Thereby making it grossly inefficient

Individuals do know better than the Government central planners.

You know.. The Libertarian idea of.... Thousands of different individuals deciding their own fate, not decided by a central planner.

There is no "one size fits all"

Yet he fails to realise there IS a "one size fits most"

gee, if only we had a political system where those individuals could represent their peers in said central planning.

No

a sort of participatory system

That still is one size fits all

Idiot

gee, if only we had one of those

You just adjust the size

Based on votes

You don't have representatives in univsersal healtcare.

It's not democracy.

Even if you did, it still is a one size fits all system

<:brainlet:505799727657254922>

You get it in there by democracy, but after that it's all Bureaucracy.

And will always be inflexible

federally perhaps not, but certainly a state or even municiple system

Which is still one size fits all

Delegated locally

But then we move the goal post, you wanted a federal bill of Univsersal Healthcare.

You realize that people in the same area can still have radically different needs?

I thikn Coolitic is ok with state one.

And yeah

[News]
Priests accused of sex abuse turned to under-the-radar group
> https://www.klfy.com/news/priests-accused-of-sex-abuse-turned-to-under-the-radar-group/

That isnt even universal

That's state or municipal

I'm ok with states doing it optionally

I wanted a system of a central insurer funded by taxes. exactly *how* central is open for discussion

I think everyone is ok with state one.

Because I'm ok with states doing almost anything optionally

State one is better than federal.

TBH, USA is too big, pays are way different in too many places.

Federal will be better than state..

living costs, too

Just imagine someone from Kansas paying the same amount of shit as the San Francisco.

There needs to be *some* federal baseline

yeah, state should be the jumping off point.

It needs to be state.