[kulahan]

If you watch modern American politics, the President has vastly more power than he was ever meant to be, combined with a house and senate that follow his wishes to the T.

Why would we allow the president to do that? Because at some point in the last 300 years we decided it was a necessary power for him to get past some crisis, and no President ever relinquishes power.

[thankyoufriend]

No disagreement from me. I just think that the argument that the state shouldn't offer Healthcare because the president could cancel it is interesting to think about. Maybe I misunderstood you, but that's how I interpreted it. As the other poster said, he's basically canceling it now anyway for millions of people so it seems to me that presidentual power is irrelevant to the concept of state run Healthcare. Sent from my bidet.

[kulahan]

I kept it pretty vague intentionally because I was simply complaining about how dangerous that one particular thing would be right now. I'm undecided on how the overall healthcare issue should be attacked.

[thankyoufriend]

I just want people to be open to try things. One thing that this administration has proved is that you can actually make parts of the government move faster, for better or for worse. We stopped innovating on democratic ideals, and the world is starting to lose faith in us. I think we all feel that on some level.

[kulahan]

Agreed, but change is very scary to many, many people. It's hard to convince them to try new things. It might be less frictional to simply explain how "actually new thing" is pretty much the same as "old broken thing".

With that being said, the major problem I have with pretty much all candidates is that they just campaign on an end goal, rather than a process. Yes, we all want to "tax the rich", but what does that look like in reality? Are we sending out wealth assessors? Are we requiring new reporting? Are we doing something else? (this is just an example that can be applied to just about any major political platform today)