Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Eva

I don’t see a state mandate as more dangerous. States can’t print money, so there is no risk of inflation distorting the economy from a state health care program. Of course if a state begins to oppress, people can trot across the border, as blacks did in response to FDR’s programs to deny sharecroppers jobs, and as people are doing in response to California taxes and joblessness. The natural competition between states should help state politicians steer their course, or at least help people steer clear of the more corrupt sort of politician.


45 posted on 04/01/2012 12:29:18 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: donmeaker

The state mandate is more dangerous because it is legal and it brings the same amount of government intrusion into our daily lives.

Inflation is not the biggest threat of a state healthcare system. When the government takes over the 1/5 of the economy and places all those working in that 1/5 of the economy into the SEIU, giving them special benefits, not afforded to the rest of us, what do you think will happen.

That’s the goal of the state/federal partnership in healthcare, unionization of one fifth of the work force. Then add in the fact that they want to combine all the first responders into one federalized union and we get a police state all under the guise of “health care”.

The unconstitutionality of the federal mandate is an excuse for repealing the act, not the real reason. That is why Rick Santorum is the only candidate that has real creditability on repealing it.

You obviously have not read any of the bill or any of the articles about what was in the bill. It’s another form of redistribution, away from suburban Whites, to inner city minorities, away from seniors to youth. The motto of the government health care will be, “Aim for mediocrity,” it’s only fair.

You won’t have access to the best technology, if there is older technology which might suffice, like an x-ray vs a panograph, or even an MRI. You won’t have access to the newest cancer drugs if your prognosis is simply to prolong your life, not cure you, no matter how young you are, unless you are a member of a traditionally under-served minority, that is, and then there are special boards set up to make sure that you get whatever treatment is available. ...but you will get end of life counseling.


47 posted on 04/01/2012 8:12:30 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: donmeaker

People with good jobs cannot just pick up and move to another state. It’s not that simple.

We’ve been living in WA state for more than 20 years because we were transferred here.


49 posted on 04/01/2012 9:40:26 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson