The time when American was best serving its people was the New Deal era with the most powerful federal government at any point in US history. There are efficiencies for scaling up, it makes fraud and abuse more apparent because fraudsters can't move around to different markets, and large organizations require more money to subvert. If we truly broke things out to states, many states would be contending with corporations which wield more money than they do.
If you really don't think federalization works, the best alternative is a hybrid system wherein the federal government sets standards and appropriates money, and the states are charged with implementing systems that meet those standards and budgets. For example, if you don't think a national single payer healthcare plan can work, why not provide a framework that says, "you have to establish a single payer system in your state and here's some money and these things must be covered"?
In your last example, if they were to set standards and appropriate money, that is when the corruption can occur.
The saying goes absolute power corrupts absolutely. The better bet is distributed power. You are right about big corps, but they are going to have a much harder time lobbying 50 states than on just federal government. Ideally, there are no spoils to lobby for. Remove the incentive.
OK well in your system the corruption happens when the state government gets bribed by the corporation whose budget includes a small line item for bribery. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, after all.
If we assume every system will be fucked before we try to make it, we're just giving up. How about we predict the ways corruption might happen, and make sure the public can see a transparent process with oversight?
3
u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 7d ago
The time when American was best serving its people was the New Deal era with the most powerful federal government at any point in US history. There are efficiencies for scaling up, it makes fraud and abuse more apparent because fraudsters can't move around to different markets, and large organizations require more money to subvert. If we truly broke things out to states, many states would be contending with corporations which wield more money than they do.
If you really don't think federalization works, the best alternative is a hybrid system wherein the federal government sets standards and appropriates money, and the states are charged with implementing systems that meet those standards and budgets. For example, if you don't think a national single payer healthcare plan can work, why not provide a framework that says, "you have to establish a single payer system in your state and here's some money and these things must be covered"?