Free Market Health Care

[Arianrhod]

Many people here are against government involvement in a wide range of areas, particularly health care. These are generally the people who will also say that government involvement in extra-Constitutional matters is a sign of socialism, communism, Marxism.

Okay.

So rather than toss around generalities on health care, let's get specific. The following health care-related programs are based on varying degrees of government involvement/funding, so they would need to go in your scenario.

Please indicate what free market health care would look like for the constituents, and the benefits to America overall:

• Medicaid
• Medicare
• VA
• ACA

Thanks!
.

Those are all federally based healthcare programs. They are all clumsy and cumbersome because they are run by a clumsy and cumbersome federal government. You want some sort of government run healthcare system? Fine, let the states set up their own as they see fit. Then, if and when it fails it doesn't necessarily break the entire healthcare system. Proponents of single payer like to ballyhoo the Canadian or Swedish or whatever the system du jour is, but they never recognize the sheer numbers those systems serve. Canada is about 1/10 the population of the US, Sweden about 1/30. Smaller systems, serving fewer people, and thus more easily administered.

BAM !!! Out of the park.....

Sweden is barely 1/30th. It is smaller than many of our states.

But we have to have a NATIONAL system.......

The morons on the left really don't get it.

Neither do the dicks on the right.

You and me Sundevil!

So why do you suppose no state (except, I think, Massachusetts under Romney) has tried this on their own?

 

[Mac1958]

Many people here are against government involvement in a wide range of areas, particularly health care. These are generally the people who will also say that government involvement in extra-Constitutional matters is a sign of socialism, communism, Marxism.

Okay.

So rather than toss around generalities on health care, let's get specific. The following health care-related programs are based on varying degrees of government involvement/funding, so they would need to go in your scenario.

Please indicate what free market health care would look like for the constituents, and the benefits to America overall:

• Medicaid
• Medicare
• VA
• ACA

Thanks!
.

Those are all federally based healthcare programs. They are all clumsy and cumbersome because they are run by a clumsy and cumbersome federal government. You want some sort of government run healthcare system? Fine, let the states set up their own as they see fit. Then, if and when it fails it doesn't necessarily break the entire healthcare system. Proponents of single payer like to ballyhoo the Canadian or Swedish or whatever the system du jour is, but they never recognize the sheer numbers those systems serve. Canada is about 1/10 the population of the US, Sweden about 1/30. Smaller systems, serving fewer people, and thus more easily administered.

BAM !!! Out of the park.....

Sweden is barely 1/30th. It is smaller than many of our states.

But we have to have a NATIONAL system.......

The morons on the left really don't get it.

Neither do the dicks on the right.

You and me Sundevil!

So let's get specific on what you all would do.

For example, we currently have seven (7) different health care delivery/payment systems, none of which communicate or coordinate directly with the other:

1. ACA
2. Group health
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. VA
6. Worker's Compensation
7. Indigent

We are also leaving a massive cost/administrative monkey on the backs of American employers at a time when global business competition is only getting more and more deep and intense.

Oh, and we also know that catching medical issues earlier is clearly better than waiting for them to fester and get worse. No reasonable person is going to ignore that if they're serious about keeping costs down.

Okay, there you go. What is your solution, precisely?
.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Many people here are against government involvement in a wide range of areas, particularly health care. These are generally the people who will also say that government involvement in extra-Constitutional matters is a sign of socialism, communism, Marxism.

Okay.

So rather than toss around generalities on health care, let's get specific. The following health care-related programs are based on varying degrees of government involvement/funding, so they would need to go in your scenario.

Please indicate what free market health care would look like for the constituents, and the benefits to America overall:

• Medicaid
• Medicare
• VA
• ACA

Thanks!
.

Those are all federally based healthcare programs. They are all clumsy and cumbersome because they are run by a clumsy and cumbersome federal government. You want some sort of government run healthcare system? Fine, let the states set up their own as they see fit. Then, if and when it fails it doesn't necessarily break the entire healthcare system. Proponents of single payer like to ballyhoo the Canadian or Swedish or whatever the system du jour is, but they never recognize the sheer numbers those systems serve. Canada is about 1/10 the population of the US, Sweden about 1/30. Smaller systems, serving fewer people, and thus more easily administered.

BAM !!! Out of the park.....

Sweden is barely 1/30th. It is smaller than many of our states.

But we have to have a NATIONAL system.......

The morons on the left really don't get it.

Neither do the dicks on the right.

You and me Sundevil!

So why do you suppose no state (except, I think, Massachusetts under Romney) has tried this on their own?

Because of the 17 the amendment. That is the short answer, and the explanation of that answer is rather involved. I doubt few people here would be interested in the explanation.

 

[Arianrhod]

Many people here are against government involvement in a wide range of areas, particularly health care. These are generally the people who will also say that government involvement in extra-Constitutional matters is a sign of socialism, communism, Marxism.

Okay.

So rather than toss around generalities on health care, let's get specific. The following health care-related programs are based on varying degrees of government involvement/funding, so they would need to go in your scenario.

Please indicate what free market health care would look like for the constituents, and the benefits to America overall:

• Medicaid
• Medicare
• VA
• ACA

Thanks!
.

Those are all federally based healthcare programs. They are all clumsy and cumbersome because they are run by a clumsy and cumbersome federal government. You want some sort of government run healthcare system? Fine, let the states set up their own as they see fit. Then, if and when it fails it doesn't necessarily break the entire healthcare system. Proponents of single payer like to ballyhoo the Canadian or Swedish or whatever the system du jour is, but they never recognize the sheer numbers those systems serve. Canada is about 1/10 the population of the US, Sweden about 1/30. Smaller systems, serving fewer people, and thus more easily administered.

BAM !!! Out of the park.....

Sweden is barely 1/30th. It is smaller than many of our states.

But we have to have a NATIONAL system.......

The morons on the left really don't get it.

Neither do the dicks on the right.

You and me Sundevil!

So why do you suppose no state (except, I think, Massachusetts under Romney) has tried this on their own?

Because of the 17 the amendment. That is the short answer, and the explanation of that answer is rather involved. I doubt few people here would be interested in the explanation.

Um, the 17th is about Senators. Not sure how that relates.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Those are all federally based healthcare programs. They are all clumsy and cumbersome because they are run by a clumsy and cumbersome federal government. You want some sort of government run healthcare system? Fine, let the states set up their own as they see fit. Then, if and when it fails it doesn't necessarily break the entire healthcare system. Proponents of single payer like to ballyhoo the Canadian or Swedish or whatever the system du jour is, but they never recognize the sheer numbers those systems serve. Canada is about 1/10 the population of the US, Sweden about 1/30. Smaller systems, serving fewer people, and thus more easily administered.

BAM !!! Out of the park.....

Sweden is barely 1/30th. It is smaller than many of our states.

But we have to have a NATIONAL system.......

The morons on the left really don't get it.

Neither do the dicks on the right.

You and me Sundevil!

So why do you suppose no state (except, I think, Massachusetts under Romney) has tried this on their own?

Because of the 17 the amendment. That is the short answer, and the explanation of that answer is rather involved. I doubt few people here would be interested in the explanation.

Um, the 17th is about Senators. Not sure how that relates.

I know, few people do. Here is a super digested explanation-

Senate was intended to be the branch which represents states rights, and the House of Reps the people's rights. When the senators were appointed or elected by the States' governments they voted and legislated in accordance with the wishes of those governments. But after the 17 the amendment the state governments had no voice or representation, because the senators now pander to their new constituents, the people.

This allowed the federal government to abscond the power intended by the constitution for the states to the federal government. Senators went from being part time statesmen to full time politicians.

I should add that the 16 amendment allowed the federal government to fund the expansion that the 17 th amendment induced.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Many people here are against government involvement in a wide range of areas, particularly health care. These are generally the people who will also say that government involvement in extra-Constitutional matters is a sign of socialism, communism, Marxism.

Okay.

So rather than toss around generalities on health care, let's get specific. The following health care-related programs are based on varying degrees of government involvement/funding, so they would need to go in your scenario.

Please indicate what free market health care would look like for the constituents, and the benefits to America overall:

• Medicaid
• Medicare
• VA
• ACA

Thanks!
.

Those are all federally based healthcare programs. They are all clumsy and cumbersome because they are run by a clumsy and cumbersome federal government. You want some sort of government run healthcare system? Fine, let the states set up their own as they see fit. Then, if and when it fails it doesn't necessarily break the entire healthcare system. Proponents of single payer like to ballyhoo the Canadian or Swedish or whatever the system du jour is, but they never recognize the sheer numbers those systems serve. Canada is about 1/10 the population of the US, Sweden about 1/30. Smaller systems, serving fewer people, and thus more easily administered.

BAM !!! Out of the park.....

Sweden is barely 1/30th. It is smaller than many of our states.

But we have to have a NATIONAL system.......

The morons on the left really don't get it.

Neither do the dicks on the right.

You and me Sundevil!

So why do you suppose no state (except, I think, Massachusetts under Romney) has tried this on their own?

Because of the 17 the amendment. That is the short answer, and the explanation of that answer is rather involved. I doubt few people here would be interested in the explanation.

Again, we are on the same page.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

BAM !!! Out of the park.....

Sweden is barely 1/30th. It is smaller than many of our states.

But we have to have a NATIONAL system.......

The morons on the left really don't get it.

Neither do the dicks on the right.

You and me Sundevil!

So why do you suppose no state (except, I think, Massachusetts under Romney) has tried this on their own?

Because of the 17 the amendment. That is the short answer, and the explanation of that answer is rather involved. I doubt few people here would be interested in the explanation.

Um, the 17th is about Senators. Not sure how that relates.

I know, few people do. Here is a super digested explanation-

Senate was intended to be the branch which represents states rights, and the House of Reps the people's rights. When the senators were appointed or elected by the States' governments they voted and legislated in accordance with the wishes of those governments. But after the 17 the amendment the state governments had no voice or representation, because the senators now pander to their new constituents, the people.

This allowed the federal government to abscond the power intended by the constitution for the states to the federal government. Senators went from being part time statesmen to full time politicians.

I should add that the 16 amendment allowed the federal government to fund the expansion that the 17 th amendment induced.

The very people who don't understand that they can set up the government to give them goodies....state governments.

By giving up the appointment of senators, they essentially said, we'll compete with the rest of the country for resources.

You'd think the blue states would want it repealed. The morons on the far left keep bleating about how blue states subsidize red states. If they passed the 17th, that subsidy would eventually go away.

But, you can't fix stupid.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

You and me Sundevil!

So why do you suppose no state (except, I think, Massachusetts under Romney) has tried this on their own?

Because of the 17 the amendment. That is the short answer, and the explanation of that answer is rather involved. I doubt few people here would be interested in the explanation.

Um, the 17th is about Senators. Not sure how that relates.

I know, few people do. Here is a super digested explanation-

Senate was intended to be the branch which represents states rights, and the House of Reps the people's rights. When the senators were appointed or elected by the States' governments they voted and legislated in accordance with the wishes of those governments. But after the 17 the amendment the state governments had no voice or representation, because the senators now pander to their new constituents, the people.

This allowed the federal government to abscond the power intended by the constitution for the states to the federal government. Senators went from being part time statesmen to full time politicians.

I should add that the 16 amendment allowed the federal government to fund the expansion that the 17 th amendment induced.

The very people who don't understand that they can set up the government to give them goodies....state governments.

By giving up the appointment of senators, they essentially said, we'll compete with the rest of the country for resources.

You'd think the blue states would want it repealed. The morons on the far left keep bleating about how blue states subsidize red states. If they passed the 17th, that subsidy would eventually go away.

But, you can't fix stupid.

Well if we all just come together and we...................no, you're right, stupid may be permanent.

 

[dblack]

Many people here are against government involvement in a wide range of areas, particularly health care. These are generally the people who will also say that government involvement in extra-Constitutional matters is a sign of socialism, communism, Marxism.

Okay.

So rather than toss around generalities on health care, let's get specific. The following health care-related programs are based on varying degrees of government involvement/funding, so they would need to go in your scenario.

Please indicate what free market health care would look like for the constituents, and the benefits to America overall:

• Medicaid
• Medicare
• VA
• ACA

Thanks!
.

Transitioning from state dependency is difficult. Under any reasonable transition schedule, whose who have paid taxes all their lives, expecting such programs to be there for them when needed, would still be able to depend on them. Most proposals include a sunsetting provision to transition off of state entitlements.

The benefits to America overall would be a government focused on matters of justice and equal rights for all individuals, rather than pandering to special interest groups.

I'd also add that, from a Libertarian perspective, it would be a rather pointless gesture - and arguably cruel - to focus on eliminating programs that support the poor without first going after all the corporate welfare.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So why do you suppose no state (except, I think, Massachusetts under Romney) has tried this on their own?

Because of the 17 the amendment. That is the short answer, and the explanation of that answer is rather involved. I doubt few people here would be interested in the explanation.

Um, the 17th is about Senators. Not sure how that relates.

I know, few people do. Here is a super digested explanation-

Senate was intended to be the branch which represents states rights, and the House of Reps the people's rights. When the senators were appointed or elected by the States' governments they voted and legislated in accordance with the wishes of those governments. But after the 17 the amendment the state governments had no voice or representation, because the senators now pander to their new constituents, the people.

This allowed the federal government to abscond the power intended by the constitution for the states to the federal government. Senators went from being part time statesmen to full time politicians.

I should add that the 16 amendment allowed the federal government to fund the expansion that the 17 th amendment induced.

The very people who don't understand that they can set up the government to give them goodies....state governments.

By giving up the appointment of senators, they essentially said, we'll compete with the rest of the country for resources.

You'd think the blue states would want it repealed. The morons on the far left keep bleating about how blue states subsidize red states. If they passed the 17th, that subsidy would eventually go away.

But, you can't fix stupid.

Well if we all just come together and we...................no, you're right, stupid may be permanent.

Which is why people should be fighting harder than ever.

That is why I love watching the Free State Movement. It's been hysterical to see "open minded" New Hampshire suddenly become very biggoted when the when their "way of life" is threatened.