Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
 

To those who want the government to nationalize health care in the US, why does this have to be at a national level? It seems like it would make more sense to make this a statewide issue. Many states are larger than a lot of countries that provide the same thing. So size can't be an issue. Having it as a state issue would allow a form of competition between other states, so those that did it most efficiently would likely get rewarded. States also allow easier divisions where larger portions of the population might support it (California would support a government health care scheme before Montana).

So big government zealots- where am I wrong? Why is a state-by-state basis for this a poor idea?

Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
 

Because if we go state by state, we aren't helping everybody. Hopefully we'll go ahead and form a global government soon so we can give all 6.6 billion humans health care.

Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because if we go state by state, we aren't helping everybody. Hopefully we'll go ahead and form a global government soon so we can give all 6.6 billion humans health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still contend that if it is a good idea that people will want, getting it going in a few spots will make it spread faster. Then the stragglers can be struck as Luddites (or want it themselves because of the wonderful results) will soon covert their states as well.

Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So big government zealots- where am I wrong? Why is a state-by-state basis for this a poor idea?

[/ QUOTE ]
State by state is fine. I support socializing health care at either the federal or state level, just so long as it gets done.

Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So big government zealots- where am I wrong? Why is a state-by-state basis for this a poor idea?

[/ QUOTE ]
State by state is fine. I support socializing health care at either the federal or state level, just so long as it gets done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. The means aren't the issue. Just the ends. If the market could ensure everyone had healthcare, I'd support that too.

Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
 

It won't work state by state, because unless you force it on the whole country at once, people will just move to states that aren't drowning under the social and economic cost of socialized health care.

Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
 

I agree and disagree.

Firstoff, it will reduce the costs to employers in these states because they won't be burdened with those costs. If more people move in, you could change residency and eligibility requirements so that someone coming in from another state won't be eligible until they meet those requirements.

That being said, I am still against the plan of moving health care to the state and/or federal level.

Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So big government zealots- where am I wrong? Why is a state-by-state basis for this a poor idea?

[/ QUOTE ]
State by state is fine. I support socializing health care at either the federal or state level, just so long as it gets done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you agree that the state by state method is easier? Although it may never get implemented in a place like Montana where very few people would want it. I look at it two ways:

1) National first- slower to get support, but gets everyone under the program
2) State first- faster at first, and means many people will never get on board.

Doesn't having a decentralized system make more sense? If someone screws up, it won't take down the whole thing (just the one state that theres a problem). It allows more choices for people (although they do have to move, but its easier to move states than countries).

Where am I wrong in thinking this is the better way to do things.

Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So big government zealots- where am I wrong? Why is a state-by-state basis for this a poor idea?

[/ QUOTE ]
State by state is fine. I support socializing health care at either the federal or state level, just so long as it gets done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. The means aren't the issue. Just the ends. If the market could ensure everyone had healthcare, I'd support that too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yesssssss....the govt is so efficient in every other part of our lives....I can't wait til the run the health care system too.

People at Mcdonalds move faster than people at the DMV or the post office. Can't wait to hit the ER with an arterial bleed and wait in line behind someone with a hangnail (who is at the ER cause it's "free")

If you want a better way...offer younger healthier people a healthcare insurance option covering only severe injury and illness. They would pay out of pocket for anything else. When you hit a certain age....you may want to move into a more comprehensive plan.

By the way we do have universal healthcare already in emergency situations. People are not dying in ERs because they dont have a plastic card in thier purse or wallet.

Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So big government zealots- where am I wrong? Why is a state-by-state basis for this a poor idea?

[/ QUOTE ]
State by state is fine. I support socializing health care at either the federal or state level, just so long as it gets done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. The means aren't the issue. Just the ends. If the market could ensure everyone had healthcare, I'd support that too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yesssssss....the govt is so efficient in every other part of our lives....I can't wait til the run the health care system too.

People at Mcdonalds move faster than people at the DMV or the post office. Can't wait to hit the ER with an arterial bleed and wait in line behind someone with a hangnail (who is at the ER cause it's "free")

If you want a better way...offer younger healthier people a healthcare insurance option covering only severe injury and illness. They would pay out of pocket for anything else. When you hit a certain age....you may want to move into a more comprehensive plan.

By the way we do have universal healthcare already in emergency situations. People are not dying in ERs because they dont have a plastic card in thier purse or wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do not hijack this thread. This has nothing to do with the merits of Universal Health Care or Public Health Care. I am simply asking why those who favor it don't agree that its smartest and best implemented at a smaller scale first.