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 red states would be able to cut taxes. Only problem is, all the people in the blue states under socialized med would try and cross over the border to get higher quality (and timely) medical care. They would soon realize how much free medical care really costs!
Higher quality medical care in a third world country? Not possible.
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
So what explains the distribution of federal taxing and spending? As you can see from the map, states that get the "worst deal"—that is, have the lowest ratio of federal spending to taxes paid—are generally high-income states either on the coasts or with robust urban areas (such as Illinois and Minnesota). Perhaps not coincidentally, these "donor" states also tend to vote for Democrat candidates in national elections. Similarly, many states that get the "best deal" are lower-income states in the mid-west and south with expansive rural areas that tend to vote Republican. The Tax Foundation - Why Do Some States Feast on Federal Spending, Not Others?
Umm..that is right they are. Going to Europe and Mexico and India and Singapore. Close to a million just this past year, Google under "medical tourism" and wallah.
For critical, need-it-or-I'm-gonna-die care? Or cosmetic surgery?
And anyway, it just further goes to prove that the free market is the solution...they are not going to get the care provided by the socialized systems...they are going to private clinics that provide a comparable service at a cheaper price. Is there a better example of capitalism at work?
For critical, need-it-or-I'm-gonna-die care? Or cosmetic surgery?
And anyway, it just further goes to prove that the free market is the solution...they are not going to get the care provided by the socialized systems...they are going to private clinics that provide a comparable service at a cheaper price. Is there a better example of capitalism at work?
To answer your question - yes, for critical needed operations. Almost a million Americans in 2007.
Cosmetic surgery is above and beyond this.
I think some might have an issue with the fact they need to fly to India or Singapore instead of go down the block for affordable surgery and your claim this is the free market at its finest.
To answer your question - yes, for critical needed operations. Almost a million Americans in 2007.
Cosmetic surgery is above and beyond this.
I think some might have an issue with the fact they need to fly to India or Singapore instead of go down the block for affordable surgery and your claim this is the free market at its finest.
Someone needs a service, elective or necessary, and they shop around for the best price among private providers. They look at the pros and cons of each provider and go with the least expensive option that suits their needs.
How is that not free market?
The other point you fail to address is that whether they get knee surgery or a boob job here in the states or in India at a cheaper price, they are NOT going to Canada, France, or the UK to use their socialized health care, whereas people under socialized health care systems DO run to places with a free market health care system. Our system is not perfect, and I wish it were less regulated than it is (which is why people are going to India or wherever), but it's still a helluva lot better than socialized medicine.
Last edited by dunkel25; 01-08-2008 at 05:25 AM..
Reason: add additional point
Someone needs a service, elective or necessary, and they shop around for the best price among private providers. They look at the pros and cons of each provider and go with the least expensive option that suits their needs.
How is that not free market?
The other point you fail to address is that whether they get knee surgery or a boob job here in the states or in India at a cheaper price, they are NOT going to Canada, France, or the UK to use their socialized health care, whereas people under socialized health care systems DO run to places with a free market health care system. Our system is not perfect, and I wish it were less regulated than it is (which is why people are going to India or wherever), but it's still a helluva lot better than socialized medicine.
I was not arguing relative to whether it was not free market, just that is blows for people that have to go to India to make the free market work for them. There are pros and cons to the different systems. I do know that businesses big and small in America are asking the government to get involved to a limited extent with our system because they no longer afford to assist employees with the runaway costs.
Regulation is just one issue. Operating inefficiencies, insurance company bureaucracy and claim denials, passing all excess cost on to consumers is also contributing to why surgeries here cost 5-10x more than anywhere else in the world.
I was not arguing relative to whether it was not free market, just that is blows for people that have to go to India to make the free market work for them. There are pros and cons to the different systems. I do know that businesses big and small in America are asking the government to get involved to a limited extent with our system because they no longer afford to assist employees with the runaway costs.
Regulation is just one issue. Operating inefficiencies, insurance company bureaucracy and claim denials, passing all excess cost on to consumers is also contributing to why surgeries here cost 5-10x more than anywhere else in the world.
As I said, we have our problems here, but to suggest that more socialized medicine is the answer is just wrong. It does suck that someone has to go to India, but more government regulation is not the answer to fix that. If government just stepped back and let the market sort itself out, most of our big problems would be solved in a week, and people wouldn't have to go overseas for surgeries. However, we would still have people from countries with socialized medicine coming here...probably more of them. Including (and this brings us back to the original topic here), people from an independent, socialist Vermont.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,529,163 times
Reputation: 2038
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc1
No. I'm sure anyone can move there just as anyone can move to Beverly Hills, CA or Greenwich, CT.
The question was about diversity in VT. There doesn't seem to be any. Why not? Don't you think that's bad? What are you doing to correct that injustice other than trashing those who have different observations and life experiences?
If you going to start your name calling because of diverse ideas, I'll just have to concede the argument to you. Happy now?
Education levels? Not as formally educated as Ward Churchill I have to admit
A total mispresentation of what liberals think. A state like Louisana (which has way more diversity) is less in line with the ideas, which are more of a liberal thought, that make VT a great state, save for the ecomony and lack of jobs.
silas777, whether you can tolerate the truth of it or not, Vermont is sure doing a number of things right as a socialist haven as you put it. That state is rated tops for health in the nation, has very low crime and poverty rates, ranks no. 4 as a most livable state, and to top it off is ranked as the smartest state in the union at Smartest State 2006-2007
So if you ask me something is pretty damned good, right and highly desirable about the socialism in Vermont.
I've never been to Vermont, and though I think about other places to consider living and working when I no longer need to stay in OK for my aging mom, I had never even thought of Vermont. Wow! What a difference than Oklahoma's statistics.
Definitely, I will visit Vermont and check it out.
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.
