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.
In your OP you were promoting "single payer" aka government pays for everything. Which is it? Hard to have a discussion when the topic is changed.
I'm not opposed to this. You have some affluent areas of cities with lots of businesses to fund taxes. Residents in those areas get away quite inexpensively. Then you have other urban areas that are mired in poverty with little business, where the full impact lands on the residents. So...the poor would actually have to pay their own way? Manhattan and Harlem both have their own systems...who does that work out better for?
Single payer isnt "government pays for everything". Who told you that? Fox News? Single payer systems typically have a 75% publicly funded health care system. The remaining 20-25% are privately funded.
There are complications though, that would need to be addressed, primarily in regards to who is eligible. Let's say Seattle decides to create a metro healthcare system. What if I live in Portland but want Seattle's healthcare; can I move to Seattle and immediately become eligible? Or, let's say I live in a nearby country; I'm not in the metro, but a 30 minute drives get me there. How does a hospital respond in that scenario?
But indeed, I see no reason to think it's not possible.
There would need to be a residency established and possibly a lengthy one, such as five years. It has to be long enough to keep people from gaming the system because as has been mentioned, there is a segment of the population that will try to just move there if they get sick. The residency and record of address along with plan participation (perhaps through the DMV the way we do voter registration?) could get the participant an insurance card that would be used much as we do now.
You do realize many of the largest cities have a huge homeless population and other aproblems that are more important to solve. Cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, and so forth have a growing homeless population. The main problem is the cost of living in the largest cities. It seems to me that cities like LA, San Francisco, Seattle, NY, and other cities have a large difference in income inequality. Either you are making it and living the good life or you are barely making it. Those that can't make it become destitute and homeless, which is why the homeless population has increase dramatically over the last few years. These cities should fix that problem first, before even thinking about healthcare. How would such a system determine residency of homeless people or will these homeless people not count? Essentially, what would happen is many homeless people would migrate to such cities from all over the nation and states. Homeless people don't need to buy or rent in the city.
The growing homeless population is a current problem for LA, Seattle, San Francisco, and other cities. A city based single payer system will make the problem worst. There are probably dozen of other problems associated with city base payer system. At state level, politicians will not support such a measure since it will cause major problems politically to the people in power. How would such cities pay for a city base single payer system? Cities like LA already have many problems and with no extra money for such a system.
Here are links the homeless problem in Seattle and LA. The homeless population in LA grew by 20% and La Counties by 23%. Those numbers are no joke.
This whole thread is silly. Ask any career politician. There is reason no one has implemented a city base payer system or even mentioned it in politics. As I stated before, if you don't like your taxes going toward rural areas, then I suggest you leave the United States and renounce your citizenship, then those pesky rural people will not get a single cent from you.
You do realize many of the largest cities have a huge homeless population and other aproblems that are more important to solve. Cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, and so forth have a growing homeless population. The main problem is the cost of living in the largest cities. It seems to me that cities like LA, San Francisco, Seattle, NY, and other cities have a large difference in income inequality. Either you are making it and living the good life or you are barely making it. Those that can't make it become destitute and homeless, which is why the homeless population has increase dramatically over the last few years. These cities should fix that problem first, before even thinking about healthcare. How would such a system determine residency of homeless people or will these homeless people not count? Essentially, what would happen is many homeless people would migrate to such cities from all over the nation and states. Homeless people don't need to buy or rent in the city.
The growing homeless population is a current problem for LA, Seattle, San Francisco, and other cities. A city based single payer system will make the problem worst. There are probably dozen of other problems associated with city base payer system. At state level, politicians will not support such a measure since it will cause major problems politically to the people in power. How would such cities pay for a city base single payer system? Cities like LA already have many problems and with no extra money for such a system.
Here are links the homeless problem in Seattle and LA. The homeless population in LA grew by 20% and La Counties by 23%. Those numbers are no joke.
This is not about homeless, this is about health care. However, the homeless populations tend to increase in areas with more moderate weather. And many of the homeless suffer from addiction and mental issues. Health coverage is something cities can create for participation. Homeless are something that will probably always be an issue and are why there are shelters and a movement to build tiny houses. Mental illness cannot be legislated away and Reagan started the reduction in assistance for the mentally ill.
This is not about homeless, this is about health care. However, the homeless populations tend to increase in areas with more moderate weather. And many of the homeless suffer from addiction and mental issues. Health coverage is something cities can create for participation. Homeless are something that will probably always be an issue and are why there are shelters and a movement to build tiny houses. Mental illness cannot be legislated away and Reagan started the reduction in assistance for the mentally ill.
My point is that homeless will cost the city to build shelters, provide food, and other necessities including healthcare. If a city were to have a single payer system, then would homeless count as residents or not? It's simple question related to city base single payer system.
What Reagan did was pass the problem to individual states and cities. Perhaps those cities should start a mental healthcare program, which would include asylums and supporting staff.
My point is that homeless will cost the city to build shelters, provide food, and other necessities including healthcare. If a city were to have a single payer system, then would homeless count as residents or not? It's simple question related to city base single payer system.
What Reagan did was pass the problem to individual states and cities. Perhaps those cities should start a mental healthcare program, which would include asylums and supporting staff.
What Reagan did was defund federal options and now states are left to deal with the wreckage. The homeless would likely need to tap into federal solutions since the cities could not become de facto mental health facilities.
What Reagan did was defund federal options and now states are left to deal with the wreckage. The homeless would likely need to tap into federal solutions since the cities could not become de facto mental health facilities.
Yes, that was what Reagan wanted. For states to solve or ignore the problem without Federal aid. Approximately, 30 to 33 percent of all homeless people have a mental illness. This means that at least 67 percent of all homeless people are homeless for other reasons other than a mental illness. According to BBC, the main reason people become homeless is due to the high cost of living especially rent. The majority of the new homeless people are young people between the ages of 18-25. Actually, mental illness is not a major cause of homeless. It's simple economics. Here is an article that describes in more detail the growing problem of homeless in LA. The article even mentions people moving to LA from outside the state thinking that because LA is perceived to be prosperous, that they too will prosper. The same applies to cities such as Seattle, NY, and any other large city. Perhaps Seattle, LA, and other cities should find a solution to their growing homeless and other problems before even mentioning city base single payer system.
But it's time that urban areas were able to pay for themselves and tell rural areas to go pound sand. The urban areas make plenty of money and if they weren't sending it to rural areas, they could definitely have single payer where everyone paid into the system the same way Massachusetts has done their health care. That we have allowed rural voters to control this country? It has to stop. Let McConnell end Obamacare and tell his Kentucky voters that Kynect was Obamacare all along. But let cities/counties create their own health coverage without having to deal with rural voters who don't support it anyway.
seems like a fair plan. We could have a vote and see what the poeple think and want. My guess is some sort of expanded medicare for all who meet a test would work. But for it to be a real success it would require some sort of collective bargaining with pharma.
Of course the GOP would never allow it, they would attack it endlessly because they know their voters depend on our monies. With the rich counties and cities Trump Land would be a wasteland and property would be worthless out there.
The further danger is that it would be yet another step towards turning our nation into a series of enclaves...
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.
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.
