Management of Issues on a Large Scale (with an intro regarding health care)
Over the years, I've been reading and watching stuff regarding on how our government and others are run. Like today, I was linked to a Xanga blog of a person who has a conservative leaning. The person made some decent points, but also said some things that made me go, "Uh...okay..." Among the arguments is the passing of the Obama administration's health care reform (which I'll refer to as "HRC" for the rest of the post). A common issue I notice among vocal opponents to HRC is that, among other things, they don't agree with it because that means the government has a much bigger say in health care. However, I what don't see is the alternatives to the Obama administration's version of it--just simply that it's wrong.
So I ask those who are against the HRC, "If it's a bad idea, what do you propose would be better idea for better and cheaper health care?"
Please refrain from answers such as, "Git a second or third job, ya' bum!"
"I don't know" is a valid answer due to the sheer complexity of the issue. However, if you're one who likes to scream from the rooftops that Obama's HRC is a bad idea, you must have a great alternative. One that's guaranteed to work. Correct?
This brings me to another part. The conservative person also mentioned that basically "Big Government is Bad." There were actually a few points that I agreed on as to why a too large of a government can have too much control over its populace. The person obviously desired wanting much less government involvement. I was wondering if she wanted it set to where the county and states mostly govern themselves with a few federal rules up top.
But then I realized something. "Small" (read: not heavily federally controlled) government seemingly worked pretty well with smaller populations--such as when our country first started. In 1776, the population was around 2.5 million including slaves (and I assume NOT including the Native Americans). The first document we tried to use for our country was the Articles of Confederation. This document actually gave more power to the states. However, after several issues including Shays' Rebellion, the document was revised into the Constitution we have today. That allowed the shift of more power to federal side while (hopefully) not having too much control. Along with quite a few amendments, it was worked well enough over the years.
However, now we have a population of 300+ million people and rising. So is it really possible to shift the power back to states where they can run themselves with less government oversight? Can each of the 50 states pass laws to limit how much private insurance companies can charge their clients and make sure the policies don't dramatically change when moving from one county and/or state to the other? Plus, these private national and international companies are sometimes seemingly their own governments in terms of dictating how much people across the nation(s) should be charged.
I'm not sure if some people realize this, but managing a large population is much more difficult than a small one. So would it make sense for our federal government to step up and say, "Uh...you insurance companies. Y'all charging too much. Stop it?" Or should such a thing be left to each individual state to deal with how they choose? And yet somehow make each state's policy work in another state? There's a term for making state laws work from state-to-state, but it escapes me at the moment.
P.S.
This is somewhat related to all of this...but I get this feeling people feel so overwhelmed with "Everyday Life" that they don't want to think. They just want things done. They want to get up, go to work, get paid, go home, (spend time with family), and wash-rinse-repeat. If something goes wrong, then they ask for a quick fix for cheap with no hassle. Just imagine the sheer logistics involved with making a system like that work for all 300+ million people.
So I ask those who are against the HRC, "If it's a bad idea, what do you propose would be better idea for better and cheaper health care?"
Please refrain from answers such as, "Git a second or third job, ya' bum!"
"I don't know" is a valid answer due to the sheer complexity of the issue. However, if you're one who likes to scream from the rooftops that Obama's HRC is a bad idea, you must have a great alternative. One that's guaranteed to work. Correct?
This brings me to another part. The conservative person also mentioned that basically "Big Government is Bad." There were actually a few points that I agreed on as to why a too large of a government can have too much control over its populace. The person obviously desired wanting much less government involvement. I was wondering if she wanted it set to where the county and states mostly govern themselves with a few federal rules up top.
But then I realized something. "Small" (read: not heavily federally controlled) government seemingly worked pretty well with smaller populations--such as when our country first started. In 1776, the population was around 2.5 million including slaves (and I assume NOT including the Native Americans). The first document we tried to use for our country was the Articles of Confederation. This document actually gave more power to the states. However, after several issues including Shays' Rebellion, the document was revised into the Constitution we have today. That allowed the shift of more power to federal side while (hopefully) not having too much control. Along with quite a few amendments, it was worked well enough over the years.
However, now we have a population of 300+ million people and rising. So is it really possible to shift the power back to states where they can run themselves with less government oversight? Can each of the 50 states pass laws to limit how much private insurance companies can charge their clients and make sure the policies don't dramatically change when moving from one county and/or state to the other? Plus, these private national and international companies are sometimes seemingly their own governments in terms of dictating how much people across the nation(s) should be charged.
I'm not sure if some people realize this, but managing a large population is much more difficult than a small one. So would it make sense for our federal government to step up and say, "Uh...you insurance companies. Y'all charging too much. Stop it?" Or should such a thing be left to each individual state to deal with how they choose? And yet somehow make each state's policy work in another state? There's a term for making state laws work from state-to-state, but it escapes me at the moment.
P.S.
This is somewhat related to all of this...but I get this feeling people feel so overwhelmed with "Everyday Life" that they don't want to think. They just want things done. They want to get up, go to work, get paid, go home, (spend time with family), and wash-rinse-repeat. If something goes wrong, then they ask for a quick fix for cheap with no hassle. Just imagine the sheer logistics involved with making a system like that work for all 300+ million people.