Federal Safety Nets vs. state rights

I've found the Republican positions on the Affordable Care Act specifically and safety net programs in general to be confusing and inconsistent. Most or all Republican presidential contenders, depending on the issue, have claimed that programs such as Social Security, Medicaid or health care insurance should be run by the states rather than the federal government.

Firstly, I don't know how these programs could ever be managed by the states. In the case of social security, how would the situation where someone worked and paid into a retirement fund in several northern states be administered when the retiree moved to Florida upon their retirement? What would stop someone in one state from moving across the boarder into another state to take advantage of a more generous benefit? What would prevent a state which is required to have a balanced budget from promising benefits in the future that they couldn't afford.





In the case of social security, Romney deviates from the consensus and has stated that Social Security is a federal government responsibility while still claiming that health care should be a state responsibility. What is the difference.





Almost all Republican candidates believe that health care should be a state responsibility but support the continuation of Medicare which is a federal health care program. Why is there a difference. If the federal government can require that everyone with a paycheck contributes to the retirement health care program called Medicare then why is it unconstitutional to require that everyone buy pre-retirement health care insurance? In fact, everyone in the US already has medical insurance in that hospitals are required to provide life saving care regardless of whether the patient can pay. The only difference is that some people pay for their insurance and others don't. How can you argue that the commerce clause of the Constitution doesn't apply to a federal health care mandate when health care costs add perhaps $1,500 to the cost of every car made in Detroit when these cars are sold throughout the US and auto plants can be located in any state? Medicare for all would seem to be a major benefit to US manufacturers who are currently have high health care costs which drive up the price of their product which makes them less competitive compared to imports from countries which have national health care programs. If health care costs in each car produced represent a higher cost component than steel which is subject to the interstate commerce clause then why not a federal health care policy?

The Affordable Care Act was poor policy beacuse of the policy details but not because a federal health care policy is unconstitutional and not because it should be handled at the state level.

Death and Living

Having been involved in several memorials following a death in the family, I became curious about how different people respond to the loss of someone close. I noticed that those who were more religious seem to have a more difficult time dealing with the loss than the less devout. This was curious since I assumed that a christian who believed in an after life would find it easier to deal with the loss expecting to be reunited with the departed in the near future. For a christian, death is just a different stage of life rather than a definite end as it would be for an atheist.

One observation that may explain the difference is that it appears that chrisitans may have a crisis of faith caused by the death of someone close at a time when their faith would be expected to comfort them. It was common to hear christians question why such a good person was taken now rather than later or why the departed was put through such a painful experience. Christians believe that death and living are guided by some master plan defined by their faith so the death was planned and required by their deity - there is someone/something to blame. Atheists see no mater plan and accept that death is just part of life, that in a universe which is 13 billion years old that passing this year or next is inconsequential and that biology, physics and probability dictate the eventual demise of everything that lives.

The bottom line is that it appears that a christian has to deal with two simultaneous blows - the passing of a loved one and a crisis of faith while an atheist only has to deal with one.