|
|
#22
03-14-2007, 05:11 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 ] Please explain. In my system, you would only get coverage for free if you were a resident of that state. 
|
|
#23
03-14-2007, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
The answer is obvious. Blatantly obvious. Federalized control over your health care is the holy grail of authoritarianism. If it happens piecemeal, state by state, then it will only provide opportunities for people to see the flaws and get around it.
Picture Californians flocking to Nevada for their health care ... In fact, this is a likely scenario as there are currently THREE competing bills in the California assembly to socialize health care in California. If one of them gets signed I will probably jump through a lot of hoops to make sure I'm not considered a California resident anymore just so I can buy my own private coverage as a citizen of another state. I can't be the only one prepared to do what it takes to maintain control over their own healthcare. natedogg
|
|
#24
03-14-2007, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] That would be the idea, yeah. [/ QUOTE ] So what money are the feds going to give up? [/ QUOTE ] Legalize drugs, end war in Iraq... who knows.
|
|
#25
03-14-2007, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] That would be the idea, yeah. [/ QUOTE ] So what money are the feds going to give up? [/ QUOTE ] Legalize drugs, end war in Iraq... who knows. [/ QUOTE ] So why wouldn't they just spend that on their own federal health care system, to extend their own bureacracy, instead of letting states increase theirs at the fed's expense?
|
|
#26
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.
|
|
#27
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.
|
|
#28
03-14-2007, 06:20 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 ] It would have to be dealt with only if it were to turn out to be a major problem.
|
|
#29
03-14-2007, 06:22 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 ] Who said anything about "great" care? Begging the question 101. Anyway, what about the people who live in that state the whole time? They aren't free-riding? That's who I was talking about. To keep out the riff-raff, I suppose you'll need to erect some walls, and probably issue papers to all citizens so they can be identified as needed. Interestingly, I don't know anyone who's moved to canada to get (e.g.) a free kidney transplant. I do, however, personally know *lots* of people who have come from countries with "free" (or "great" if you prefer that term) health care to the US to get private health care (e.g. luekemia treatment).
|
|
#30
03-14-2007, 06:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
"Since 2000, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 87 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 18 percent and cumulative wage growth of 20 percent during the same period." - National Coalition on Healthcare
Let me first state that all theories about socialized, government subsidized, or government run healthcare are HORRIBLE ideas. Whenever the federal government gets their hands on a taxpayer dollar, they inherently stamp that dollar into a nickel via beauracracy and waste. On average, privatizing an industry reduces costs of that product or service by 66%, compared to the federal government running it. "Although nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens" - National Coalition on Healthcare Well this statement is very misleading. Most countries providing socialized healthcare to their citizens do so with HORRIBLE consequences. In countries with socialized healthcare the quality of care is a fraction of what it is in the United States. Example: The waiting list to get an MRI in Canada is on average 60-90 days. The Canadian government caps the the amount drug companies can charge for a drug. It is 3% over production cost. Production cost does not include research costs, which are 90% of the cost of a drug or more. So either drug companies don't sell their drugs in Canada, or they raise the price of them in the United States to cover the cost of research. Countries with socialized medicine also pay a huge penalty by stunting the growth of their economies via the high taxes that must be levied on their citizens to pay for healthcare. As far as 47 million Americans being uninsured. All children and pregnant mothers under the poverty level have access to FREE healthcare. Anyone entering a hospital, whether a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien, with a life threatening situation, will receive treatment. Hospitals are very considerate when it comes to negotiating a payment plan should you incur costs you cannot afford. Hospitals are also very considerate when it comes to collecting on unpaid accounts. Whether or not Americans take advantage of any of these benefits is difficult to control. This is why you end up with a silly number like 47Million "uninsured." The real problem. Insurance costs are skyrocketing. Companies that don't shop for cost-effective plans for their employees aren't encouraging competition in the marketplace. Why are insurance costs skyrocketing? Lack of competition and cost of paying claims. How do we fix this? Well President Bush suggested taxing those that have expensive insurance (policies over $15K anually), giving a tax credit to those with cheaper plans, AND making company paid insurance premiums taxable! Not the worst idea, but definitely not one I would like to see implemented. What I would like to see: 1. Encourage competition in the insurance marketplace. Cost to enter the market is large, their are licensing issues, and it just isn't something the small business owner can decide they are going to do. However, the government should make sure they are finding the right balance between encouraging competition and protecting the consumers. (I mean, that is what government is actually supposed to be doing, correct?) 2. Encourage Americans to go to medical school! Government spending should be on INFRASTRUCTURE, that way our capitalistic economy can grow without worrying about the logistics of infrastructure. Part of infrastructure is education! While I am against federally governed schools, I do think that government grants for college are a GREAT tool!. If economists are really concerned that our healthcare costs are outpacing our economy growth, then why not build some more doctors and nurses via government grants to medical/nursing schools!?!? Doing this will also raise the average standard of living for students coming from lower income families, who may have never gotten the opportunity to receive an education in such a profitable field. These are also the same people who come from families that are, and who were probably going to be, one of the 47Million "uninsured." 3. Immigrate more medical students to the United States. By increasing the supply of doctors and nurses in the industry, it will drive down the costs of healthcare, which will in turn drive down the costs of insurance. 4. Negotiate with countries such as Canada who are leeching off of American consumers by capping the margin on drug sales. 5. Grow the economy as a whole! Increasing taxes to pay for coverage, or to encourage cheaper private coverage, is just going to stifle the growth of the economy. We should be looking for ways to grow our economy faster than the costs of healthcare, via tax breaks, foreign and domestic markets that remain untapped, and numerous other methods that Americans have been persuing as Capitalists for 230 years!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
