, the party line on the Massachusetts health care plan is that it was "right for the state, but would not be right for the nation." (paraphrasing from memory)
I'm actually in partial agreement. The health care act that Obama championed is
a pretty big change, and arguably better made at the state level. The problem is that Medicare and Medicaid make state-only approaches immediately inefficient. For a relatively wealthy state like MA, this is problematic, but workable. For poorer states, like AL or MI, it's a nonstarter.
A potential alternate solution would have been to transfer funding for the existing national healthcare systems to the states, with the proviso that they must provide broad coverage via some combination of public and private tools.
That might have worked. A NHS-like system might have worked. But now, we have "Obamacare" in place. My question is, is it so flawed that repealing it is worth losing its protections for those who cannot afford healthcare, or have pre-existing conditions? If so, what, specifically is the flaw in the national plan that will play out so
badly on the national scale? I'm not sure I'm seeing it.