Shouldn’t there be some recognition for those who “take a bullet” to defend the all-important tenets of federalism? A monument, perhaps? True, they would get a headstone, but that’s a bit weak…
How long do you have to reside there to get the ID?
Are the homeless considered residents?
Respectfully, I don’t think you discussed it above. You used a lot of weasel words. Now, you suggest that you would support the Commonwealth of Virginia creating a public option, so long as it is competitive with private insurers.
Why is that a function of good government? To simply add to the private market?
Personally, I’m not worried about stuff like that because those things are infinitely easier to work out than trying to get UHC passed at the federal level. No?
Just so we’re clear, you read my post conceptualizing “Virginia CommonCare,” yes?
Another problem with some states setting this up and some not (as Trumps plan states would be able to opt in or out of pre-existing conditions) you could have a LOT of sick people with pre-existing conditions moving to your state to get coverage.
The whole thing is stupid.
As soon as you move in to your Ohio residence, you can get the state health care ID.
Not sure about the homeless. Not that I think they aren’t residents or whatever, or that they don’t need/deserve health care. Just not sure on how they would show they live in Ohio. Any suggestions?
No. Frankly, I consider "state-run UHC’ to be a sick joke, a diversion to muddy the waters by those who know that it couldn’t possibly work. Do you know why no state is going to even consider such a thing?
Because no state is stupid enough to set up UHC when it is surrounded by other states just waiting to get rid of those that put a burden on their treasury, and accept those that don’t want to participate and can afford to take their business elsewhere. I doubt such a system would last more than two years before it collapsed.
Yes, I read them all. And, again respectfully, you are using lawyer bullshit words to make your position sufficiently ambiguous. I do that when it suits me. 
But I am asking you, with conservative card in hand:
-
Do you support (not believe it is constitutional) a Virginia CommonCare plan?
-
You’ve already said that you supported the Supreme Court decision upholding the ACA as a tax. Do you continue to believe that Roberts’ decision was correct?
-
If so, then why are you whining in this thread about UHC? If the federal government has the power to do it, and you would agree with your state government doing it, why the complaints about the federal government doing it?
Because a state-run UHC is guaranteed to fail, while a tightly run federal UHC might succeed, oh horror of horrors.
(1) Done right, yes.
(2) Yes. The plan is unwise, but constitutional, making Roberts’ decision correct.
(3) Because the authority of the state to legislate a CommonCare plan is clear, and the federal government’s authority to do so has arisen from the years-long bleeding away of the distinction between federal and state powers. Which I believe is unwise.
Too conservative for the liberals and too liberal for the conservatives, I apparently am.
Are you talking about a single-payer system or something like RomneyCare / a state version of Obamacare?
Either one is doomed to fail on a state-based system if the poor and medically needy are allowed to come in from other states, and the rich can leave for other states that don’t have such a system. Without a pretty much stable/guaranteed base to support the system, the system breaks down in no time flat.
UHC implemented on a state level comes with a few problems.
One of the reasons US healthcare is so expensive is that the US tries to run so many different programs. Medicare, Medicaid, VA, IHA, OOP etc, all the different insurers. Each with their own forms and practices. Gatekeeping who is entitled to what, credit-checking, billing, chasing down payments. Processing payments and negotiations between insurers and providers. Denied coverage, appeals, charity. Liaising between all of them.
Other nations tend to just pick one system, and let private providers fill in the cracks. It avoids a vast amount of bureaucracy and duplication of work.
The thing is… adding one more system on top of that does not make it better. Exactly the opposite. And the money other nations use to provide UHC? That money and a little bit more is in the US bound up in federal programs, Medicare, VA and up to a point Medicaid.
Its a bit of a catch-22. You can’t wind down those programs without having a UHC program to take over, and you can’t build such a program without those funds.
You’d need to require each stated to provide UHC, and give them the funds, but leave the system up to them. Let Vermont do VA for everyone, Virginia Medicare for all, and Texas do the Swiss system. But I don’t think that is politically realistic at all.
Sounds very East German.
Pretty much. Unless every state starts it up at the same time, no state is going to participate, no matter what it is or what you call it.
Explain, please?
“… if the poor and medically needy are allowed to come in from other states, and the rich can leave for other states …” sounded like the sort of mindset that birthed the Berlin Wall, but I think it’s largely an unfounded fear. Not all the homeless have evacuated the other 49 states to move to the one with the best homeless care. Not all the mentally ill have gone to the one with the best mental illness treatment programs. Not all the rich have moved to the state with the lowest taxes.
If you want to argue that it’s a legitimate concern, then wouldn’t it still be one at the national level? Poor and medically needy can come in, and rich can leave the country almost as easily as they can a state.
In what universe is that true? It’s just as easy to enter/leave this country and acquire/give up your U.S. citizenship as it is to do so concerning an individual state?
Get serious.
The Communists built that wall to keep people from flooding in to East Germany and using their health system?
Are you even trying any more?