... simply let your local government (state) decide whether or not to socialize medicine?
Why is Washington trying to get involved with something that states can handle?
(California and Mass are already dealing with the issue)
2007-07-19 01:19:14 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Here's the thing. MA and CA are still working through the private insurance companies that are geared toward profit by denying payment for medical care. Still, these programs may work.
But what will work better is a national plan where the costs are shared across the country, the standard of care is consistent, and everybody is covered for everything. Having localities with different policies will just invite the insurance companies to figure out how to make more money and provide less service.
2007-07-19 02:10:35 · answer #1 · answered by jehen 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the politicians in the state receive huge campaign contributions from the medical industry to stop social medicine, therefore they are no longer objective, and cannot be trusted to make the decision.
It should be a vote of the people on a federal level.
2007-07-19 08:22:23 · answer #2 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
They can... but they want BIG-government control. More pockets for the money to pass through before somebody can get a pill.
2007-07-19 08:29:32 · answer #3 · answered by responder 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If congress is not responsible for disciplining you children, then why do they pass laws that will put them in jail?
If congress is not responsible for wiping my ***, then why do they have public bathrooms at the capitol building?
If congress is not responsible for filling my tank with gas, then why do they invade foreign countries in order to secure the gas supply.
If congress is not responsible for brushing my hair, then why do they brush theirs?
Wait a second...none of that makes sense?
2007-07-19 08:25:56 · answer #4 · answered by Clown 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋