Green Party for decentralization?

[canis582]

Would socialized healthcare on the state level be considered decentralization?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Would socialized healthcare on the state level be considered decentralization?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It would even be fine if states went together on some multi-state plans. Like Cali, Oregon and Washington as an example.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. It would even be fine if states went together on some multi-state plans. Like Cali, Oregon and Washington as an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, man--doing things on a state level is obviously superior than doing things on a national level, but I would hope decentralization wouldn't stop at the state level...

[canis582]

Decentralization isn't gonna catch on because people in america don't think independently. They need the NYT, ABC or whoever to tell them what to think.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Decentralization isn't gonna catch on because people in america don't think independently. They need the NYT, ABC or whoever to tell them what to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or DailyConspiracyNut.com for your case.

[Case Closed]

My apologies fore the use of Universal Health Care as an example. I was about to leave for a plenary meeting as I wrote that post. I will try and be more exact as to why the Green Party does not want to join the libertarians.

1. We are a party with our own set of ideals that do not mesh with the other non republocrats. I tried to use health care as an idea...but I don't know the full extent of what the party believes on universal health care. I know we have passed resolutions about what we support in the past but I don't feel expert enough to comment on those right now. Other issues like gun control or any social program in general. The green party thinks they should exist...libertarians don't.

2. We have been hard at work building our own party structure. Putting out a conglomorate 3rd party candidate would have no chance of winning the support of the base and no chance of improving out organization.

One thing people may not think of is ballot access. Some states require insane signature requirements to just get onto the ballot. We have fought hard to get the ones we have and want the presidential election to expand those current ones. If we all combine for a candidate we can not be assured that our ballot lines would be secure or even if they would improve for the next election if we were to get the 5% needed.

3. We use the presidential election as a means to improve local parties. We are not delusional and think we can take the election in 2008. Our main goal is to get the 5% to open ballot lines across the country for the party. Another goal is for the candidate to travel the country and improve state and local green parties as best they can.

my computer battery is about to die...i'll try and respond to some more stuff later if anyone is interested.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. It would even be fine if states went together on some multi-state plans. Like Cali, Oregon and Washington as an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, man--doing things on a state level is obviously superior than doing things on a national level, but I would hope decentralization wouldn't stop at the state level...

[/ QUOTE ]

Some states it would, some states it wouldn't. That's the entire point. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
My apologies fore the use of Universal Health Care as an example. I was about to leave for a plenary meeting as I wrote that post. I will try and be more exact as to why the Green Party does not want to join the libertarians.

1. We are a party with our own set of ideals that do not mesh with the other non republocrats. I tried to use health care as an idea...but I don't know the full extent of what the party believes on universal health care. I know we have passed resolutions about what we support in the past but I don't feel expert enough to comment on those right now. Other issues like gun control or any social program in general. The green party thinks they should exist...libertarians don't.

2. We have been hard at work building our own party structure. Putting out a conglomorate 3rd party candidate would have no chance of winning the support of the base and no chance of improving out organization.

One thing people may not think of is ballot access. Some states require insane signature requirements to just get onto the ballot. We have fought hard to get the ones we have and want the presidential election to expand those current ones. If we all combine for a candidate we can not be assured that our ballot lines would be secure or even if they would improve for the next election if we were to get the 5% needed.

3. We use the presidential election as a means to improve local parties. We are not delusional and think we can take the election in 2008. Our main goal is to get the 5% to open ballot lines across the country for the party. Another goal is for the candidate to travel the country and improve state and local green parties as best they can.

my computer battery is about to die...i'll try and respond to some more stuff later if anyone is interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I understand completely. The Greens have their heads stuck too deeply into the sand to realize that they're never going to make any headway with their extremist views (which they don't even realize are extremist) and understand that the only way they can get anything close to what they want is some sort of compromise. It's okay, though, the Libertarian Party is exactly the same. (as are the ACists for that matter)

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds nice but how does this jive with a national health care system?

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory the federal government would mandate that health care be accessible to all citizens (forget for a moment the legality of the federal government making such a decree). The states would be responsible for delivery of health care. Each state would have room to design their state plan to suit the needs or residents of that state, within limits defined by the federal government.

This is essentially how the Canadian system works. For what it's worth, the way this arrangement has escalated the conflict between the provincial and federal governments here in Canada is a not a good indication that this type of arrangement makes sense.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds nice but how does this jive with a national health care system?

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory the federal government would mandate that health care be accessible to all citizens (forget for a moment the legality of the federal government making such a decree). The states would be responsible for delivery of health care. Each state would have room to design their state plan to suit the needs or residents of that state, within limits defined by the federal government.

This is essentially how the Canadian system works. For what it's worth, the way this arrangement has escalated the conflict between the provincial and federal governments here in Canada is a not a good indication that this type of arrangement makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the federal government's mandating it, that's centralized.