The National debt has little to do with funded social programs. It's a result of being a nation of consumers (less production) and poor trade policy. You need to look at the Federal debt to understand where the impact of these programs are. I'm not necessarily suggesting that States implement this plan. But these things (if at all) should be done locally, maybe even at the county level. I don't even like the fact that I am forced to pay a Home Owners Association fee in my neighborhood..lolPhrozenbot wrote:
Firstly does the Fed have a right to implement UHC? Personally I think if states individually want to provide free health care for their citizens then they should be able to, but not all of the nation under one plan. But if there were to be one, then yes, have it managed more by the states, with the fed providing some regulation. However, I would like the idea of being able to opt out this plan though.Turquoise wrote:
Same here man... I'd rather give my money to Raleigh than to D.C., hence my support for state involvement. I'd assume you trust Tallahassee more than D.C. as well.Kmarion wrote:
I just do not have it in me to give any more power/money to the crooks in DC. UHC works in Europe because they do it on a smaller scale. We might be able to as well on a state level. We would need to cut out some of the pork in the Federal system. That might reduce federal taxes so that the average Joe can afford the inevitable increase in state taxes. Something to ponder at least.
But this is in a perfect world, and it's not. If unfunded promises like social security and Medicare are accounted for, it totals to about $400,000 per household in debt. Do we really want the government, state and federal, baby sitting us from cradle to grave? Can we implement a plan to make the government more efficient?
Xbone Stormsurgezz