Pilot Programs

1. 75

   Valeantposted 3 years ago

   Wouldn't it be a better idea to start with one or two states, states that actually agree with the philosophies, with some of these large national programs and see the outcomes before nationalizing them.  Sort of what Romneycare did before becoming nationalized Obamacare?
   
   That way, the budgets and positive/negative outcomes could be analyzed on a smaller scale before being foisted on the entirety of the nation.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      In theory it sounds good, but I see some problems.  Some examples:
      
      Alabama doesn't like abortions, so let them ban all abortions.  There are fewer abortions performed; make it the law in all states.
      
      California agrees it could lower speed limits and the death toll on the highways goes down.  Make Montana, Wyoming and all other states lower the speed limit to 55.
      
      New Jersey doesn't like guns; ban all guns in New Jersey.  The suicide rate goes down and there is one fewer mass shootings than last year in that state while also noting that while the homicide rate did not change gun homicides fell.  Ban all guns in Utah, Colorado and Idaho and limit hunting to bows and arrows in the expectation that homicide rates will fall there because gun homicide rates fell in New Jersey.
      
      In all three cases a state that likes the concept is then used to force it onto all states - states that don't like the idea and don't want it.  The goal is not something the rest of the states want for themselves.
      
      In addition, look at the last one, on guns.  You can expect that the statistical result will be twisted and deformed to prove that the goal was met (one few mass shooting means absolutely nothing), and the results applied to all states.  This is how we operate today; if results are not what was desired then expect to see lies, spin, false information and partial information as "proof" that it did work.
      
      So...while it sounds good it would, IMO, be used to force unwanted programs onto states that don't want it.  The results of a pilot program are NOT suitable for all states, and will be different in other states.  Limiting the speed limit in LA will not produce the same effect as in Montana; you can't go over 40 MPH in LA anyway!  Likewise, limiting it in California, with packed, winding roads through forested areas will not produce the same effect as doing so in Montana or Texas with empty straight miles of freeway.
      
      Finally, we already have exactly this.  Alabama already limits abortions.  NJ already limits guns.  California speed limits are already lower than some states.  There is no reason or need to make all states follow the same law except to enforce a concept they do not embrace.

      replyreport