Traditional Chinese Medicine Guide

@ dumais_s. Hello to you. Your comment (very interesting, for that matter) raises two issues are closely linked: State autonomy and the nature of universal or near universal health care system. Belching in their denunciation of government intervention, the Tea Partiers address exclusively to target the central government in the American federation. However, in my opinion, there is a fundamental contradiction in the “political philosophy of the movement – also ironic that frankly that is the subject of articles in the NYT – and it is this: first, the Tea Partiers are constantly addressing the Great Satan that is the federal government and, secondly, they are eager advocates of autonomy if the sovereignty of states. Ms. Palin is a good example in this regard. What Tea Partiers and politicians who support this movement want, basically, is a return to the U.S. before the 1787 Constitution, namely a country where central government is entirely beholden to constituent states. A country where all power into the hands of states, including defense, foreign policy and all domestic policy.
Can we imagine for a moment what this would look like if all countries policies must be inter-state agreements? Yes, we can as it existed in the U.S. for ten years after the War of Independence. And this country was ungovernable and frankly it would never have elevated to that we know. Moreover, as you point out in your comment, Massachusetts has a universal healthcare system, but not Texas. Like its predecessor, there were segregationist States and States which were not. In the absence of a central government that can help instill a sense of nationhood in this country (the Americans consider themselves not primarily as Americans first and foremost, is something that goes beyond States?) and contribute to greater justice (eg health care, education, civil rights, etc..), the injustices would be even more important. In short, yes to state autonomy, but not to the point that the central government impotent. The fathers of the U.S. federation saw it as the system of “checks and balances they created was not confined to the three major powers (Executive, Legislative and Judiciary), but it also aimed to ensure a balance powers between state and national government authorities.
Regarding the universality or near universal health system, as you know, the Canadian system is much more restrictive than the U.S.. Indeed, Bill C-3 forced the provinces to meet certain provisions, failing which the Supreme Court invalidate certain provincial laws that contain provisions contrary. The Canadian system is a straitjacket that discourages provinces to adopt any initiative that could improve the efficiency of the health system. However, in practice, a two-tier system exists in certain areas to certain types of care that can be given in private clinics. Because of phenomena such as aging population will generate an explosion of costs related to long-term care, a shortage of staff (health professionals are often exhausted to the point that a growing number of they resigned), issues related to recognition of qualifications for practitioners who had studied abroad, to the plight of some hospitals and the gradual obsolescence of many medical devices, it will eventually reopen this issue in Canada and in-depth review of Canadian law to adapt to these new realities. Regarding the U.S. and particularly the reform of Obama, it creates a little more justice or equality of opportunity where there was none. This reform is certainly imperfect, but it is a country in the right direction ie towards achieving greater justice in health care. In a case like this where people’s health is at stake, the federal government has not only the opportunity to intervene (recognized by the courts), but also the moral obligation to do so, especially since several States never will.