[cttransplant85]

A bunch of keyboard geniuses in this thread. We have a state run bottom up system in the country, have any of you asked yourselves if this was such a no brainer, why hasnt a single state ever attempted it? We have states like vermont where every politician is a socialist, and it would be on a small manageable scale, why havent they tried? Why hasnt California tried? Has it ever occured to you that maybe the #s dont add up, the taxation involved would cause capital flight put them on the wrong side of the laffer curve, Inevitable bankruptcy? That they simply dont have enough doctors? I mean come on people these are OBVIOUS problems.

Also does no one else see the moral hazard here. I dont have insurance when I go to my Dr. I explain that I do not have insurance he cuts my bill down to 25% of what he charges insurance companies. In your world he charges everyone as much as possible and bills the state. I guess you could put price controls in place but this would lead to shortages and worse care.

[RunD1987]

This implemented in the State with a few tweaks, Healthy_Americans_Act

Expand on organizations and institutions that can open health savings accounts to the public

[Lincolnian]

Originally Posted by Minethatbird

These folks made a nightmare out of the BO exchange program. They previously attempted the Charter Oaks plan, which did not work. What makes you think they are up to this job now?

The proposal I put forward in the original post was a partnership with a plan developed by insurers, businesses and the state. The universal component is the key as well as elimination of redundant services and programs.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by basehead617

Capitalism doesn't work for healthcare because the usual pressures and choices don't exist. Someone will pay every cent they have to give themselves or their children the best chance of surviving disease and extending life (the two things that comprise nearly all of healthcare spending, as a percentage), even if it means bankrupting themselves and/or their family.

That isn't the case for any other product or service.

Exactly healthcare decisions are rarely made with a rational financial basis.

[Matrix2791]

Originally Posted by nep321

Actually, the money is there and it could work NOW. If all CT residents stop buying private health insurance and instead pay into a state funded (single payer) system, then guess what? The money will be pooled and available for people's healthcare NOW.

Think of it this way. As we speak, let's say that all CT residents are collectively paying $1.5 billion in health insurance premiums. Well, under a single payer state system, everyone would STOP paying those premiums and instead pay it as a payroll tax into a fund.

So yes, there is a good chance that the money is there now and can work NOW.

Novel idea but I could see the State raiding that fund to balance it's books.......... Next?

[Vandy-bound]

Universal system really only works if ALL states are involved AND if employers no longer provide health insurance as a benefit of employment. A state-by-state plan to implement universal care is likely doomed to fail from the start, particularly in cash-strapped states (like IL and CT).

Really, what I think would be the best option is something akin to several European systems, where there is essential healthcare coverage for ALL, and those who want additional coverage can purchase it--but universal care is handled by the government. There is an excellent resource, by the OECD, that describes and compares healthcare systems in 29 OECD countries which might give some of those posting on this thread better insights to how other countries make it work:

Paris, V., M. Devaux and L. Wei (2010), “Health Systems Institutional Characteristics: A Survey of 29 OECD Countries”, OECD Health Working Papers, No. 50, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Health Systems Institutional Characteristics - Papers - OECD iLibrary

[RunD1987]

Universal doesn't have to be insurance for all though. If the State can figure how to fund their own open insurance market it can create completion with private insurances due to it's low cost. Take cost away from the State for State Employees. Hopefully encourage growth of bussines in the State as employers aren't mandated to offer insurance to their employees.

[Henry10]

In US, Health Insurance market is very far from being a "free market" system. It is probably the most Govt-controlled market. So let's make that clear before we attribute failures to Capitalism.

Secondly, universal health insurance is only one part of many moving parts of economy and political system. So you can't examine it from a reductionist POV. We need to view it in a holistic, coordinated way along with all other aspects.

Thirdly, many here who beat the drum of Universal Insurance, should really become first familiar with Europe, Japan, and not in a reductionist way. Some here sound like bocce players talking about intricacies of football tactics.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Henry10

In US, Health Insurance market is very far from being a "free market" system. It is probably the most Govt-controlled market. So let's make that clear before we attribute failures to Capitalism.

Secondly, universal health insurance is only one part of many moving parts of economy and political system. So you can't examine it from a reductionist POV. We need to view it in a holistic, coordinated way along with all other aspects.

Thirdly, many here who beat the drum of Universal Insurance, should really become first familiar with Europe, Japan, and not in a reductionist way. Some here sound like bocce players talking about intricacies of football tactics.

I have explored the health system in most countries. I still have spread sheets from 2001 when I first figured how much healthcare was costing american s vs the rest of the world. My first political cause was health insurance, and it's still the one I care the most about. Our system is the closest thing to a free market health system in the developed world. I agree it is not a true free market thou.
I believe we need universal healthcare access. If it's created thru public private partnerships or any of the other models around the world that's fine. But ours is the most expensive without being the most effective. For instance Cuba has better health outcomes then us under a fully socialized scheme that most leftists in the country wouldn't even support and I really can't support.

I'm willing to try something other then single payer, but looking at the data from different systems around the world single payer seems to be the most efficient at delivering decent care at a decent price.

That said I don't support the state going it alone.

In order to make it work the tax structure would need to be overhauled at the federal level. I imagine given the anger and issues with healthcare at some point some state will go for it but I think somewhere like CT with too many liabilities it would cause to many issues.

The only think I could see the state doing which was purposed before is selling the state employee health plan on the open market. Not just to individuals but companies. The plan I believe is administered by Aetna so that could stay and it would not be government run health care just govt insured/backed health care.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by cttransplant85

A bunch of keyboard geniuses in this thread. We have a state run bottom up system in the country, have any of you asked yourselves if this was such a no brainer, why hasnt a single state ever attempted it? We have states like vermont where every politician is a socialist, and it would be on a small manageable scale, why havent they tried? Why hasnt California tried? Has it ever occured to you that maybe the #s dont add up, the taxation involved would cause capital flight put them on the wrong side of the laffer curve, Inevitable bankruptcy? That they simply dont have enough doctors? I mean come on people these are OBVIOUS problems.

Also does no one else see the moral hazard here. I dont have insurance when I go to my Dr. I explain that I do not have insurance he cuts my bill down to 25% of what he charges insurance companies. In your world he charges everyone as much as possible and bills the state. I guess you could put price controls in place but this would lead to shortages and worse care.

There would have to be price controls. Even Singapore often held up as a free market health system controls what a hospital can charge.