Good point, and I really have thought of that also. Unfortunately, big pharma would crush that in a heartbeat. Same with doctors. It would set up a competition between States, and pharma and doctors would dicker, until ALL the States ended up with healthcare by the...... lowest bidder. Ugh.

Yeah we have to amputate, but this State doesn't use anesthetic.





/e



Dude, look up States Rights in the US.

This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 13 2019 09:37am

States rights? My mate got done for legally selling pot from a legal dispensary in California by the feds.
Your constitution is not worth the paper its printed on.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Nov 13 2019 09:33am

we can pay for medicare for all. from a pure $$ standpoint.

but that's not very valid math. population density in the US is very varied, and we have unemployment and cash working that means many in the population wouldn't be paying in persay.

best to ignore morons who infer we cant pay for it, we're already paying more. the important factor is selling it to the public, who doesn't want medicare for all immediately in very high numbers. that's the sale that needs to be made, the "we'll be better in the long run" speech.

Not a valid comparison. Cali was allowed to sell pot already knowing and agreeing that Federally, it was still illegal.




/e




This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 13 2019 09:37am

So what your are saying is states rights mean jack all if the federal government decides so?

Ok, different subject.

Pot was federally illegal, before any state voted to make it legal. But pot being federally illegal is not in the Constitution. So states could vote to make it legal.

That's kind of my point about the costs of free healthcare. The pot issue is STILL a running battle between the fed and the states, with the costs associated with that still running battle.


Now multiply that issue by 350 million when we talk of free healthcare and the various states disagreeing about what that means. Imagine the costs of all the court battles, if nothing else.
Imagine the battles concerning ambulance companies, who might have to drive further or even to a different state for medical care.
Imagine a few states deciding they are not gonna treat... cancer maybe, and the court battles involved.

The point still is...that constructing a free healthcare system for 50 entities with constitutional states rights, can ONLY be compared to say the EU gathering ALL it various free healthcare plans under one umbrella.

All countries have states, most have states rights, australia has states and states rights.
If the oligarchs wanted public healthcare it would happen.

well ofc it's a massive oversimplification, obviously there are many other factors that play a role, but imo it's still valid to debunk 'logic' behind the ridiculous 'logistics costs through the roof due to number of states' talking point.
and just for the record, germany has high and low population density states as well, and unemployment too.

you're essentially trying to debunk someone saying "i pay 20$ for soda a month so i can't afford the govt to provide all my soda and charge me 15$ per month."

no one but Ghot in pard is drinking that kool aid, spending time debunking the mad hatter seems fairly fruitless. he'll never be sold on it, even if he's homeless due to poor health.

The whole world, including 99% of Americans, agree that the American healthcare system sucks ass. Guess which hill Ghot chooses to die on.



The real debate is not if the system can be improved significantly, the debate is how to best achieve that: either adopt a system like in the NL/Germany/Austria with private insurers but very strong government oversight, or adopt a true single payer system like in the UK or Australia - and of course how to best transition into this new system.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 13 2019 10:37am