Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[SAYIT]

INEPTOCRACY - (Noun) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

That's exactly what the communist said years ago. The Americans will spend themselves to death. In a Democratic form of government the people get what they want even it's bad for them.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

• The earliest known attribution of this quote was December 9, 1951, in what appears to be an op-ed piece in The Daily Oklahoman under the byline Elmer T. Peterson, Elmer T. Peterson (9 December 1951). "This is the Hard Core of Freedom". Daily Oklahoman: p. 12A.. The quote has not been found in Tytler's work. It has also been attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville.
• There are many variants circulating with various permutations of majority, voters, citizens, or public. Ronald Reagan is known to have used this in speeches, as reported in Loren Collins, "The Truth About Tytler":
• Other variants:
  The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.
  The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Alexander Fraser Tytler - Wikiquote

 

[Conservative65]

The likelihood of reducing any employees to part time is ZERO. Perhaps you didn't see what the nature of the business happens to be. Doing something like that would be far more detrimental but I understand that those with a lack of knowledge in that area would think it would be considered.

First responders frequently have their hours (and sometimes their numbers) cut for budgetary reasons. If yours has not had to do so previously, they're among the lucky ones.

In the county where I live, we have approximately 30 fire departments. While, through agreements, each department will share equipment and cooperate should an incident occur needing more resources than the one jurisdiction where it happens is able to provide, each department is administratively, organizationally, and financially separate. That means, except for the municipalities within the county lines where a city council runs the show, there are boards in existence much like the one where I serve for their respective departments. While I am a commissioner, I am also a volunteer for the department and have been for over 20 years. I have lived in the community as long as I can remember. The department has grown from what once was volunteer only to what it is today. Not once since I've been a part of it has cutting hours or numbers been considered. In fact, since we have a county-wide association made up of those in similar positions as myself and we meet once/month, I can say that NONE of the departments have considered doing that.

It's not a matter of luck. It's a matter of good financial planning. We haven't cut a single thing for the members and have very little turnover. I grew up with many of those that are career members of the department as we all started as volunteers around the same time.

 

[Conservative65]

I serve as an elected commissioner for the local fire department where I live. One of the biggest expenses we have is insurance. I'm not on it as the position is non-compensated by pay or benefits. I've checked. You don't have to believe me for it to be true but your refusal to do so because you disagree is that of a typical Democrat. Still claiming you aren't one?

I am registered as unaffiliated. Always have been. Your repeated use of "Democrat" as if it's something illicit is your perception and nothing else. Constantly harping on it undermines your credibility.

As for your local fire department, if it employs fewer than 49 people, it's exempt from the PPACA mandate. As a board member, you should be aware of that.

Oh, right. Cause Public education has been such a rousing sucess... LOL

Do you think a national education system would be preferable?

A better question is do YOU think one is preferable? If so, where do you find the federal government's Constitutional authority to do so.

 

[Arianrhod]

I serve as an elected commissioner for the local fire department where I live. One of the biggest expenses we have is insurance. I'm not on it as the position is non-compensated by pay or benefits. I've checked. You don't have to believe me for it to be true but your refusal to do so because you disagree is that of a typical Democrat. Still claiming you aren't one?

I am registered as unaffiliated. Always have been. Your repeated use of "Democrat" as if it's something illicit is your perception and nothing else. Constantly harping on it undermines your credibility.

As for your local fire department, if it employs fewer than 49 people, it's exempt from the PPACA mandate. As a board member, you should be aware of that.

Oh, right. Cause Public education has been such a rousing sucess... LOL

Do you think a national education system would be preferable?

A better question is do YOU think one is preferable? If so, where do you find the federal government's Constitutional authority to do so.

Hadn't really thought about it.

 

[LOki]

I serve as an elected commissioner for the local fire department where I live. One of the biggest expenses we have is insurance. I'm not on it as the position is non-compensated by pay or benefits. I've checked. You don't have to believe me for it to be true but your refusal to do so because you disagree is that of a typical Democrat. Still claiming you aren't one?

I am registered as unaffiliated. Always have been. Your repeated use of "Democrat" as if it's something illicit is your perception and nothing else. Constantly harping on it undermines your credibility.

As for your local fire department, if it employs fewer than 49 people, it's exempt from the PPACA mandate. As a board member, you should be aware of that.

Oh, right. Cause Public education has been such a rousing sucess... LOL

Do you think a national education system would be preferable?

Once, in an on-line community comprised mostly of folks from the liberal/leftist/Democratic bent of the political spectrum, I sailed out the notion that public schools should only be military academies.

I thought the resultant melee would be hilarious.

I postulated that there would be plenty of private education opportunities to choose from for obvious reasons; all competing for tuitions by increasing quality and lowering costs, in accordance with well established economic principles. Education would be of better quality and lower cost.

We could then fully embrace private education, while allowing for tuition-free options for those unable (or un-willing) to afford private tuitions--but this tax-payer subsidized education would come out of the DOD budget.

The problem of discipline in the military academies would be minimized by the typical time-tested military measures: e.g. mandatory uniform (courtesy of the DOD) dress code, rigid codes of conduct, respect for authority, etc...

Military schools would certainly focus on those values esteemed in the military--respect for your superiors, loyalty and duty to your country and peers, disciplined behavior, physical fitness--but also the academic values of excellent communication, math, and science skills.

All vocations utilized by the military would be offered to students--without any requirement that they be applied to military service--fulfilling (to the extent a student is capable) the requisite academic skills for being an effective plumber, carpenter, electrician, heavy equipment operator, teamster, mechanic, doctor, nurse, lawyer, engineer, etc...

The least capable students would graduate with the ability to make a bed precisely, attend to their basic personal hygiene, and operate under the hierarchy of superiors. They'd be better prepared for soldiering, if nothing else.

Excellence in everything (from discipline to academics) in the Private Schools would be facilitated by the real (and economically attractive) threat of Military school.

The real funny thing was, there was no hilarious melee.

 

[Conservative65]

I serve as an elected commissioner for the local fire department where I live. One of the biggest expenses we have is insurance. I'm not on it as the position is non-compensated by pay or benefits. I've checked. You don't have to believe me for it to be true but your refusal to do so because you disagree is that of a typical Democrat. Still claiming you aren't one?

I am registered as unaffiliated. Always have been. Your repeated use of "Democrat" as if it's something illicit is your perception and nothing else. Constantly harping on it undermines your credibility.

As for your local fire department, if it employs fewer than 49 people, it's exempt from the PPACA mandate. As a board member, you should be aware of that.

Oh, right. Cause Public education has been such a rousing sucess... LOL

Do you think a national education system would be preferable?

A better question is do YOU think one is preferable? If so, where do you find the federal government's Constitutional authority to do so.

Hadn't really thought about it.

There are plenty that have and think it should be done that way. However, I haven't had one yet to show me where the federal government has Constitutional authority to do it.

 

[Arianrhod]

I serve as an elected commissioner for the local fire department where I live. One of the biggest expenses we have is insurance. I'm not on it as the position is non-compensated by pay or benefits. I've checked. You don't have to believe me for it to be true but your refusal to do so because you disagree is that of a typical Democrat. Still claiming you aren't one?

I am registered as unaffiliated. Always have been. Your repeated use of "Democrat" as if it's something illicit is your perception and nothing else. Constantly harping on it undermines your credibility.

As for your local fire department, if it employs fewer than 49 people, it's exempt from the PPACA mandate. As a board member, you should be aware of that.

Oh, right. Cause Public education has been such a rousing sucess... LOL

Do you think a national education system would be preferable?

A better question is do YOU think one is preferable? If so, where do you find the federal government's Constitutional authority to do so.

Hadn't really thought about it.

There are plenty that have and think it should be done that way. However, I haven't had one yet to show me where the federal government has Constitutional authority to do it.

Then I guess you'd better take it up with them.

 

[oldsoul]

This sounds like a great idea, LOki. Only thing I would add is, I wish I had thought it up.

 

[Arianrhod]

Once, in an on-line community comprised mostly of folks from the liberal/leftist/Democratic bent of the political spectrum, I sailed out the notion that public schools should only be military academies.

I thought the resultant melee would be hilarious.

I postulated that there would be plenty of private education opportunities to choose from for obvious reasons; all competing for tuitions by increasing quality and lowering costs, in accordance with well established economic principles. Education would be of better quality and lower cost.

We could then fully embrace private education, while allowing for tuition-free options for those unable (or un-willing) to afford private tuitions--but this tax-payer subsidized education would come out of the DOD budget.

The problem of discipline in the military academies would be minimized by the typical time-tested military measures: e.g. mandatory uniform (courtesy of the DOD) dress code, rigid codes of conduct, respect for authority, etc...

Military schools would certainly focus on those values esteemed in the military--respect for your superiors, loyalty and duty to your country and peers, disciplined behavior, physical fitness--but also the academic values of excellent communication, math, and science skills.

All vocations utilized by the military would be offered to students--without any requirement that they be applied to military service--fulfilling (to the extent a student is capable) the requisite academic skills required for being an effective plumber, carpenter, electrician, heavy equipment operator, teamster, mechanic, doctor, nurse, lawyer, engineer, etc...

The least capable students would graduate with the ability to make a bed precisely, attend to their basic personal hygiene, and operate under the hierarchy of superiors. They'd be better prepared for soldiering, if nothing else.

Excellence in everything (from disciple to academics) in the Private Schools would be facilitated by the real (and economically attractive) threat of Military school.

The real funny thing was, there was no hilarious melee.

Interesting, and well thought out. Thing is, you'd need a provision for kids with disabilities who couldn't fulfill the fitness requirements.

You'd also catch holy hell from the homeschoolers and the "evolution is just a theory" crowd and the abstinence-only crowd (quite a lot of overlap there), and constant efforts to force Christian teachings into the curriculum.

Still, I've always thought a mandatory service year after high school (something akin to the Peace Corps or Vista) would be a good thing. Give kids a chance to mature before they started college or trade school or entered the job market, as well as a chance to travel and do public service.

Any time I've suggested it, I've caught hell from conservatives. Go figure...

 

[LOki]

Once, in an on-line community comprised mostly of folks from the liberal/leftist/Democratic bent of the political spectrum, I sailed out the notion that public schools should only be military academies.

I thought the resultant melee would be hilarious.

I postulated that there would be plenty of private education opportunities to choose from for obvious reasons; all competing for tuitions by increasing quality and lowering costs, in accordance with well established economic principles. Education would be of better quality and lower cost.

We could then fully embrace private education, while allowing for tuition-free options for those unable (or un-willing) to afford private tuitions--but this tax-payer subsidized education would come out of the DOD budget.

The problem of discipline in the military academies would be minimized by the typical time-tested military measures: e.g. mandatory uniform (courtesy of the DOD) dress code, rigid codes of conduct, respect for authority, etc...

Military schools would certainly focus on those values esteemed in the military--respect for your superiors, loyalty and duty to your country and peers, disciplined behavior, physical fitness--but also the academic values of excellent communication, math, and science skills.

All vocations utilized by the military would be offered to students--without any requirement that they be applied to military service--fulfilling (to the extent a student is capable) the requisite academic skills required for being an effective plumber, carpenter, electrician, heavy equipment operator, teamster, mechanic, doctor, nurse, lawyer, engineer, etc...

The least capable students would graduate with the ability to make a bed precisely, attend to their basic personal hygiene, and operate under the hierarchy of superiors. They'd be better prepared for soldiering, if nothing else.

Excellence in everything (from disciple to academics) in the Private Schools would be facilitated by the real (and economically attractive) threat of Military school.

The real funny thing was, there was no hilarious melee.

Interesting, and well thought out.

Thanks.

But like I said, I was just hoping to kick an ant-hill--to watch the fun. Pure mischief.

That said, I have some seat of the pants responses to your commentary:

Thing is, you'd need a provision for kids with disabilities who couldn't fulfill the fitness requirements.

Two thoughts:

1. There's still the option of pretty affordable Private School for these folks. There's no reason private institutions could not provide (privately funded) tuition assistance and/or scholarships attached to any qualifications they deem suitable for their purposes.
2. The military has greater use/need for able minds than able bodies. And it's not as if these kids were actually joining the military anyway--they're just being educated by it.

You'd also catch holy hell from the homeschoolers and the "evolution is just a theory" crowd and the abstinence-only crowd (quite a lot of overlap there), and constant efforts to force Christian teachings into the curriculum.

That's what private school is for.

(And seriously, let them have their retarded schools steeped in superstition. When those unfortunate kids graduate with their useless "education", they can still join the military where they'll get their heads straightened out efficiently, or they'll be perfectly suited to be meat-shields for the more competent--and valuable--service members.)

Still, I've always thought a mandatory service year after high school (something akin to the Peace Corps or Vista) would be a good thing. Give kids a chance to mature before they started college or trade school or entered the job market, as well as a chance to travel and do public service.

Any time I've suggested it, I've caught hell from conservatives. Go figure...

Meh. I don't think folks around here consider me too terribly conservative.. you'd have to ask them though. But I'm apparently agreeing with them, but mostly on the basis that I'm not a big fan of anything that's simply compulsory. You know, potential anarchist and all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Arianrhod]

^I'm liking this more and more, especially given how incredibly WHINY some Millennials are. They suffer from what Louis CK calls "White People's Problems." (Not entirely their fault; most were raised by helicopter parents and given a trophy for showing up in grade school. They hit the job market and don't understand why they don't automatically get every job they apply for.)

 

[LOki]

^I'm liking this more and more, especially given how incredibly WHINY some Millennials are. They suffer from what Louis CK calls "White People's Problems." (Not entirely their fault; most were raised by helicopter parents and given a trophy for showing up in grade school. They hit the job market and don't understand why they don't automatically get every job they apply for.)

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Then require everyone to get auto insurance also even if they don't have a vehicle.

As soon as you require the noncorporeal to have health insurance.

I see... Just because they breath and may one day need to drive during an emergency you aren't going to force them to have insurance for that.

Hypocrite!

Hey, if you want to call your Congressman and demand insurance coverage for zombies, no one’s stopping you. OTOH, it might be more productive of you to look at the voting records of the current Presidential candidates and see who’s got the best record on veterans’ benefits.

Except of course three of them have no records because they’ve never been part of any governmental body ever. Well, maybe Carson did pro bono work at a VA hospital once; I’m sure that would be on his record.

I can see that you're having difficulties staying on track with this conversation since you now wish to deflect into other areas.

Did the logical fallacy that you used backfire on you?

That really is too bad.

*****CHUCKLE*****

just because they are breathing...

...and living in the U.S. and calling themselves "Americans" and expecting the privileges of being Americans. You keep leaving that part out. Why?

You're the one who's bringing it up...

What privileges are they being given that concerns you so much?

The privilege of seeking healthcare from an American clinic or hospital without a concomitant ability to pay for it.

What????? Do you work for the health care system and have one of these guys/gals come in and not pay for services rendered? Lot's of businesses have that happen to them. Screw this having to buy insurance or having a 'single payer system'...

The point you’re missing is that if more people have insurance, fewer people will kite without paying their bills. Hospital costs go down, hospitals don’t have to close or file for bankruptcy – win/win.

The same holds true for requiring everyone to purchase car insurance if they have an emergency and need to drive a vehicle.

I'm thinking everyone should be required to purchase a life insurance policy of at least $10,000 so they can't leave the government, or whoever, having to pay for the funeral costs.

Hey!!!!! We could create a whole new line of insurance policies that people are required by law to purchase like a extended home insurance policy to ensure they have shelter of some sort. How about a sustenance policy so they know their going to at least be able to purchase a Big Mac if they're hungry?

I think these ideas have a lot of merit... We could possibly do away with a lot of government programs and let private industry handle things like funerals, shelter, and sustenance, if everyone is required to carry insurance policies for those things.

Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.

Whatever system we end up with, we’ll have had the advantage of studying the existing systems in other countries and learning from their mistakes.

But you want health care for all don't you? Then we should nationalize the industry and have the government run it. It's for the 'General Welfare' of all isn't that the way you progressives put it? Then it should be for 'all'.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[dblack]

Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.

If we're going to make health care a government responsibility, that's the only sane way to do it. Or better yet, don't nationalize it, but rather handle it like we do state funded public education.

But that's where common sense gets in the way of underlying motives.

Oh, right. Cause Public education has been such a rousing sucess... LOL

I certainly don't think it would be a "rousing success", but it would be locally controlled and a let less likely to attract vultures.

 

[dblack]

What is your answer to those questions?

Practically all state constitutions or statutes make the states responsible for public education and also regularization of healthcare. Federal health and aid to education are justified through the general welfare clause.

I'm very much NOT interested in existing statutes or constitutional interpretations. Nor do I care about predictions of what is likely or politically possible. I'm asking if you think it's a good idea to use government in this way. Do you think it's good government? Do you understand why I think it's not?

Yes, because government exists to serve the people, not the privileged few who would benefit from lower cost government.

To serve them against their will?

Against whose will? Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs. 84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced. 48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps. Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.

Against whose will? According to your stats, anywhere from 16 to 60 percent of voters.

 

[dblack]

Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.

If we're going to make health care a government responsibility, that's the only sane way to do it. Or better yet, don't nationalize it, but rather handle it like we do state funded public education.

But that's where common sense gets in the way of underlying motives.

So healthcare should be funded by the states liked public education? Counties with the wealthiest property owners and the highest property taxes should have the best medical facilities as well as the best schools?

Yep. Rich people can afford better stuff. That won't change with PPACA. But localizing state healthcare, and making it a genuine government program rather than a money funnel for corporate interests, would give the people more direct control.

You know I'm opposed to any government control of our personal health care spending, but if we do go that direction, we can at least do it in a way that isn't a crass sellout.

 

[Arianrhod]

Then require everyone to get auto insurance also even if they don't have a vehicle.

As soon as you require the noncorporeal to have health insurance.

I see... Just because they breath and may one day need to drive during an emergency you aren't going to force them to have insurance for that.

Hypocrite!

Hey, if you want to call your Congressman and demand insurance coverage for zombies, no one’s stopping you. OTOH, it might be more productive of you to look at the voting records of the current Presidential candidates and see who’s got the best record on veterans’ benefits.

Except of course three of them have no records because they’ve never been part of any governmental body ever. Well, maybe Carson did pro bono work at a VA hospital once; I’m sure that would be on his record.

I can see that you're having difficulties staying on track with this conversation since you now wish to deflect into other areas.

Did the logical fallacy that you used backfire on you?

That really is too bad.

*****CHUCKLE*****

...and living in the U.S. and calling themselves "Americans" and expecting the privileges of being Americans. You keep leaving that part out. Why?

You're the one who's bringing it up...

What privileges are they being given that concerns you so much?

The privilege of seeking healthcare from an American clinic or hospital without a concomitant ability to pay for it.

What????? Do you work for the health care system and have one of these guys/gals come in and not pay for services rendered? Lot's of businesses have that happen to them. Screw this having to buy insurance or having a 'single payer system'...

The point you’re missing is that if more people have insurance, fewer people will kite without paying their bills. Hospital costs go down, hospitals don’t have to close or file for bankruptcy – win/win.

The same holds true for requiring everyone to purchase car insurance if they have an emergency and need to drive a vehicle.

I'm thinking everyone should be required to purchase a life insurance policy of at least $10,000 so they can't leave the government, or whoever, having to pay for the funeral costs.

Hey!!!!! We could create a whole new line of insurance policies that people are required by law to purchase like a extended home insurance policy to ensure they have shelter of some sort. How about a sustenance policy so they know their going to at least be able to purchase a Big Mac if they're hungry?

I think these ideas have a lot of merit... We could possibly do away with a lot of government programs and let private industry handle things like funerals, shelter, and sustenance, if everyone is required to carry insurance policies for those things.

Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.

Whatever system we end up with, we’ll have had the advantage of studying the existing systems in other countries and learning from their mistakes.

But you want health care for all don't you? Then we should nationalize the industry and have the government run it. It's for the 'General Welfare' of all isn't that the way you progressives put it? Then it should be for 'all'.

View attachment 53397

*****CHUCKLE*****

Lot of interesting ideas there. Each deserves a thread of its own. And I love that song - and the movie!

 

[Flopper]

Practically all state constitutions or statutes make the states responsible for public education and also regularization of healthcare. Federal health and aid to education are justified through the general welfare clause.

I'm very much NOT interested in existing statutes or constitutional interpretations. Nor do I care about predictions of what is likely or politically possible. I'm asking if you think it's a good idea to use government in this way. Do you think it's good government? Do you understand why I think it's not?

Yes, because government exists to serve the people, not the privileged few who would benefit from lower cost government.

To serve them against their will?

Against whose will? Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs. 84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced. 48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps. Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.

How many of those Americans not in favor of cutting social welfare programs benefit from social welfare programs?

Why would those who get the handouts support cutting them. To them, it's like having someone else's credit card. You get what you want and don't have to pay for it.

Because the poor are not all liberal Democrats particular in the rural areas of the Red States. They buy into the trickle down theory of economics fed to them by conservatives. If conservatives in congress start cutting government spending the working poor depends on, they can kiss goodbye their support. Could this be why conservative congressman are not about to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

 

[Conservative65]

I'm very much NOT interested in existing statutes or constitutional interpretations. Nor do I care about predictions of what is likely or politically possible. I'm asking if you think it's a good idea to use government in this way. Do you think it's good government? Do you understand why I think it's not?

Yes, because government exists to serve the people, not the privileged few who would benefit from lower cost government.

To serve them against their will?

Against whose will? Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs. 84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced. 48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps. Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.

How many of those Americans not in favor of cutting social welfare programs benefit from social welfare programs?

Why would those who get the handouts support cutting them. To them, it's like having someone else's credit card. You get what you want and don't have to pay for it.

Because the poor are not all liberal Democrats particular in the rural areas of the Red States. They buy into the trickle down theory of economics fed to them by conservatives. If conservatives in congress start cutting government spending the working poor depends on, they can kiss goodbye their support. Could this be why conservative congressman are not about to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

That assumes they vote.

 

[Conservative65]

I serve as an elected commissioner for the local fire department where I live. One of the biggest expenses we have is insurance. I'm not on it as the position is non-compensated by pay or benefits. I've checked. You don't have to believe me for it to be true but your refusal to do so because you disagree is that of a typical Democrat. Still claiming you aren't one?

I am registered as unaffiliated. Always have been. Your repeated use of "Democrat" as if it's something illicit is your perception and nothing else. Constantly harping on it undermines your credibility.

As for your local fire department, if it employs fewer than 49 people, it's exempt from the PPACA mandate. As a board member, you should be aware of that.

Oh, right. Cause Public education has been such a rousing sucess... LOL

Do you think a national education system would be preferable?

A better question is do YOU think one is preferable? If so, where do you find the federal government's Constitutional authority to do so.

Hadn't really thought about it.

There are plenty that have and think it should be done that way. However, I haven't had one yet to show me where the federal government has Constitutional authority to do it.

Then I guess you'd better take it up with them.

I just did.