What about trying universal healthcare on a state level?

I'm still seeing no connection.
How would that make it more difficult to provide healthcare on a state level than the federal level?

In fact, how does that make it more difficult for states to provide healthcare at all?
If federal tax rates lower, doesn't that just make it easier for states to raise tax rates, if they want?

It seems to me you keep trying to change the topic by bringing up talking points.

 

I was addressing the budget & policy issue at the federal level in my last post - ie, the GOP trying to gut entitlements further.

If, at the federal level, entitlements continue to be gutted, raising taxes at the state level will hurt citizens more.

And, raising taxes at the state level won't work if states don't simultaneously address the many factors that make people sick in the first place, in addition to drastically lowering the cost of healthcare in general.

That's why, and for the reason I mentioned earlier, I believe a dual state & federal healthcare insurance plan would be best - but we need to get the GOP out of the way first.

 

So you think the Republicans on the federal level are going to gut entitlements but that will not be accompanied by tax decreases?

Again, what you're saying just does not seem to make sense, looking at the bigger picture.

Or you think Republicans are just going to want to divert all that spending to somewhere else?

Do you remember what Trump was saying? That other countries like Germany should have to spend more money on their military so the U.S. would not have to spend as much. And then maybe those countries in Europe would no longer be able to afford to provide healthcare, if the U.S. wasn't paying for their protection.

 

Oh no! There will definitely be tax cuts - but mostly for the top 1% (83% of the benefits) - which is what happened under Trump with his near $2 trillion tax cut. The GOP always want to give tax breaks to the rich, but they don't want to do this by cutting corporate welfare or do anything that hurts corporations or the rich - so they gut funding to important social programs, infrastructure spending, environmental protections, regulatory agencies, etc.

 

Again, why would states be unable to compensate for this by raising tax rates?

Are you afraid all the rich people would try to flee away to Florida?

 

Just raising taxes is not enough - just like taking magnesium for a magnesium deficiency isn't enough. One must address why people are becoming sick - why the body is deficient in magnesium. One must address the "whole being."

 

That has nothing to do with why a healthcare system could not be implemented on the state level rather than the federal level.

If you can agree with that, then we can let the matter rest.

You seem to just be saying that it would be problematic to institute any universal healthcare system - either on the state or federal level - until certain public health prerequisites are met.

 

As this has been proved right in all developped countries outside God's own. 1/3 of all expenses are due to marketing and lobbying.

Of course, for if you lost your job, you need the help the most.

No employer is involved in the employees' health insurance in each and every dsevelopped country outside God's own.

 

Imagine you not getting broke by a car incident in which you've got hurt, although you did no wrong AND although you were insured.

 

Oh Lord, do you really believe in this?`Why don't you look for how other nations handle health insurence? Why do the people live longer and pay less in all other First World countries?

 

Because they have better nutrition and exercise and they don't advertize pharmaceuticals on TV.

Until Americans eat better, live better and stop trying to fix all our problems with pills, our health care is going to be unafforable, no matter how much we try to spread the cost around. We have to fix the problem, not collectivize and subsidize the problem.

 

Think! If you wish to implement any program that requires large sums of money, would it not work better if the required funding for said program could be lowered as much as possible?

Healthcare is something we can truly and substantially lower the cost of by simply keeping people from getting sick in the first place. Compare a very sick population to a very healthy population. Which one do you think will cost more to take care of?

YES!

 

Maybe these problems will be ready to get into the focus one day. But as long as a ride to the hospital costs 2.000 $, a visit in the emergency room 800$, ... as long as Amerciancs have to pay ten times the money as all and really all the people ouside the US-borders for a simple insulin portion the problem's not even touched.

But greed and envy rule the health industries. They just work like planned.

 

Good question... Healthy people get older. And they are older when they get unhealthy. A fat man who dies at 45 years of age will never get Alzheimer's or pancreas cancer, but even the healthiest and most concious people get sick and helpless one day

??

 

Absolutely. So what makes you think nationalizing it or subsidizing it or whatever is going to make it better? It'll still be greedy corporations providing the care with no incentive to promote actual health and all the incentive to charge us out the ass as often as possible. They'll just be charging the govt instead of our insurance agency or us directly. Do you think the govt has a good track record of not getting screwed and/or not screwing us?

 

Babies and toddlers get sick too. Children's hospitals are full of kids with cancer, liver disease, autoimmune diseases, diabetes Type 1, etc.

They may or may not - or they'll get something different.

They may or may not.

To know what keeps people healthy one needs to have a broad knowledge of not only the many potential causes of illness, but also the worst offenders - these being artificial EMF, vaccinations, pesticides, industrial contaminants, food additives, poor diet, poor food quality, and lifestyle/stress.

Along with this one needs to have a broad knowledge of the best non-toxic treatments/therapies that are available that conventional medicine typically shuns.

 

The sheer amount of examples. Even in the most corrupt countries with single payer health care systems bill the patients by far less than the monopolistic health care providers. (In case of an emergency you can bill everything). In a single payer system - whether it's run by the gouvernment or by a regulated private foundation - you can fix all the prices in advance.

All the examples in developped countries say one thing: Those greedy corporations will bill the prices they have had negotiated beforehand. And if there are many providers and only one customer the cost of an X-ray photo or insuline will drop by 90%. This is a capitalistic law.

 

How does the number of providers increase?

 

By new providers any by competition.

 

How is socialized medicine going to lead to new providers and more competition?

 

Socialized medicine won't increase competition, but that's okay because competition is unnecessary for quality health services.

Socialized medicine can, however, increase new providers by chopping down large corporations involved in healthcare products/services. By doing so, these corporations won't have the power/influence to suppress the hundreds of natural/alternative/non-toxic medical treatments & therapies that are waiting in the wings to be widely administered - many of which have been used for generations or even millennia.

I'd like to see a federally insured emergency/trauma/acute care service (better yet, create federal hospitals), coupled with federal & state insured non-acute care health services to address other health needs.

Of course, we can just skip the states altogether and create a 100% federally insured healthcare system.

Either way, there's no need for private insurers. But price caps would have to be imposed on how much healthcare professionals & clinics charge if they are to be reimbursed. And that would increase business, because lower prices = more business.

I believe that in a monetary society, the ideal society would be one which the federal govt (publicly controlled & funded) would provide all necessary health services, particularly both the most effective & most advanced non-toxic treatments - and would also do the hiring. In this way it would out-compete any private group that tries to grow excessively large. This can be mixed with those who wish to establish their own private mom & pop clinics to practice their own special form of treatment. Keep in mind, there's no reason why the federal govt can't provide the exact same care & therapies that private clinics do - but do it better & cheaper. Govt = Not-for-profit = Cheap & Efficient.

 

Well, sometimes there are people that doesn't have any clue what's outside the US-borders.

In the US companies will bill the customer for some insulin10 times more or for an ambulance 100 times than outside the US. They do it because they can. There is no competition; in the moment you need those you will pay every price. In all other countries than God's own the insulin is not sold to the patient, but to the single payer (government owned or private or something in between).

 

Let's consider this logically for a moment and with some understanding. Is it not rational, logical, and common sense that a citizen with tuberculosis in South Carolina should have equal access to quality healthcare as any tuberculosis patient in Arizona, Ohio, Oregon, New Mexico, or Connecticut has? Or should one or more of them have greater opportunity for quality treatment than others? If you say equal access should not be provided please justify it. If you say equal access SHOULD be available, then a national system of national laws is required.

And if you say the Constitution says states' rights dictate a state-by-state solution of inequality, then we need a way around the so out-of-date Constitution.

 

Well, it's not really any more logical to assume that than to assume that someone in Mexico has the same "right" to "quality healthcare" as someone in the U.S.

Different states collect different amounts of taxes and have different spending priorities.

Do you think people in different states should have the same "right" to well kept roads? Or the same "right" to be safe from violent crime, given that different places allocate different amounts of money to funding police?

That type of thinking seems like only a stone's throw away from a one world government.

As I previously said (and emphasized) the current system of American government allows any single state to implement a universal health system, if they wish.
And tax the people of that state to pay for it.

You seem to be trying to make this an "all or nothing" issue. As if there is no "fair" way for any one state to have such a system without all states having it.

 

Why do you raise a question about Mexico? Is it easier than dealing with the question?

And you think that justifies different opportunities to deal with a disease or to survive?

You seem to think public health is as important, or no more important, than roads. Odd. I think most people are much more compassionate than that.

Do you now say the thought of rewriting a very out-dated constitution is an intro to the idea of a one world government? Most countries rewrite their constitutions occasionally. But out of fear of change you prefer to hold fast to an outdated constitution that is already creating troubles.

It is certainly not "fair" to have advanced robotic surgery or life-saving abortion available in some states and not others. YES I definitely think healthcare should be a right granted and provided equally for all. I can't imagine the thinking that would say great healthcare should be withheld from those who can't afford the high costs involved or because of unavailability of services.