Would an opt-in, state-level "health care tax" be a bad idea?

[Starks]

(Assuming that the federal income tax is gutted first...)

I've noticed that some the posters here find idea of pseudo-socialized medicine to be less absurd if handled at the state level.

[Revolution9]

Last tme I went to a doctor was in 1987. I eat well, keep my muscles and skeleton upright and balanced and am doing quite well. I refuse to take any pharmaceuticals when I have plants and minerals to take care of any infections. So..why should I have to pay for some clown who stuffs his face with too many mystery meaf and cheesefood GM tacos microwaved to toxic perfection, while swilling down pasteurized milk and puffing chemical laden tobacco when all of a sudden he can't get oxygen through the swamp of putrefaction in his lungs.

To me you go to a doctor when you break a bone and need it reset or similar trauma. They are not there to provide masking agents for your bad lifestyles effects on your body. So.. I do not want to have to be forced to pay for something I will probably not use. Because I can see by the mediacal plans some I know have that they pay several hundred bucks a month for coverage. I would kick in 20 bucks a month but I do not see the fairness in paying huge sums into something I never use. I heal people better than most doctors in my experience. First place to look is their fridge. Most of their ills pour forth from the rot in ther fridge disguised as food product.

Best
Randy

[USPatriot36]

Government involvement in health care is a bad idea in my opinion. However, if it is done at the state level, it is a million times better than at the federal level for the following reasons:

1) competition amongst the states will allow the people to compare the various implementations or non-implementations
2) it would have to be funded by state tax dollars and not the hidden tax of inflation so the costs would be more apparent to the voters and not hidden
3) much easier for the 'people' to have a voice in the matter and change or abolish the program
4) According to the 10th Amendment, healthcare is a domain left to the States or the People so it is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution for the states to be involved.

[john_anderson_ii]

Government involvement in health care is a bad idea in my opinion. However, if it is done at the state level, it is a million times better than at the federal level for the following reasons:

1) competition amongst the states will allow the people to compare the various implementations or non-implementations
2) it would have to be funded by state tax dollars and not the hidden tax of inflation so the costs would be more apparent to the voters and not hidden
3) much easier for the 'people' to have a voice in the matter and change or abolish the program
4) According to the 10th Amendment, healthcare is a domain left to the States or the People so it is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution for the states to be involved.

My grandfather is a WWII & Korea vet. my father is a Vietnam vet. I'm an OIF vet....The VA hospital is hell! Navy medicine is damn good. This psudo government nonsense is ineffective, inefficient and the lack of choice is flat out unamerican.

If you want socialized health care, go to a VA hospital for your checkup....that should cure you.

[SwooshOU]

I don't have health insurance. Yet, the ministry I'm a part of is a great example of how much more efficiently health care can be run and how costs are kept down so much more when government isn't involved. It's a Christian based ministry that requires abstinence from especially harmful choices (like smoking and excessive drinking). However, that also keeps costs down.

I'm a part of an opt-in sharing ministry that shares the burdens of one another's health issues. I pay a set monthly "share" amount. Currently, it's $251 per month for a family (two adults and any number of children). For one adult, it's $110 per month, for a couple it's $210 and for a single parent family it's $154.

Here's how it works. If Susie in Alabama broke her leg, she tells the hospital she is a "self pay" patient. That alone usually reduces the bill by quite a bit. Let's say it's a $50,000 bill. After she gets the bill, she sends it to the ministry headquarters. Susie is required to pay the first $300 (that's all). Headquarters does the paperwork to divvy up the need sends it to enough members to cover the cost. Saying an average shared amount is $200 per month, that $50,000 bill becomes the responsibility of only 250 families. There are 13,000 families that participate in this! If there are less needs in any given month, everybody's share amount goes down by the same percentage. If there are more needs in a certain month, the need gets pro-rated and the rest of the bill will be covered the next month.

Let's say I am one of the people who are called on to help Susie. I send my monthly share amount, $251 directly to Susie, NOT to the headquarters (or to the health insurance company). There is something about actually sending your "share" to the one who actually needs it. As a Christian, I'm able to pray for this person too. In order to make sure she gets all her money, Susie would get a list of people (from the ministry) that she's going to get checks from. When she gets a check from that person on the list, she marks their name off. Simply put, that's how it works.

http://www.samaritanministries.org/index.html

The headquarters gets its financial support by requiring new members' first three months share amount to be sent to them for all the paperwork. After that, you send your share amount directly to the person who needs it. It's a brilliant concept that is well organized and works!

See, freedom and liberty at work! Goes to show that the privatization of health care keeps costs down and actually covers more.

[Starks]

Government involvement in health care is a bad idea in my opinion. However, if it is done at the state level, it is a million times better than at the federal level for the following reasons:

1) competition amongst the states will allow the people to compare the various implementations or non-implementations
2) it would have to be funded by state tax dollars and not the hidden tax of inflation so the costs would be more apparent to the voters and not hidden
3) much easier for the 'people' to have a voice in the matter and change or abolish the program
4) According to the 10th Amendment, healthcare is a domain left to the States or the People so it is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution for the states to be involved.

Don't forget that our pre-exisiting (and underperforming) premiums-based healthcare system doesn't even need to be touched in order to do this.

[nexalacer]

I don't have health insurance. Yet, the ministry I'm a part of is a great example of how much more efficiently health care can be run and how costs are kept down so much more when government isn't involved. It's a Christian based ministry that requires abstinence from especially harmful choices (like smoking and excessive drinking). However, that also keeps costs down.

I'm a part of an opt-in sharing ministry that shares the burdens of one another's health issues. I pay a set monthly "share" amount. Currently, it's $251 per month for a family (two adults and any number of children). For one adult, it's $110 per month, for a couple it's $210 and for a single parent family it's $154.

Here's how it works. If Susie in Alabama broke her leg, she tells the hospital she is a "self pay" patient. That alone usually reduces the bill by quite a bit. Let's say it's a $50,000 bill. After she gets the bill, she sends it to the ministry headquarters. Susie is required to pay the first $300 (that's all). Headquarters does the paperwork to divvy up the need sends it to enough members to cover the cost. Saying an average shared amount is $200 per month, that $50,000 bill becomes the responsibility of only 250 families. There are 13,000 families that participate in this! If there are less needs in any given month, everybody's share amount goes down by the same percentage. If there are more needs in a certain month, the need gets pro-rated and the rest of the bill will be covered the next month.

Let's say I am one of the people who are called on to help Susie. I send my monthly share amount, $251 directly to Susie, NOT to the headquarters (or to the health insurance company). There is something about actually sending your "share" to the one who actually needs it. As a Christian, I'm able to pray for this person too. In order to make sure she gets all her money, Susie would get a list of people (from the ministry) that she's going to get checks from. When she gets a check from that person on the list, she marks their name off. Simply put, that's how it works.

http://www.samaritanministries.org/index.html

The headquarters gets its financial support by requiring new members' first three months share amount to be sent to them for all the paperwork. After that, you send your share amount directly to the person who needs it. It's a brilliant concept that is well organized and works!

See, freedom and liberty at work! Goes to show that the privatization of health care keeps costs down and actually covers more.

Wow, this is an amazing idea. Gonna use that link next time I argue socialized medicine at the KOS.

[BuddyRey]

To mandate socialized medicine on a Federal level is authoritarian and wrong-headed. To not allow ANYBODY access to free healthcare is greedy and inhumane. The perfect compromise is mentioned by the OP. An opt-in state and/or local system would not only cut the bloatedness and waste, fraud, and abuse of the Federal healthcare industry, but would insure that the only people being hit up for cash to feed the streamlined system would be those who would reap its rewards as well. It's perfect!!!

[max]

if free markets do such a good job at providing us things like bread, cell phones, computers etc....it would also be able to provide inexpensive quality health care FOR ALL>...


but we dont have a free market in heakth care..

the market is grossly distorted by trial lawyers and frivilous lawsuits...and this business of employers holding money from your salary (invisibly) to pay third party insurance...

also, if the income tax is abolished, our ability to insure ourselves increases as the costs decrease

FREEDOM WORKS!

[Santana28]

ANYTHING voted on at a state level is better for ONE reason alone - because only then do we actually have the choice to move to another state whose laws we agree with! Its not like your every-day struggling American can just wake up and decide to move their family to Canada the next day or anything...

[Starks]

ANYTHING voted on at a state level is better for ONE reason alone - because only then do we actually have the choice to move to another state whose laws we agree with! Its not like your every-day struggling American can just wake up and decide to move their family to Canada the next day or anything...

I agree.

I have an unusual blend of liberal and libertarian views. I believe that governments (especially at the state level) should be modular in its ability to grow in power (assuming the constitution allows it). Ideally, a citizen should only pay for government services (either directly or through an opt-in tax) that they wish to use. There would be no free riders.

[BuddyRey]

I agree.

I have an unusual blend of liberal and libertarian views. I believe that governments (especially at the state level) should be modular in its ability to grow in power (assuming the constitution allows it). Ideally, a citizen should only pay for government services (either directly or through an opt-in tax) that they wish to use. There would be no free riders.

Ditto!!! Glad to know I'm not the only person on this forum straddling the economic left/right divide. As much as I hate bloated government, I trust corporations and unelected tycoons even less.

[Starks]

Ditto!!! Glad to know I'm not the only person on this forum straddling the economic left/right divide. As much as I hate bloated government, I trust corporations and unelected tycoons even less.

While I agree that our government as a whole could use a thorough colonoscopy, the out of control spending won't be stopped until the source of power is shifted back to the states.

Gotta love the enumerated powers clause.

[nexalacer]

As much as I hate bloated government, I trust corporations and unelected tycoons even less.

As a big fan of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, I understand this to an extent, but in a free society, the corporations and unelected tycoons would not be able to legally use force against you, unlike the state. Of course, there will be unfortunate times when they will attempt to use force, but that is why we must be ever vigilant AND ever armed.

[blazin_it_alwyz]

in a truly free market, all this stuff becomes a moot point, that is what people really don't understand.

Did anyone here watch SiCKO? Did anyone watch, when michael moore goes to cuba, and buys medicine for pennies on the dollar? That is how cheap medicine would be in a free market people! This would be a MOOT POINT! If it costed 1 dollar for checkups, do you think anyone would be complaining? NO!

YOU WOULDN'T EVEN NEED SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE if medicine costs pennies on the dollar people.....

And for anyone who is too poor for that, private groups will step in ON THEIR OWN, and take care of these stragglers.

Problem solved, RP has said this MANY TIMES BEFORE, end of story.


As much as I hate bloated government, I trust corporations and unelected tycoons even less.

in a truly free market, corporations could not force you to do anything. The difference is, if corporations are corrupt, other corporations could easily rise and replace all these corporations. Thus is the power of the free market my man. In a truly free market, if you hate Comcast, GUESS WHAT? You have 10 other companies to choose from! Please go listen to some of RP's speeches, he addresses this issue in PARTICULAR.

[Starks]

in a truly free market, all this stuff becomes a moot point, that is what people really don't understand.

Did anyone here watch SiCKO? Did anyone watch, when michael moore goes to cuba, and buys medicine for pennies on the dollar? That is how cheap medicine would be in a free market people! This would be a MOOT POINT! If it costed 1 dollar for checkups, do you think anyone would be complaining? NO!

YOU WOULDN'T EVEN NEED SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE if medicine costs pennies on the dollar people.....

And for anyone who is too poor for that, private groups will step in ON THEIR OWN, and take care of these stragglers.

Problem solved, RP has said this MANY TIMES BEFORE, end of story.



in a truly free market, corporations could not force you to do anything. The difference is, if corporations are corrupt, other corporations could easily rise and replace all these corporations. Thus is the power of the free market my man. In a truly free market, if you hate Comcast, GUESS WHAT? You have 10 other companies to choose from! Please go listen to some of RP's speeches, he addresses this issue in PARTICULAR.

You can't just jump directly from the capitalist wasteland our country is to one that is based on free markets. You make it sound like that if the state govt was a competitor, it would only be a stop-gap measure rather than a transitional force that can exist as part of a free market.

[BuddyRey]

In a truly free market, corporations could not force you to do anything. The difference is, if corporations are corrupt, other corporations could easily rise and replace all these corporations. Thus is the power of the free market my man. In a truly free market, if you hate Comcast, GUESS WHAT? You have 10 other companies to choose from! Please go listen to some of RP's speeches, he addresses this issue in PARTICULAR.

I both agree and disagree with this. A truly free market is a great idea and could work fabulously IF we made sure to keep anti-trust legislation on the books so that businesses cannot easily consolidate and form monopolies. With a monopolistic/fascist state, you have the very same ultimate problem as in a regulated/socialist state, it's just that all of the power would be in corporate hands rather than government hands, which is neither better nor worse in my opinion. Maybe it looks slightly more menacing on paper than it would be if actually practiced, but I'm just too skeptical of unbridled capitalism to disable my innate distrust of both big business AND big government.

[Mort]

Wow, this is an amazing idea. Gonna use that link next time I argue socialized medicine at the KOS.

Your a KOS supporter? How do you support Paul and at the same time support those socialists? The only way I can guess is by making the war your one and only priority.

[Mort]

Ditto!!! Glad to know I'm not the only person on this forum straddling the economic left/right divide. As much as I hate bloated government, I trust corporations and unelected tycoons even less.

At least in the free market corrupt corporation get weeded out (Enron). Bloated social programs never go away (social security).

[blazin_it_alwyz]

You can't just jump directly from the capitalist wasteland our country is to one that is based on free markets. You make it sound like that if the state govt was a competitor, it would only be a stop-gap measure rather than a transitional force that can exist as part of a free market.

Even Ron Paul has said that you just can't flip a switch and expect everything to change immediately, you ease into it, and I agree with him. I'm not saying abolish everything completely, that is against the teaching of Ron Paul. We can do it, but do it slowly. But what I have said still stands, in a free market, this world would be better for it.

[Starks]

Your a KOS supporter? How do you support Paul and at the same time support those socialists? The only way I can guess is by making the war your one and only priority.

Well, that's how I started with RP...

I also still love to read websites like Raw Story, Crooks and Liars, Think Progress, and KOS (a bit too liberal for even my tastes)...

[blazin_it_alwyz]

I both agree and disagree with this. A truly free market is a great idea and could work fabulously IF we made sure to keep anti-trust legislation on the books so that businesses cannot easily consolidate and form monopolies.

The only reason monopolies are formed so easily is with the help OF THE GOVERNMENT. Take for instance Comcast. Comcast is a GIANT! They are basically monopolizing the industry. Do you understand why they are able to keep that monopoly? All the governments fault my man. Comcast uses it's leverage to make sure that no one else is able to offer internet/cable in the area, and the government backs them on that.

Without the government, other companies would be free to pose competition against these big corporations. I do not know absolutely ANY COMPANY that can monopolize without the help of the government, it just doesn't exist. The only way you can monopolize truly without the government, is to have the best business there could possibly be existing. There is no way to monopolize without being a good company, without the governments help, PERIOD. Ask Comcast, ask AT&T, Ask the banks, Ask the television stations.

Another reason these companies are able to monopolize, is the censorship of information. With the help of the internet, that is being abolished currently. Let's put it in perspective.

Michael Vick, before he was found to be dog fighting. He was VERY POPULAR. A very good QuarterBack. Fast forward to after the dog fighting. Hated Quarterback, suspended indefinitely from the NFL, he is going to Jail.

Now, rewind before the dog fighting. If no one ever found out Mike Vick was dog fighting, he would still be popular.

If everyone knew what these big companies like Comcast, AT&T and the such were up to, they would cease to be popular, and they would be overthrown EASILY. there have been many companies that have tried to compete with these companies, only to be shut out by the Government.

[Starks]

The only reason monopolies are formed so easily is with the help OF THE GOVERNMENT. Take for instance Comcast. Comcast is a GIANT! They are basically monopolizing the industry. Do you understand why they are able to keep that monopoly? All the governments fault my man. Comcast uses it's leverage to make sure that no one else is able to offer internet/cable in the area, and the government backs them on that.

I will attest to that since I've seen it firsthand from Cablevision trying to prevent Verizon from rolling out FIOS. The NYS government also made things worse because Cablevision lobbied long and hard during the infrastructure approval process (which was done on a slow, town by town basis).

[nexalacer]

Your a KOS supporter? How do you support Paul and at the same time support those socialists? The only way I can guess is by making the war your one and only priority.

Hahahaha... no... look at my two diaries over there. I'm not a supporter, I just strongly believe that while Ron Paul is a great step towards liberty, the most important step is education. And who better to educate than the ignorant liberals. Or as Reagan said, "the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."

Far more important to me than the war is our economy, especially our monetary system. If our money isn't free, we can never be free.

[nexalacer]

I both agree and disagree with this. A truly free market is a great idea and could work fabulously IF we made sure to keep anti-trust legislation on the books so that businesses cannot easily consolidate and form monopolies. With a monopolistic/fascist state, you have the very same ultimate problem as in a regulated/socialist state, it's just that all of the power would be in corporate hands rather than government hands, which is neither better nor worse in my opinion. Maybe it looks slightly more menacing on paper than it would be if actually practiced, but I'm just too skeptical of unbridled capitalism to disable my innate distrust of both big business AND big government.

And this is what I'm trying to educate against... As long as there is a state that has significant power (that is, ANY power, since they hold the legitimate monopoly on force in society), corporations will attempt to buy that power since it will get them more profits. But the solution here is not to hinder the corporations, it's to hinder the power of the state. Stop asking the state to do things for you and they have no power. When you ask the state (any state, including your State such as California) to do something for you, you give them more authority over the territory they use their monopoly of force. In fact, corporations would be abolished in a free society, because corporations are authorized by states. So, fear corporations all you want because they are true examples of the tyranny of state power, but unbridled capitalism would produce such a large number of businesses, there could never be a monopoly, unless as blazin' said, it's a REALLY GOOD business. The more you look at and study the abuses of corporate power, the more you see it's actually an abuse of state power.

I really want to do an in-depth analysis on Zinn's The People's History of the United States and show how every example he has in there of worker abuse is a result of government interference on behalf of the evil corporations.

Also, remember Mussolini defined fascism as the marriage between corporations and the state.... so as one who despises the state, you can say I despise fascism just as much as you do.

[SeanEdwards]

I would probably support a state run voluntary health insurance plan of last resort. I imagine a kind of non-profit insurance plan that people could voluntarily join, and that would be mandated by law to accept all applicants and charge those applicants on some kind of sliding scale, taking into account their income level.

Basically, if you don't have a job that includes health coverage, you can be screwed by the current state of the market. Insurance companies are not obligated to insure anyone, and they reject any individual applicant whose health is not perfect. That's why I could see a place for a state supported insurance program that would not replace the existing finance system, but compete with it, while offering an option for people who can not otherwise get any health insurance at all.