Universal Health Care

[derek.haines]

If we do leave it up to the states that will cause a whole new set of problems. What if somebody has to move to a state that doesn't have health care from a state that did? What would s/he do then? Putting it in the hands of the states causes a whole new set of problems.

With this, its either nation-wide or none at all. And until we get rid of our massive debt, it would be incredibly stupid to even try to allow UHC.

No no no, you don't put it up to the states to decide, you put it in the hands of the states to manage, like they already do with driver's licenses, and fund through local taxes. This way it wouldn't be overwhelming for any one department and it wouldn't have to be paid for entirely through national taxes.

It's going to take a lot more than simply ending spending to rid our national debt. At this point, it's probably just going to have to be forgiven unless something remarkable happens or we get a very fiscally savvy Congress--unlikely, because the whole point of a Congressman is to represent the state by, y'know, bringing home government funds. We might see another balanced budget--MAYBE--but it's unlikely to ever take a significant chunk out of the debt. It's just there, so we'd all better just start writing our checks to China...

 

[Crimson King]

No. It won't work like that. Driver's Licenses do not cost citizens continuously. Also, you'd have it vary from state to state, which is where it'd fail. It has to be UNIVERSAL and UNIFORM.

 

[Deleted member]

No, it doesn't have to. In Canada certain provinces include certain surgeries and treatments that other provinces might see as cosmetic.

This isn't really what you're talking about, but it's an example of UHC differing across one nation.

 

[cman]

No. It won't work like that. Driver's Licenses do not cost citizens continuously. Also, you'd have it vary from state to state, which is where it'd fail. It has to be UNIVERSAL and UNIFORM.

Explain why it is necessary, because i see no reason for it to be mandatory that it be uniform.

 

[Crimson King]

If it's not uniform, it defeats the purpose of having Health Care for everyone. If quality is better in a different state, what would keep people from jumping states for better health care? It's not like public education where you have to stay in the state for long periods of time. Realistically, I can go to California, which WILL have a better program than Louisiana, get the surgery or treatment I need and be back home before the next month.

This is just one example. Then, the states will have to decide how to tax people, who to tax, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Deleted member]

CK, you're failing us hard here. Different states have different ways of doing things. Gays can get married in California now. That's directly analogous to what we're talking about now.

Edit: Certain states might have more facilities that specialize in the treatments that are not fully regulated throughout the country. Those states might have better coverage in that sense because they have the hospitals and specialists, but I highly doubt that UHC would differ much throughout different states. I wouldn't expect much variation in coverage.

 

[Crimson King]

How is getting married which is filled with legalities and issues like that compared to health care?

Look at Education. Louisiana is bottom of the barrel, but if I went to public school, that's all I could get. It's because the state itself is run so horribly that that is the best it'll ever do. Tax payer dollars still go the same as UHC would require, just the state is managed horribly and we get gipped.

 

[derek.haines]

Look at Education. Louisiana is bottom of the barrel, but if I went to public school, that's all I could get. It's because the state itself is run so horribly that that is the best it'll ever do. Tax payer dollars still go the same as UHC would require, just the state is managed horribly and we get gipped.

In a country as large as the United States, it's an unfortunate side-effect of our size that certain parts of the nation are going to be less-developed than others in specific areas--like education, as you mentioned. This is primarily the result of federalism, allowing the states to decide how things are run for themselves which has resulted in some very poor decisions being made.

The thing is, you wouldn't get any differences in care than you would now under UHC. Like it's been stated before, UHC is not socialized medicine. It's the government eliminating the necessity of insurance companies and covering your health care costs for you using general funds. The government does not run the hospitals or the doctor's offices, it just pays what the insurance companies would've previously paid.

The states would simply be the primary method for raising the funds to pay for it--through taxes on things like professional sporting events or alcohol sold retail--and would be responsible for maintaining the databases for the citizens. So rather than having a federal institution trying to catalog 300,000,000 people, you've got a state organization cataloging just a few million. You'd be issued state health care cards, but under the Full Faith in Credit Clause they'd be completely valid while traveling between states, and you'd just present those when you recieve medical care. The doctor's office would scan your card and the state would handle the billing. Easy peasy.