Romneycare or Obamacare? (healthcare, programs, states, federal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Romney instituted state-run healthcare at the state level where it belongs. When you commit to a social program at the federal level you create things that can never be undone. Imagine for a moment how difficult it would be to entirely shut down Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Whether or not you actually want to end such programs is irrelevant to my point. My point is that you cannot end any of those programs even if you desperately need to. All of them will remain in place indefinitely, at least until the entire system breaks under the strain of the cost.
At the state level, things like Romneycare can be put in place and undone with relative ease and because you are creating a social program closer to the people, it can be better managed that it would have been at the federal level. Another reason to do it at the state level: If it improves the quality of life for your citizens then people will want to move to your state. If it's a bad program and people hate it, they'll leave. And if every state institutes state-run healthcare there can be competition between the states to try to create the most efficient, effective and overall best model.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
