The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early CampFIRE
|Subject: Re: FOX "News" Knows Wazzup||Date: 11/1/2013 12:47 PM|
|Author: 1HappyFool||Number: 703525 of 757322|
That's why we have Supreme court and in federal government also has congress (2 bodies) and executive; Within this you have sufficient checks and balances.
Saying that we have sufficient checks and balances ignores the fact that the ultimate check is non-compliance, either through emigration, exportation of capital, choosing to invest less within the society, or shadow markets, none of which can be prevented by the federal government.
In any case, still the original question of how single payer system at state level is superior and preferable to federal level?
It limits the risk to the country of trying something so anti-liberty.
And how single payer system is injuring your rights at federal level but it is protected at state level?
We would certainly see if any state could produce a single-payer system that would survive a challenge before the Supremes, and we would see its effects on such key indicators as medical personnel retention and influx and outflux of capital and general population.
If it's a good idea at the federal level, why wouldn't it be a good idea at the state level? Too easy to circumvent by liberty-conscious citizens? That should be a clue, not a reason to have it at the federal level. Doesn't the prospect of an outflux of capital, talent, skill and productivity concern you?
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|