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.
The United States are sometimes referred to as "50 Experiments in Democracy" (never mind that we are a republic). And in any number of areas that's true-business "friendliness", tax structure, firearms laws, etc. Given the push for "single payer", and the strong support from the left, I have to ask-which state would be logical to try it first-prior to even considering a national plan? CA of course comes to mind due to public policies-but it is hardly representative of the rest of the country. No matter how expensive or undesirable some aspects of CA might be for some, the geography and weather are huge selling points. NY is another possibility-but again, NYC distorts things. It is an international hub and a leader in banking and law. While the rest of the state is already stagnating (or failing) NYCs economy distorts the impact of the rest of the state.
So, where else? WA, OR? Perhaps MN or Illinois? I would lean towards these last 2 as more...representative of the rest of the country, with their mix of poor weather part of the year, and lack of seaboard.
It'll have to be a state that will NOT cater to illegals in any way.
Name one country that has universal healthcare where they also have open borders. I don't mean allowing a number of refugees, but allowing it to be uncontrolled altogether without a care as seen in the US.
You can't, because there isn't one.
So that rules California and New York right out.
Oh and there will also have to be stringent requirements on the residency requirement before eligible. Otherwise you'll have red state refugees swarming in as soon as they need health care.
The United States are sometimes referred to as "50 Experiments in Democracy" (never mind that we are a republic). And in any number of areas that's true-business "friendliness", tax structure, firearms laws, etc. Given the push for "single payer", and the strong support from the left, I have to ask-which state would be logical to try it first-prior to even considering a national plan? CA of course comes to mind due to public policies-but it is hardly representative of the rest of the country. No matter how expensive or undesirable some aspects of CA might be for some, the geography and weather are huge selling points. NY is another possibility-but again, NYC distorts things. It is an international hub and a leader in banking and law. While the rest of the state is already stagnating (or failing) NYCs economy distorts the impact of the rest of the state.
So, where else? WA, OR? Perhaps MN or Illinois? I would lean towards these last 2 as more...representative of the rest of the country, with their mix of poor weather part of the year, and lack of seaboard.
Thoughts?
There is a reason why no country on earth has a system of single payer health care in one part of the country and a free market profits-over-lives based system in another part of the country. Its either or. You cant just pick and choose and travel freely to your choice whenever you feel like it.
There is a reason why no country on earth has a system of single payer health care in one part of the country and a free market profits-over-lives based system in another part of the country. Its either or. You cant just pick and choose and travel freely to your choice whenever you feel like it.
Why not, exactly? If either system is preferable, people should be able to choose what works for them. And you can't make the claim that it's not "fair" to the single payer state when those that "need" health care will go there. The same can be said for the nation as a whole-and one party is doing everything in their power to ensure that our borders are unsecured. If you make that case-you have undermined the entire argument for SP.
I'd also make the case that whatever state is the "test case" should be demographically as representative of the nation as a whole as possible. So not places like MA or Vermont of course. That is one more reason I'd lean towards IL-the demographic makeup is somewhat representative of the nation as a whole.
It'll have to be a state that will NOT cater to illegals in any way.
Name one country that has universal healthcare where they also have open borders. I don't mean allowing a number of refugees, but allowing it to be uncontrolled altogether without a care as seen in the US.
You can't, because there isn't one.
So that rules California and New York right out.
Oh and there will also have to be stringent requirements on the residency requirement before eligible. Otherwise you'll have red state refugees swarming in as soon as they need health care.
In that case-you just ruled out UHC completely. You can't have it at the national level when you have states that cater to criminal aliens.
Have you never heard of RomneyCare? I think 98% of the population in MA. is insured.
It's not called "Single Payer" but yet I don't see where naming convention matter much. The question is really whether we have "equal health care access for all and have covered most everyone. It would work here however we administered it.
Although we do touch the water, that has almost zero to do with the economy. The economy is actually quite typical of many.....
Industry
Science
Medicine
Social Services
Transportation
Etc.
RomneyCare is sorta a funny name...but KennedyCare didn't have the right ring to it. That is, it was obviously our liberal populaces and pols who forced it upon Romney.
"as of June 2010, 98.1 percent of state residents had coverage"
Massachusetts tried it, and ended up having to have "group" doctor appts to cut costs. Patients didn't like it. Those with the same health issues are grouped into one Dr's appointment. Strangers know your personal health issues. That didn't go over so well.
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.
