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.
Hypothetically, if the single payer experiment in Vermont were to be a cost-cutting success...would the right accept a state managed single payer system? Meaning every state manage it's own universal healthcare system? Now, I know that Vermont is a unique example...it's fairly wealthy, has low unemployment, has a lot of progressive support, and most importantly is very small...but it's still an interesting endeavor.
The reason I'm posing this question is that when I hear members of the GOP discuss the merits of single-payer healthcare, a common objection is the poor management ability of the federal government and the difficulty in managing such a large sector of the economy. However, at the state level it would be considerably more concentrated and theoretically easier to manage. So...if the federal government were to simply say...by the end of 2020...every state must provide universal, single-payer healthcare. We don't care how you do it...which channel it goes through...as long as it is done...would the right ever support that?
I've heard some people argue that a single payer system would cause an influx from Latin America that would drain us. I am assuming most people on the right would say that the Federal government would get in the way of a good system and that a single payer hurts choice.
The most notable objection from the right-wing to healthcare reform isn't format, but rather is with regard to the individual impact on each of them, personally. They generally abide a callous disregard for those most vulnerable in society and so those that either won't personally benefit, or think they'll somehow soon get to a place where they won't need to benefit, from healthcare reform, will object to it in whatever form it comes, for no reason other than because it benefits others and has a price tag.
Socialized medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism.
Vladimir Lenin
Just calling something "socialist" doesn't make it evil or bad. We have what is essentially a socialist interstate highway system, and I think most people are OK with that. The military is basically a socialist institution, and I doubt anyone wants to get rid of it.
Edit: Also, of course, we need to point out that it seems unclear if Lenin ever actually said that quote, but I'm sure that won't stop you from pulling it out again in the future.
With the federal so entrenched in HC it is hard to determine if a idea will work.
One of the things I noticed is the state has no plan as of yet for funding and the story pointed out the they need to come up with 1.6 billion. There has to be some kind of revenue stream but some of that would be made up from employees and others paying into the state system. Of course the state will also have the federal gvt picking up most of the tab on Medicaid.
It will be interesting to see what idea they come up with. I would hope their is shared sacrifice even if it included company owners. It would be a easy sell of instead of dishing out 2,300 for insurance to maybe paying 500 for each employee. Maybe that with a sales tax who knows they might have enough.
I am all for states doing what the hell they want but know the reality their is the federal gvt to deal with.
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.
