re: #292 Daniel Ballard

You said “ideal level”. My point is preferable, not ideal

Okay, why is it preferable to do on the state level when there’s such massive differences between that as a demographic marker?

.We have discussed this before. You may recall a point I made my vote is one of far fewer here at home compared to a national election. Among a few other points.

None of which matter here. You’re not addressing the simple problem that ‘state-level’ might mean 39 million people or 400,000 people— yet you’re trying to say state level is preferable for demographics.

You were and are unconvinced, I get it. Do we really need to re cover that ground every time an enumerated powers issue is at hand or the commerce clause?

I will continue to bring it up until you actually answer the central problem with arguments that things should be done at the state level: Why is the state-level good? A demographic argument will never, ever make sense because the demographics between states vary too wildly. It can’t simultaneously be preferable that an insurance plan cover 39 million people and that an insurance plan cover 400,000 people.