View Single Post
Old 08-22-2009, 12:28 AM   #1
JEFF4i
Banned
 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 776
Gender: Male
Member Number: 10645
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default So....healthcare reform...

Okay, here's the deal. Many amongst us feel that most law should be to the sovereign to the states. So why let the Fed say, "Okay, we want to states to go at this healthcare thing. Work up whatever works best for you, and we will say...give you some of the stimulus money for it. Within limits."

Now don't pick apart my statement, because this is just an ideal situation and seeing if many would be down for it.

Why am I saying this?

I need to find the source in that aweful archives of my local paper, but in New Mexico, about 76% of medical bills are picked up by the government. Funny thing is, they'd actually save money, proven, under a single payer or public option system. These systems are also wildly popular here with people wanting them, yes there are those against them, but the majority want it. So what if the fed said, use it, we'll toss a few bucks your way initially and if you make a good system, you pay us back. If you make a bad system, your funding gets cut until it's fixed?

Just saying, here in N.M. with our illegal immigrant, socioeconomic, and other issues, wouldn't this make sense? Win-win right? State sovereignty as well as making a more public system that works better.
JEFF4i is offline   Reply With Quote