re: #328 reine.de.tout

In the context of the conversation we were having the question was idiotic.
I did indeed present an alternative suggestion, based on state-run (rather than federal run) programs to care for the indigent and uninsured. I happen to hold the view that states can develop their own programs to handle this situation without massive federal legislation being required.

James seemed to believe that this somehow meant I wanted people to die rather than get care. How he got there from what I said, I don’t know. But he asked the stupid idiotic question intended to box me in as some sort of heartless GOPer, and I responded civilly. Not with an idiotic question of my own.

Got it?

Yup. I disagree, of course, since the pursuit of the 50-state-plans unicorn doesn’t seem all that likely to be successful (read: never gonna happen), and since it’s still the govmint doing the insuring, I don’t understand how this makes small government advocates happy, but there’s nothing immediately inconsistent with the view that I can see.