|
|
|
|
#2
03-14-2007, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
In my state of Illinois there is a bill up currently that would move towards state health care. Not sure of the exact details, maybe iron could fill you in.
My guess is that one reason that states don't try this themselves more often is that they are already going broke. Especially the blue states that would most want to but are currently propping up the red states financially. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/62.html 
|
|
#3
03-14-2007, 03:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
There is definitely one very good argument for a national approach, but I'm saving it for later.
|
|
#5
03-14-2007, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
The cost is too high for individual states, as a percentage of their current revenue. The increases needed would be, percentage-wise, astronomical.
|
|
#6
03-14-2007, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
[ QUOTE ]
The cost is too high for individual states, as a percentage of their current revenue. The increases needed would be, percentage-wise, astronomical. [/ QUOTE ] But if the federal government is currently using money to pay for this, that money could easily be used at the state (or city/county) level.
|
|
#7
03-14-2007, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The cost is too high for individual states, as a percentage of their current revenue. The increases needed would be, percentage-wise, astronomical. [/ QUOTE ] But if the federal government is currently using money to pay for this, that money could easily be used at the state (or city/county) level. [/ QUOTE ] Wait, the feds are currently providing universal health care? Or are you saying that if states wanted to pay for this the feds would lower taxes by the appropriate amount to make it a net wash?
|
|
#8
03-14-2007, 04:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
[ QUOTE ]
State by state is a horrible idea for any welfare policy. The problem is free riding. [/ QUOTE ] How is free riding a problem? That's the entire point of socialized medicine.
|
|
#9
03-14-2007, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] State by state is a horrible idea for any welfare policy. The problem is free riding. [/ QUOTE ] How is free riding a problem? That's the entire point of socialized medicine. [/ QUOTE ] Mr. Jones needs a kidney transplant, but lives in a low tax state with crappy health care. So he moves to another state with high taxes and great care to get the kidney transplant, then moves back to the low tax state when he's healthy. Obviously there are ways that states can combat such free riding problems, such as requiring residency for a certain period of time, but free riding is definitely an issue that would need to be dealt with.
|
|
#10
03-14-2007, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] State by state is a horrible idea for any welfare policy. The problem is free riding. [/ QUOTE ] How is free riding a problem? That's the entire point of socialized medicine. [/ QUOTE ] Mr. Jones needs a kidney transplant, but lives in a low tax state with crappy health care. So he moves to another state with high taxes and great care to get the kidney transplant, then moves back to the low tax state when he's healthy. Obviously there are ways that states can combat such free riding problems, such as requiring residency for a certain period of time, but free riding is definitely an issue that would need to be dealt with. [/ QUOTE ] This can easily be dealt with by requiring minimum residency requirements or not covering preexisting conditions. Why aren't these people moving to Canada now then coming back? It doesn't seem like a huge problem.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
