It seems like we need a state or two to become an experiment (in the same nature as pot).
However I fear that any attempt to will result in companies suing the state for unfair competition or the like.
However I fear that any attempt to will result in companies suing the state for unfair competition or the like.
Of course, conservative states can do the same to advance conservative agenda to bypass gridlock in DC. But nothing wrong with that either. We will have some sort of real world A/B testing between the two groups and see which policies work better for a given problem.
The advantage of a compact of states is that it enables significant weight behind a proposal, which would be hard to ignore for the companies (eg. fuel efficiency standards might be ignored for MA alone, but will be hard to ignore for market controlling 30-40% of the population).
For those curious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#The_begin...
Not universally of course, but enough to have a big impact on availability of services.
California might be able to try it.
This. California democrats recently achieved a supermajority[1] making such an experiment possible. If California cannot push state legislators hard enough to give it a shot, the idea that a fractured national Congress will is fatally flawed. Voters rejected the idea in Vermont[2] (Bernie country[3]) -- so, can California be different? Granted, a California experiment must balance the fact the CMS money originates from federal sources, but that should not completely inhibit an experiment.
[1] http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essentia... [2] http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-1... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Democratic_primary,_20...