Which state do you live in so I can look it up?
California, but I fail to see what that matters?
Are you making a serious proposal, or are you deliberately making an absurd argument to express anger at Republicans and Libertarians? If it’s the latter, I think this would be better in the Pit than in P&E.
Because “we should have 50 different systems” sounds different when it’s coming from a Californian then it does when it’s coming from an Alabaman.
I don’t think your ability to get medical care should be determined by which state you were born in or which state you can afford to move to.
Or which party you voted for.
I want my neighbor to have a pool.
What if they disagree?
At this moment, India allows both arranged marriages and child marriages. They’re a member of the UN - through which Western countries could offer funds in exchange for ending such practices - and they have a pretty large financial connection to us by which we could actively work to harm them for a failure to comply.
How much time do you spend thinking about whether Alabama needs to offer non-emergency care to the homeless, when they think that emergency care is sufficient, versus 10 year old girls getting sold to grey haired old men in India?
What did Alabamans do to you that 1) makes their sins worse than India’s, and 2) makes you their boss? Why can’t they be different, but Indians can? You’ve got political energy that you could spend either direction.
Are you sure that you’ve directed it in the direction that’s the most warranted? Are you sure that the impetus doesn’t largely come from cultural pressures that tell you you’re supposed to direct your attention that way and not this way, but that if you stepped back and thought about it, if you can ignore all the other differences in the world and across nations, maybe there are better ways to prioritize your angsts than going after the people that your TV is telling you to go after because they know that if Alabama ever dropped out of the Federal program well, surely step 2 is to start burning children alive. Certainly, Alabama would never just set up a medical system that basically worked for their needs…
And now let’s also point out the wisdom of saying, “I don’t want to have universal healthcare unless Alabama gets it with me”! In a world where Alabama will refuse, just because they like that it will piss you off.
If your great motive is saving lives and people in need, how many people are you saving by choosing to control Alabama instead of just leading be example and trusting that they’ll follow them they see what they’re missing out on?
What’s the argument against leading by example?
American fucking history is the argument against leading by example.
If we followed your plan Alabama would still have slaves.
This is one country, not 50 independent countries.
The whole point of federalism is that the states can always give you more but they cannot give you less.
Again, your ability to get a minimum standard of medical care should not be determined by which state you were born in or which state you can afford to move to.
India isn’t as likely to spread disease to the rest of us, nor is it trying to turn the US into a fascist state, and it’s a sovereign nation. The two aren’t comparable at all.
So do you think they’re all 1 issue voters?
What if they like ACA or Medicare or etc?
Even those that voted for the single payer system in Colorado. Oh, and what about the Democrats that voted against it? Because only 30% of the voters voted yes on it.
You really want the government to decide who has what rights and privileges depending on what party they belong to? Do you not see how dangerous that is?
About a third of the states do not have registration by party. There are no “registered Republicans” in those states. How would the OP know who to discriminate against in those states?
What about government employees who receive health insurance as part of their benefits package. If the OP finds out they tend to vote Libertarian or Republican should they lose that benefit while other employees get it?
Does the OP really think his nutty idea would ever pass, much less stand up to legal challenges?
I’m thinking about 2008 when I was still a Registered Republican and did vote McCain in the Primary but I campaigned for Obama.
The suggested premise is really dumb and has no merit at all. Shortsighted, narrow focused and the wrong way to do anything.
This whole thing is about as dumb as the rubes screaming “Nuke ‘em” after 9/11.
What harms the human race harms us all.
Disease does not care what your politics are. Spreading viral or infectious disease has no loyalty.
We’re all equals in that.
As others have asked, does that mean they’d be able to claim a rebate on the tax that would otherwise go towards those health services? After all, if they’re not allowed to use them then why should they have to pay for them?
If they were to get a rebate I’d imagine a lot of republicans would say “Great idea! Sign me up!”
So, do they get the rebate or not?
This is one reason why I oppose the idea. Don’t create a seam for people to say “I don’t want to pay for what I’m not using.” See also: private school vouchers.
Risk pooling works best with the largest pools possible. If we’re doing the thing, everyone should participate. If that can’t happen, then don’t do the thing.
The other reason is to prevent the inevitable whining of “What do you mean I’m not allowed to opt-in after I just learned I have the most expensive illness known to medical science? I’m a citizen, I deserve healthcare, here’s a check for one month’s premium.”
We know Republicans and their type will do this. All of their hardline principles turn out to be as flexible as a wet noodle when disaster happens to them personally instead of someone else.
Agreed.
What if lack of prenatal care results in a baby with issues that will greatly increase the cost of the child’s public education?
A factor seldom mentioned in threads like this, except by me, is the large portion of health care cost connected with emergency and other life-threatening conditions. The Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act requires U.S. hospitals to provide all that care. They can bill the uninsured for hundreds of thousands of dollars, or sometimes millions, but the chances of getting the bigger bills paid is low. When the accident or shooting victim arrives in an ambulance, are they supposed to hold off on care until someone verifies that the victim is insured and an adult (since children, I hope, still get uncompensated care)?
I’m going to leave this open as an interesting conversation started from the Troll’s post.
Interestingly, California (where I live) still has a penalty:
This. You don’t even really need to get into the ethics of it; letting large numbers of sick people go untreated is simply bad medical practice.
The whole idea is a classic example of “cut off your nose to spite your face”.