I donít address the need for single payer healthcare, because I think the forum must be decided, first. Should enough of the People find it within the legitimate interests of Congressional control, I contend those people should follow the amendment process. Until then, each State, county, municipality, etc should have the choice to enact or reject its own program. Should the experiment of such be found effective, other states can witness the resounding success, convincing them such a plan benefits them. Moreover, the state-by-state competition allows the People a manner by which to compare the real-world quality and impact of such plans, before deciding which is better, if any at all. It is then the forum can be expanded, only after the experiment has been proven worthwhile within our system of governance.
Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis is famous for his dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, oft called ďLaboratories of Democracy
It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.
point to other countries as examples of these laboratories, the comparison falls short. Our government, its rules, and the composition of our nationís heritage differs than those other countries. While such countries may inspire states of a similar bent to follow their plans, it is hardly a just comparison to state the entirety of the states must plunge into the murky waters of such a plan. This holds doubly true when one considers our legal history and the requirements placed upon our Federal government. Ultimately, the move towards a single-payer system lies in the hands of the States, or the People. Taking another path subverts and short-circuits the nature of our countryís policies. Perhaps itís a city v. countryside issue, but that is in the realm of another post.