I think a federal research hospital (via PHS) in every state, should be considered a States' right. It would not only provide for the general welfare, but could also enable advances in technology that can help create better products at lower cost to the individual consumer.

And a pony. Everyone should get a pony. Either that, or a mini-bike. You should have your choice. A pony, or a mini-bike.

You are more than welcome to argue a better point of view. I think a federal research hospital system (as part of the federal PHS) would provide for the general welfare and potentially lower public and private health care costs.

With a federal PHS research hospital in each state, what would be wrong with extending only catastrophic coverage and eliminating official poverty, as an opportunity cost?

I want Pamela Anderson. I'll hold my breath till I turn blue

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

You are more than welcome to argue a better point of view. I think a federal research hospital system (as part of the federal PHS) would provide for the general welfare and potentially lower public and private health care costs.

With a federal PHS research hospital in each state, what would be wrong with establishing a "Standard of Weights and Measures" concerning a minimum requirement (e.g. only catastrophic coverage) and eliminating official poverty, as an opportunity cost that will help stimulate any given money-based, mixed-market, political-economy?

Having recourse to the latest research on health care issues in every state would reduce that burden on the private sector in every state as well; while requiring labor that can command prevailing market based wages.

How would less well regulated public health care be any better?

daniel,

My apologies for being glib. It's just that I don't think it's the job of government, especially federal government, to fill the role of "provider". It's not just that I don't think it's their responsibility - I don't want them involved in our lives in that way. I realize I'm in the minority on this, lately anyway, but I want a government that establishes basic rules for society so that we can get along and otherwise leaves us alone.

Regardless of how you interpret the "general welfare" clause of the constitution, I don't think it was intended to be the "wild card" that it's become. Certainly not to the point that three fourths of the federal government would go away if it weren't present.

I also don't understand the idea of political "rights" that entail a specific product or service be provided. Political rights, in my understanding, are freedoms, not claims on goods and services. A federal hospital in every state might have some good consequence. But I have a hard time seeing how it could be considered a "right" in any way.

The discussion about healthcare is many facited. The argument that the government is all bad or can't do anything correct is knee-jerk and silly. I have seen in my own community where garbage collection was taken away from City employees and given to the private sector. The reults have been inferior service in every respect. This neither proves or disproves anything except that simple generalizations turned into silly platitudes are pointless.

I believe that some form of serious, available healthcare for all citizens would actually spark the economy. We all know people that can't leave thier jobs because either they or a family member has a health condition. I know several people who would and could start and run a small business, but who can't give up thier health care.

I certainly gripe about government at all levels but there are plenty of examples of successfull government programs. WW2 comes to mind, polio vacintions, hunting and fishing regulations have for the most part saved wildlife. I can't accept that Americans, if we work together, can't solve this.

I hope you're not referring to my post, because that's not the point at all. I'm not griping about government's efficiency or its ability to perform this or that task.

The concept of limited government, far from a silly platitude, was one of the most profound insights of the framers of the constitution. They believed the primary purpose of the government was to keep us free, not take care of us. Further, they recognized that a government that sought the latter role would be in direct conflict with the former.

I am referring to already existing infrastructure, and its potential development to each of the several States, in order to better reduce those costs to the private sector.

A more well informed electorate could make our government more responsive and market friendly, and compatible with our existing social contract.

I think it could be considered a States' right to have that service in every state. How many states do not have at least one military base?

Arizona has a thing or two to say about health care. They have approved the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). It will be put on the 2010 ballot and will constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system. If passed by the people each resident of AZ could opt out of ObamaCare if it comes to a point where the federal government takes over the whole system, which is the direction they want to take this.

Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming are considering similar things and if this goes by the way of other States Rights issues that have been passed over the last nine months, I'll bet as many as 30 states will follow suit.

Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification|Tenth Amendment Center

__________________
You do realize you are arguing with a mindless vegetable, don't you?

Nice to see states finally standing up for their rights. Id like to see the federal govt try and enforce their mandates. They just need to realize that people dont want to told what to do.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

A federal research hospital in each state could be accomplished by the general government of the Union.

What I find inspiring is that states are finally starting to realize that federal funds aren't "free" and seem to be more willing to turn down federal funding in favor of maintaining some degree of independence.

I'm with you on that one.