Well Carol as Kerr, Mills proved states aren't better at dispensing funds. Only 28 out of 50 states even bothered to set up programs and in those that did only a fraction of those eligible for benefits saw any under that program and were subject to intrusive means testing and in some states their houses could be seized after their deaths to recover costs. In some states recipients were limited to what doctors they could see and what medical facilities they could use. So no Carol, no reasonable person would prefer a state run system.<quoted text>
Would you rather the federal government with all the wasteful spending and lack of oversight make your health care decisions for you - much less the IRS for cryin' out loud?
Or - if these programs are part of the landscape anyway - states decide and manage that money on a local level and on an as needed basis?
Which one would waste more money? Which one would manage it more effectively?
Any reasonable person would choose the states. But I know you like to argue. So go ahead and tell me why the federal government would manage our health care better and why that makes you smarter than me.
The government doesn't make health care decisions for you twit, that's between you and your health care provider. My late mother was on Medicare for 20 years and not once was there any problems with what treatments, tests, procedures or medications she needed. The only thing that the IRS wants to know is if you have coverage. Period. They have no interest beyond that point.
Your ignorant paranoia about the government proves that my cats are smarter than you.