Vermont one step closer to universal healthcare

[glenn1]

I love how the right wingers when it comes to Universal healthcare just shut their ears and go 'lalalalala' at the suggestion of Universal healthcare.

Universal healthcare for advanced economies like Japan, Germany, Canada, Britain has proven to hugely successful while actually costing far less than the private insurance based model.

Other countries don't have medical bankruptcies or people dying of lack of healthcare, while the United States standard of living decline and baby mortality rate increased.

State based Universal Healthcare wouldn't be nearly as successful or cost effective as a federal plan.

It doesn't matter if it did cost less or any other benefit, there are plenty of folks who would object simply on the principle that the benefits would be provided unequally. Making the appeal on its benefits therefore is pointless. This works on both sides of the political spectrum - conservatives would object to giving "free" healthcare to others whom they considered free riders (because the poor are those with the biggest need); progressives would object to tax cuts for all even if they were universal because the rich would get a bigger share (because they pay more in taxes).

 

[nonlnear]

States cannot and should not base their budgets upon being ready for the worst recession in almost a century at all times. Not only would it be politically impossible, but it would be inefficient as well. This is probably beyond your capacity to understand.

That depends on the nature of the liabilities they are assuming. This is probably beyond your capacity to understand.

 

[fskimospy]

That depends on the nature of the liabilities they are assuming. This is probably beyond your capacity to understand.

You win the award for most meaningless post! Everything any organization does ever depends on the nature of liabilities that they assume while taking that action. Thanks for reminding us all that water is wet.

 

[fskimospy]

Well hells bells, we're fucked. The government will continually add new programs and continually have to take more and more as a result. When things turn south they can just take more. When things get better they can just take more to spend on more programs. When they go south you become the apologist.

I understand now.

It's pretty obvious you don't. Somehow you took 'states shouldn't plan their budgets around once a century recessions' and took that to mean that government should eternally grow and tax everything into oblivion.

That's probably because you can't refute my actual point and need to resort to hyperbole.

 

[nonlnear]

You win the award for most meaningless post! Everything any organization does ever depends on the nature of liabilities that they assume while taking that action. Thanks for reminding us all that water is wet.

If you think my post was meaningless, then it clearly was beyond your capacity to understand. Go learn something about hedging. There are in fact liabilities that, if one wants to hedge responsibly, one must prepare for a once in a century event. This is a fact that only government and politically connected businesses (i.e. so well connected that they essentially are the government) can afford to ignore and still remain in business.

 

[davmat787]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, it's very possible that a state system could fail simply because it would encourage sick people to move in while chasing health rich people out. You can't judge socialized medicine in that sort of an environment; it needs to be done on a national scale.
[/FONT]

Possible over the very long term maybe, but I don't think seven months is enough time for enough people to move to your state, and the "healthy rich" out, and sink your universal health care.

Regardless of how one feels about the core issue, I like states exercising their rights.

 

[Zebo]

The problem is universal health care won't work unless it's "universal". What happens otherwise is the people who need healthcare the most overburden the system and people who don't need healthcare at the moment can opt-out.

No it won't work until costs are controlled. The billionaire pharm & hosp execs, the middle men such as insurance, the pimps and pushers from medical devices sales men to doctors which AMA limits.

All you do by making current system "universal" is shift supply and demand curve into supply side making it cost more and them richer.


They already have all the work they need, the very first thing they teach you in business school is raise your prices when even more what your services at current pricing. Why you think premiums are up 10-20% more this year?

Mandate that a little more people be online (26 yr olds still under parents group plan) hence lets raise prices.