I don't buy the inefficiency part, it isn't a question of scale, if the system is sound it will work.

[MarcoPollo]

I was being facetious and playing the smear in reversal


Why ? If the People in Texas or Oklahoma don't want this why should be burdened with a Vermont fetish or why should Vermont should be burdened with whatever Texas loves ?

So what. You could extend that argument to say that people in Houston don't or Dallas don't want what their state is offering. Should they be burdened with what, say, San Antonio wants?

Or should unit A or unit B don't want what their strata is offering. Should they be burdened with what, say, unit C wants?

It's the nature of government. At any level.

Good on the people of vermont for getting the ball rolling.

[chilon]

So what. You could extend that argument to say that people in Houston don't or Dallas don't want what their state is offering. Should they be burdened with what, say, San Antonio wants?

Or should unit A or unit B don't want what their strata is offering. Should they be burdened with what, say, unit C wants?

It's the nature of government. At any level.

Exactly. California only gets back .78 of every Federal tax dollar they send out. New Jersey and Nevada get 10 cents less per tax dollar sent out while New Mexico and Mississippi get over 2 dollars back from every dollar in Federal taxes they pay and Alaska gets almost 2 dollars back for every dollar in taxes paid.

You are exactly right, that is the nature of Federalism.

[magickyleo101]

Actually, no, it's not better this way, because having 50 different systems in 50 different states would be impractical and inefficient.

To some extent there's an inefficiency when you have multiple rules in different states, but that alone is hardly dispositive. The cost of the inefficiency has to be weighed against the benefits that federalism brings - a greater opportunity for experimentation and cross cultural exchange (i.e. state stealing good ideas from each other), as well as the ability to tailor laws to the specific needs of different communities.

We've kept federalism in the United States and it works well for us because more often than not the benefits have outweighed the cost.

Besides, when one rule is obviously better the vast majority of states generally adopt it (e.g. the model penal code or the UCC).

Here, supporters eventually want to see universal healthcare be national policy. Not a very good comparison in other words.

If they try it and it works out really well for them, I'm sure other states will follow their lead.

So what. You could extend that argument to say that people in Houston don't or Dallas don't want what their state is offering. Should they be burdened with what, say, San Antonio wants?

Or should unit A or unit B don't want what their strata is offering. Should they be burdened with what, say, unit C wants?

It's the nature of government. At any level.

Not really. You can have different levels of uniformity in different areas of law. A lot of laws are municipal or state laws because we recognize that different areas of a state or different areas of the country will have different views and needs.

The ideal level of uniformity among laws is an empirical question and it's going to depend on the kind of law you're talking about and the kind of communities you're dealing with. There's no single answer to how much uniformity is appropriate outside the specific facts of each situation.

But just saying "it's the nature of government" misses the point altogether.

[Menelik_I]

So what. You could extend that argument to say that people in Houston don't or Dallas don't want what their state is offering. Should they be burdened with what, say, San Antonio wants?

Or should unit A or unit B don't want what their strata is offering. Should they be burdened with what, say, unit C wants?

It's the nature of government. At any level.

Good on the people of vermont for getting the ball rolling.

Because the States are the constituent political unit of the United states with both Legislative and executive power.

Exactly. California only gets back .78 of every Federal tax dollar they send out. New Jersey and Nevada get 10 cents less per tax dollar sent out while New Mexico and Mississippi get over 2 dollars back from every dollar in Federal taxes they pay and Alaska gets almost 2 dollars back for every dollar in taxes paid.

You are exactly right, that is the nature of Federalism.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As if sending the money to federal coffers to DC was inevitable.