Good article to discuss--the concept of program swaps was a good idea. One of problems I had with Bush was his lack of any philosophy about the value of "federalism" or a appropriate role of states. Example: no child left behind, which started out with considerable state flexibility and move increasingly toward federal control. On no other programs, however, did Bush suggest any movement toward greater use of states (would like to be proven wrong on this point, by the way!)As to your idea about Health Care done this way--through the states, really not sure--might be better than nationalizing it, but unfortunately what you would probably have comiong out of Congress is another "medicaid" type of "shared responsibility" and the problems Salam mentions. In fact, a big part of the Health Care bill is expansion of Medicaid which is a National mandate without approprate dollars or ability to limit cost by the state.Having states facilitate coops is a possibility, but I would need more details. In this case, if I have only one thing I could get added to what is coming down the pike, it would probably be allowing insurance to be sold across state lines and that would seem to argue in this case for some national direction in this area. Am interested in your arguments on why you think (and how it would work) the state role could be real strong on this issue.
Thanks for your comment! No child left behind is another example of a program with muddled ownership. These programs need to be specifically designated to either Federal OR State jurisdiction, not shared. (There would still be the usual House votes to decide on such an allocation and the Supreme Court to clarify or protect from corruption, but the responsibility would be clearly on one government). I know I am simplifying things here--but, any job which is not clearly delineated (in almost any household or business) is less likely to be completed efficiently and satisfactorily. And chaos is the natural result of no leadership. I think it's just common sense. The States could have some real incentives to improve unemployment percentages (and hack welfare), improve healthcare, and other areas if the Federal government had less oversight (and therefore less tax money) and the States had more oversight and some of the tax money from current federal taxes transferred to State budgets. States that produced results would be a magnet for buisness so competition would stimulate production. I'll have to research more current State budgets and practices to make this very practical (answering the "how"). I wonder whether State-run bridge programs could replace Medicaid for potential users and faze out. (This could get really beaurocratic though for moving between states.) Some States already in crisis would probably "bottom out" first...leaving nowhere to go but UP (optimist here). I have to admit that some of the worse tax offenders--States with currently high taxes (Ex CT)--may not be managing the budget well..but I still wonder if that isn't because of the shared Fed and State responsibility. Maybe in a day or so after I peruse some websites, I'll have something more to offer.
rw2yDec 15, 2009
Good article to discuss--the concept of program swaps was a good idea. One of problems I had with Bush was his lack of any philosophy about the value of "federalism" or a appropriate role of states. Example: no child left behind, which started out with considerable state flexibility and move increasingly toward federal control. On no other programs, however, did Bush suggest any movement toward greater use of states (would like to be proven wrong on this point, by the way!)As to your idea about Health Care done this way--through the states, really not sure--might be better than nationalizing it, but unfortunately what you would probably have comiong out of Congress is another "medicaid" type of "shared responsibility" and the problems Salam mentions. In fact, a big part of the Health Care bill is expansion of Medicaid which is a National mandate without approprate dollars or ability to limit cost by the state.Having states facilitate coops is a possibility, but I would need more details. In this case, if I have only one thing I could get added to what is coming down the pike, it would probably be allowing insurance to be sold across state lines and that would seem to argue in this case for some national direction in this area. Am interested in your arguments on why you think (and how it would work) the state role could be real strong on this issue.
Closed AccountDec 16, 2009
Thanks for your comment! No child left behind is another example of a program with muddled ownership. These programs need to be specifically designated to either Federal OR State jurisdiction, not shared. (There would still be the usual House votes to decide on such an allocation and the Supreme Court to clarify or protect from corruption, but the responsibility would be clearly on one government). I know I am simplifying things here--but, any job which is not clearly delineated (in almost any household or business) is less likely to be completed efficiently and satisfactorily. And chaos is the natural result of no leadership. I think it's just common sense. The States could have some real incentives to improve unemployment percentages (and hack welfare), improve healthcare, and other areas if the Federal government had less oversight (and therefore less tax money) and the States had more oversight and some of the tax money from current federal taxes transferred to State budgets. States that produced results would be a magnet for buisness so competition would stimulate production. I'll have to research more current State budgets and practices to make this very practical (answering the "how"). I wonder whether State-run bridge programs could replace Medicaid for potential users and faze out. (This could get really beaurocratic though for moving between states.) Some States already in crisis would probably "bottom out" first...leaving nowhere to go but UP (optimist here). I have to admit that some of the worse tax offenders--States with currently high taxes (Ex CT)--may not be managing the budget well..but I still wonder if that isn't because of the shared Fed and State responsibility. Maybe in a day or so after I peruse some websites, I'll have something more to offer.