It will be decried as socialism, command economy, un-American, etc. but large states like CA and NY,
who are larger than many countries, ought to get the state directly involved in producing PPE, in state, for use in state (and for stockpiling for in-state use). Maybe smaller states cannot manage it, but surely a state of 30+ million has the resources to do so.
The demand of PPE will be outpacing supply for the foreseeable future. For years, most likely. And even if demand returns to pre-pandemic levels, the next pandemic could strike at any time.
There will be no help from the federal government, now or then. Even without the malice of Trump, the federal government would not have been sufficiently organized or prepared for dealing with the local needs of the entire nation all at once when a airborne pandemic strikes. We can see that now.
If states are going to be on their own, if governors must handle it themselves as Trump has said, then those who have the means to prepare independently ought to do so. We cannot risk counting solely upon the federal government doing better next time. Any state which is self-sufficient in this way also eases the demands on the feds, allowing them to focus their aid upon others.
We cannot afford to produce PPE outside of our own borders anymore. If the state is on its own for procuring PPE, then the state must control the means of producing and stockpiling that PPE. The global supply chain's disruption during this pandemic highlights the danger of relying on anyone outside of one's own borders. For example, the entire USA cannot force China to sell us masks (currently China is banning all exports of masks), and neither can CA or NY individually. What chance do smaller states have of succeeding in that endeavor? None at all.
Will such a plan make PPE more costly than that produced abroad? Perhaps, yes. But it will be available in sufficient quantities. That should make it worth the higher cost in the long run. Will such a plan exacerbate the "blue states are givers, red states are takers" tax vs federal spending imbalance? Yes, but I'd rather my state have bountiful PPE and more federal spending imbalance than the converse situation. There may be some ancillary benefits; I expect that health care providers would rather live/work in a state where they know they can count on sufficient PPE when a crisis hits.
Or maybe I'm way off base. Thoughts?
= new reply since forum marked as read
