Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It should be a federal level initiative.
In a case of state level income/sales tax, the young and healthy will leave the state and the old and sick will move to it.
"The federal government should do this because there is a risk a large number of people will dislike this enough to move to another state if done on a state level"
Seriously, think about what you just said.
Either:
It won't cause that many people to leave the state -- in which case it's a moot worry.
or
It will cause many people to leave the state -- in which case we shouldn't be passing policy which large groups of people find sufficiently odious to cross state lines to avoid at the state or federal level.
Last edited by ALackOfCreativity; 06-11-2017 at 06:27 PM..
Reason: wording clarity
Gay marriage is fine by me, it doesn't impact my life one way the other since I'm not gay.
On the other hand, everyone stands to benefit from a good universal healthcare system that covers everyone not just the wealthy. Of course we can't afford to help the middle class but we can always afford to lavish 50 billion dollar tax breaks for Trump and his friends, fight endless wars in the middle east and another new war in the Phillipines.
Gay marriage is fine by me, it doesn't impact my life one way the other since I'm not gay.
On the other hand, everyone stands to benefit from a good universal healthcare system that covers everyone not just the wealthy. Of course we can't afford to help the middle class but we can always afford to lavish 50 billion dollar tax breaks for Trump and his friends, fight endless wars in the middle east and another new war in the Phillipines.
I have never seen anyone introduce a bill that would increase health care spending and decrease military spending to pay for it.
Nor have I seen a bill where only the wealthy would suffer from a new government program
"The federal government should do this because there is a risk a large number of people will dislike this enough to move to another state if done on a state level"
Seriously, think about what you just said.
Either:
It won't cause that many people to leave the state -- in which case it's a moot worry.
or
It will cause many people to leave the state -- in which case we shouldn't be passing policy which large groups of people find sufficiently odious to cross state lines to avoid at the state or federal level.
Some people will try to avoid it and in the same time some people will try to move to the state. Currently we have a large problem with those who are suffering from luck of decent insurance.
It should be a federal level initiative.
In a case of state level income/sales tax, the young and healthy will leave the state and the old and sick will move to it.
Then those that govern the state will need to weigh that likelihood against the desire to provide a a single payer system.
Go find a copy of the constitution, read the 10th amendment where it says if something isn't in this document as a function of the federal government it belongs at the state level, then show us where healthcare is listed as a function of the federal government. It is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity
"The federal government should do this because there is a risk a large number of people will dislike this enough to move to another state if done on a state level"
Seriously, think about what you just said.
Either:
It won't cause that many people to leave the state -- in which case it's a moot worry.
or
It will cause many people to leave the state -- in which case we shouldn't be passing policy which large groups of people find sufficiently odious to cross state lines to avoid at the state or federal level.
Yep, this.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
A functional universal healthcare system is a privilege that most non-Westerners don't have access to. America has the potential to enact that privilege for its people, so it surprises me that the idea is still rejected.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,693,648 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
This should be a state level initiative.
Are you saying that Medicare should be on a state level?
Universal single payer is a no-brainer. They need to figure out the financial particulars then each year Medicare extends down by a year. That gives them 65 years to eventually cover everyone.
Prior to gay marriage being the law of the land there were just a handful of states where it was legal.
Being from Massachusetts it was old news. The sky didn't fall and no one forced it upon our children.
Single payer healthcare is really the best thing for the American public. We all know what we have now isn't sustainable.
More and more companies are NOT offering an affordable insurance option. So, ALL taxpayers are footing the bill for $10/hour walmart workers having babies and local hospitals.
Eventually some state in the union will come up with a plan... the rest will follow and, just like gay marriage, we'll wonder what took so long.
California is already coming up with a plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
This should be a state level initiative.
I like that idea. That's exactly how it got started in England. One province adopted it; then others decided they would try it and so on and so forth,
Let it start state by state and see how it goes. Then we'll have an idea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.