How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Lemme make this clear: I'm cool with socialist states. But it stops at the state level. Other people want different things and that's why I think most issues should be handled on a state level.

People are kicking and screaming about being subjected to the other side's idealism and lifestyle. Let states be different and decide. And if the socialist states work out amazing, guess what the people will want and we'll see more of? It's about choice.

[Sirrus_Asura]

I think you might be misunderstanding how laws work. Because I'm getting the idea that you're saying that states should just be allowed to disregard federal law.

I'm not really sure where to go with this, but for the most part the federal governments laws should be basic and simple at the most.

I was always under the impression that it was a states *right* to override laws of the federal government it felt were unjust.

States just don't do that since they receive funding from the federal government and don't want to loose that.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

The problem from what I understand is that the attempt at doing state level insurance was managed very poorly(MA was it?). I feel it deserves a 2nd chance under some good management.

It's the same argument we have for federal programs. We agree on the same things I think, you just prefer a sedan over an 18 wheeler. Management is key and it can be done on a federal level just as easy as it can be on a state level.

Great questions. Thanks for taking the high road and being reasonable. I really appreciate it.

Sometimes it takes a little flirting before we can take our pants off and get to business.

Anywho; Lemme start by saying it's the United States of America.

And your answer: Yes and that is the point of it.

To which I will respond it is the United States of America. Again different interpretations on the same concept. Now we're getting somewhere.

For those who feel as strongly about health care as they do, they will probably move to the state that best represents the way they feel how healthcare should be done. (Reasonable y/n?)


Regarding the states that do offer a option / single payer plan: States that blatantly offer poor coverage or mismanage in general will feel it. Just as a company that offers poor service looses customers. Negligent decisions on part of the state will have repercussions, just as the free market would. (People leaving that state, etc) (Reasonable y/n?)

Which can create a dire economic situation for one state that loses it's citizens and workers. Then we have a see-saw effect of states scrambling to enact bills in such a hasty manner that gigantic loopholes are left in and taken severe advantage of. This is not safe.

Also, this takes away from any emphasis of United or States, we have effectively reverted back to a Union and may as well destroy the constitution. Are you a constitutionalist? Most libertarians and conservatives claim to be.

People who want a single payer system can move to Cali. People who want their companies to support them can move to TX. Fill in the blanks etc. (Reasonable y/n?)

As for the border hopping, that could probably be solved with something as simple as a drivers license check. (Probably a better solution somewhere)

So now states have to become companies. It certainly fits your ideals of free market and becomes a cohesive argument, but it goes back to why be United States anymore? Why not be a Union? Why use a federal constitution and not abide only by state ones?

And there would have to be ( a better solution ) considering I could go buy a fake passport for $200 right now and go anywhere in the world, much less some 14 year old can get a fake ID and buy liquor or smokes.

If you have $80,000 in cancer bills you find a way to bend or break the rules, out of nothing more than sheer desperation.

A strong federal program and legislation prevents the fringe elements from having too much say and dismantling a delicate process, whereas the drawback is too much bureaucratic oversight and nitpicking.

And in the end we get what we pay for with democracy. Breaking it down to a state level dismantles the democracy we have been running on for ages. A public option has nothing to do with democracy or ruining democracy or becoming socialist or fascist. If it is voted on in a democratic fashion it is democracy, plain and simple.

[Olo401]

Lemme make this clear: I'm cool with socialist states. But it stops at the state level. Other people want different things and that's why I think most issues should be handled on a state level.

People are kicking and screaming about being subjected to the other side's idealism and lifestyle. Let states be different and decide. And if the socialist states work out amazing, guess what the people will want and we'll see more of? It's about choice.

But that's the point isn't it - choice? This measure's entire purpose is to make sure the choice of what health care coverage a person has is an INDIVIDUAL one, and that it is the most affordable to each. It has nothing to do with socialism at all - that is a complete and absolute MYTH.

[Sirrus_Asura]

But that's the point isn't it - choice? This measure's entire purpose is to make sure the choice of what health care coverage a person has is an INDIVIDUAL one, and that it is the most affordable to each. It has nothing to do with socialism at all - that is a complete and absolute MYTH.

I understand and know this. I'm not directly paralleling socialism to healthcare reform(At least not intentionaly). My point is that, there are people with opposing views(Using socialism as an exmaple) and I'm fine with that. That's why we have states.

It's pretty obvious that California and Texas are nothing alike and I love it. We're still all Americans at the end of the day, we just have different views and seek a different lifestyle.

[Enkidu]

When a state fails, then what? Do you think this is where the government should get its hands dirty and supply "temporary" insurance while the state-side government goes through some sort of reform?

The idea of inter-state competition is certainly a good idea, much better then the idea that private companies will compete with a public option, but it's not like it's without its own problems.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I understand and know this. I'm not directly paralleling socialism to healthcare reform(At least not intentionaly). My point is that, there are people with opposing views(Using socialism as an exmaple) and I'm fine with that. That's why we have states.

It's pretty obvious that California and Texas are nothing alike and I love it. We're still all Americans at the end of the day, we just have different views and seek a different lifestyle.

Right but why are you passive about corporate socialism and not public socialism? There should be a 98 page thread of pure rage of tobacco/ oil / pharma subsidies, no-bid contracts, the drug war, credit regulation and so forth. Literally 98 pages of fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu u.......

....and we're nitpicking about how to help sick people that are dying. There is something seriously wrong with this country if this is a debate we're forced into. You're paying for private jets for CEO's and tobacco farmers who can't sell their crops and a new research wing at Pfizer but you're concerned about people being able to be comfortable about their lifestyle of not having to pay 17 cents extra in income tax to help an 8 year old dying of cancer?

Really?

I mean, really?

[Sirrus_Asura]

Which can create a dire economic situation for one state that loses it's citizens and workers. Then we have a see-saw effect of states scrambling to enact bills in such a hasty manner that gigantic loopholes are left in and taken severe advantage
of. This is not safe.

This is true, I think this would almost require states the think before they act. As for the loophole's, I'll hit on that later.

So now states have to become companies. It certainly fits your ideals of free market and becomes a cohesive argument, but it goes back to why be United States anymore? Why not be a Union? Why use a federal constitution and not abide only by state ones?

Correct me if I'm wrong but arnt states already run somewhat as companies in the regard that they have their own debt / balance / budget etc? I'm not sure how State run insurance changes this.

And there would have to be ( a better solution ) considering I could go buy a fake passport for $200 right now and go anywhere in the world, much less some 14 year old can get a fake ID and buy liquor or smokes.

If you have $80,000 in cancer bills you find a way to bend or break the rules, out of nothing more than sheer desperation.

No argument here. I'm sure there is much better solution to this. I'm not a policy maker and these are just my views on it.

Though keep in mind and I cannot emphasize this enough:

You *cannot* pass enough laws and rules to make a person do the right thing. There are *always* gonna be loopholes a people abusing the system. It's a way of life. Damage control is really all you can do

The only way to remove this is to remove the system entirely, and that's anarchy and idealism. I'll pass on that.

A strong federal program and legislation prevents the fringe elements from having too much say and dismantling a delicate process, whereas the drawback is too much bureaucratic oversight and nitpicking.

Tis the way of the Federal Government.

And in the end we get what we pay for with democracy. Breaking it down to a state level dismantles the democracy we have been running on for ages. A public option has nothing to do with democracy or ruining democracy or becoming socialist or fascist. If it is voted on in a democratic fashion it is democracy, plain and simple.

I agree. Like I said, I'm not against a federal government entirely, I just think it needs to be shrunk down.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Right but why are you passive about corporate socialism and not public socialism? There should be a 98 page thread of pure rage of tobacco/ oil / pharma subsidies, no-bid contracts, the drug war, credit regulation and so forth. Literally 98 pages of fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu u.......

....and we're nitpicking about how to help sick people that are dying. There is something seriously wrong with this country if this is a debate we're forced into. You're paying for private jets for CEO's and tobacco farmers who can't sell their crops and a new research wing at Pfizer but you're concerned about people being able to be comfortable about their lifestyle of not having to pay 17 cents extra in income tax to help an 8 year old dying of cancer?

Really?

I mean, really?

Dude, I agree 100% And if there was a thread about this shit, I'd be all over it like a bureaucrat on paperwork. Keep my government and my business separate. No Fucking Argument Here.

[tyven]

i honestly dont see how state run insurance would cause population shifts that could cripple economies

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

This is true, I think this would almost require states the think before they act. As for the loophole's, I'll hit on that later.



Correct me if I'm wrong but arnt states already run somewhat as companies in the regard that they have their own debt / balance / budget etc? I'm not sure how State run insurance changes this.

Yes they are, but what I mean by that is it forces them even more into a competitive system in which legislation stops being written for the benefit of the citizens it is written for the benefit of the state budget and is justified by using the worker-citizen as a straw man.

This is very dangerous territory where state congresspersons become less politicians and more board members.

You'd effectively be replacing the concern over debt / balance / budget ( which is more a consumer approach ) to profit margins and losses, credit and lending, and citizen valuation.

Listen I'm all for evolution and natural selection, just not with economics.

[Sirrus_Asura]

When a state fails, then what? Do you think this is where the government should get its hands dirty and supply "temporary" insurance while the state-side government goes through some sort of reform?

The idea of inter-state competition is certainly a good idea, much better then the idea that private companies will compete with a public option, but it's not like it's without its own problems.

Possibly. It's hard to say. I don't have all the answers(Dur a dur)

I wish I could give a better answer to that question, I really do. It's just something I'll have to think about for the time being. I'll get back to you when I think of something.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Yes they are, but what I mean by that is it forces them even more into a competitive system in which legislation stops being written for the benefit of the citizens it is written for the benefit of the state budget and is justified by using the worker-citizen as a straw man.

This is very dangerous territory where state congresspersons become less politicians and more board members.

You'd effectively be replacing the concern over debt / balance / budget ( which is more a consumer approach ) to profit margins and losses, credit and lending, and citizen valuation.

Listen I'm all for evolution and natural selection, just not with economics.

Well I mean, the well being of your citizens is essentially the lifeblood of the economy in this case correct? If you're people are not happy / healthy your state is gonna suffer. I kinda see it as something that almost regulates itself.

[Olo401]

I'm not really sure where to go with this, but for the most part the federal governments laws should be basic and simple at the most.

I was always under the impression that it was a states *right* to override laws of the federal government it felt were unjust.

States just don't do that since they receive funding from the federal government and don't want to loose that.

They have the right to file petition in the courts and seek a judgment, but not to arbitrarily throw off federal law because their state government doesn't like it. First off, that would be anarchy. And second, there's precedent in favor of the federal government due to the unfortunate (and incorrect IMO) decision in the recent case Gonzales v. Raich.

Probably the most appropriate part of the Constitution in this case would be the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

While this is used as the basis for many states rights arguments, it's actually their greatest detriment. In the case of the current health care reform bills, Congress is looking to individual choice as the measure - choice of a local or nationwide insurance company, or choice of joining Medicare, or choice of joining a local co-op plan not in their own state. That's considered interstate commerce, which is covered under Article I, Section 8. And because it's an individual choice, states rights doesn't even factor into the equation.

[Olo401]

i honestly dont see how state run insurance would cause population shifts that could cripple economies

Imagine if Texas opted out, and people moved to Rhode Island.

It already happens with Welfare, though in a different way - there's a federal cap of five years on welfare benefits (1995 welfare reform law), but since welfare is administered by each state you can move from state to state and essentially reset your clock.

[tyven]

Imagine if Texas opted out, and people moved to Rhode Island.

It already happens with Welfare, though in a different way - there's a federal cap of five years on welfare benefits, but since welfare is administered by each state you can move from state to state and essentially reset your clock.

but wouldnt private insurers try to keep prices competitive to keep their people from leaving?

[Olo401]

but wouldnt private insurers try to keep prices competitive to keep their people from leaving?

That's up to the private insurers, not Texas.

[tyven]

i just think too many other factors would go into it like jobs, education, family. i have never met anyone that moved to canada for insurance and their shit is free

[Sirrus_Asura]

They have the right to file petition in the courts and seek a judgment, but not to arbitrarily throw off federal law because their state government doesn't like it. First off, that would be anarchy. And second, there's precedent in favor of the federal government due to the unfortunate (and incorrect IMO) decision in the recent case Gonzales v. Raich.

Probably the most appropriate part of the Constitution in this case would be the Tenth Amendment:


While this is used as the basis for many states rights arguments, it's actually their greatest detriment. In the case of the current health care reform bills, Congress is looking to individual choice as the measure - choice of a local or nationwide insurance company, or choice of joining Medicare, or choice of joining a local co-op plan not in their own state. That's considered interstate commerce, which is covered under Article I, Section 8. And because it's an individual choice, states rights doesn't even factor into the equation.

Alright, makes perfect sense and I agree the idea behind the bill sounds perfectly fair and reasonable. I'm still on the fringe about how I feel about federal insurance. But good stuff regardless.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

but wouldnt private insurers try to keep prices competitive to keep their people from leaving?

There are already situations right now where the cheapest health insurance you can get through your job from a private insurer requires some of its members to drive 70+ miles to be "in-network."

And people do this to cut $40-50 off of their premiums.

Imagine I live in Florida and Georgia has a state-run public program that is equal to what I pay $800 a month for my family of 4, as well as a $5000 deductible to meet.

Imagine all of these middle class families seeing all they have to do is move one state up. That's devastating. I could name thousands of people that would move in a heartbeat. Especially with no pre-existing conditions clauses or certain procedures being denied.

You're telling me that's not an incentive to move? Saving $16,000 a year? As well as not having to worry about a $5000 deductible to meet?

It would cause an unprecedented mass exodus.