Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, what I have learned from this thread:

1. Glen Beck is a knucklehead.

2. We need to invade/join forces with Venezuela and capture/import their women.

Sound about right?

Frazzled wrote:The fear over health care isn't a fear of health care reform. Its a fear of the horror show that is the current proposals combined with the very clear understanding that our government is basically incompetent to performing most activities outside of the military.

Except there were people freaking out over the idea long before the details of any bill surfaced.

If we accept that US government is incompetent, to what extent do we think that is due to one of the two major political parties holding 'government is incompetent' as a central tenet is responsible? Something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:The problem with Socialism and socialist programs is they are great on paper but when implemented suffer from the foundational issue that imperfect humans are implementing them.

Which only works as long as you think of the market as something that wasn't created by humans, which is a crazy thing to think. It only works as long as you ignore the scale and bureacracy of the multi-billion dollar corporations that make up the private sector, which is a crazy thing to ignore.

There certainly is a limit to government's usefulness, but that limit isn't to be found in vague ideological statements cribbed from a misunderstanding of the Wealth of Nations.

When an imperfect human is placed in the position of arbiter to decide what's fair and what isn't, hijinx ensue. That's human nature. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat."
John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, 1981-1987


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:I' have always said pure unfettereed capitalism doesn't work. Same with pure enfettered socialism. You need a balance to make a good government.

The problem, of course, is finding the proper balance. If the balance is not even attempted than you have stagnation and no change.

GG

Absolutely, what's needed is to take an approach based on doing what's seen to work, and rejecting what's seen to fail. Base policy on observed results, not ideology.

Unfortunately that requires knowing a lot, and well, that's something that's been seen to fail and should therefore be rejected. Yelling "Socialism!" seems to work pretty well, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Okay, regarding the healthcare issue I've been thinking, why not have the federal government abandon what they're doing, and instead work on allowing the states more of an opportunity to set up what they think is a good plan for their region. Right now it seems like we're just getting a dysfunctional hybrid, and the Democrats in congress seem reluctant to commit to such a gigantic overhaul.

Actual, meaningful reform of the system would require a public option, a base level of service that private insurers would have to be better than to gain customers. It would require decoupling insurance from employment, and allowing employees to choose their own scheme, and set their own price point. Those are things that can only be done at a national level, as individual states offering a public option would find sick people jumping across the border from other states for treatment - it'd be unmanageable.

The final bill that is up for debate now? Yeah, that could be done at a state level, and while it would provide health insurance to millions and prevent people from being bankrupted over a technicality in their insurance... it wouldn't do anything to control costs.

sebster wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I' have always said pure unfettereed capitalism doesn't work. Same with pure enfettered socialism. You need a balance to make a good government.

The problem, of course, is finding the proper balance. If the balance is not even attempted than you have stagnation and no change.

GG

Absolutely, what's needed is to take an approach based on doing what's seen to work, and rejecting what's seen to fail. Base policy on observed results, not ideology.

Unfortunately that requires knowing a lot, and well, that's something that's been seen to fail and should therefore be rejected. Yelling "Socialism!" seems to work pretty well, though.

My U.S. politics professor is funny, he likes to call himself a scientist.

Yelling in general tends to work pretty well, when it comes to politics.

Actual, meaningful reform of the system would require a public option, a base level of service that private insurers would have to be better than to gain customers. It would require decoupling insurance from employment, and allowing employees to choose their own scheme, and set their own price point. Those are things that can only be done at a national level, as individual states offering a public option would find sick people jumping across the border from other states for treatment - it'd be unmanageable.

States seem to have a pretty easy time of identifying out of state 'visitors' as it is though. There are two prices for college, in state, and out of state; that same idea would appear to work just as well in this situation.

sebster wrote:Actual, meaningful reform of the system would require a public option, a base level of service that private insurers would have to be better than to gain customers. It would require decoupling insurance from employment, and allowing employees to choose their own scheme, and set their own price point. Those are things that can only be done at a national level, as individual states offering a public option would find sick people jumping across the border from other states for treatment - it'd be unmanageable.

I don't know that that's true; requirements could be set in place of residency, or of having comparable coverage before going on the state's plan. And it's not as though the United States doesn't have problems with immigration at a national level as well. The alternative looks rather bleak for the public option; there's widespread opposition to it, and given the scale of the implementation there's reason for concern. Allowing the states most sympathetic to the idea to go forward with it gives precedence for the idea within the United States, and allows for smaller differences in implementation to be observed and appraised.

I do agree on the necessity of the federal government decoupling insurance from employment, though.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Allowing the states most sympathetic to the idea to go forward with it gives precedence for the idea within the United States, and allows for smaller differences in implementation to be observed and appraised.

This sounds like a rational and level headed idea. Let's see states such as New York and California implement such laws and see how effective universal healthcare can be.

It's what Glenn Beck would want anyway.

Wrexasaur wrote:My U.S. politics professor is funny, he likes to call himself a scientist.

Yelling in general tends to work pretty well, when it comes to politics.

States seem to have a pretty easy time of identifying out of state 'visitors' as it is though. There are two prices for college, in state, and out of state; that same idea would appear to work just as well in this situation.

Identifying someone moving into the state for three or four years to complete their education is a much clearer thing than identifying someone moving in to look for work... who just happens to be looking at on-going medical work on his spine.

You could put qualifying periods into place, or make immigration conditional on employment, but it would get messy quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't know that that's true; requirements could be set in place of residency, or of having comparable coverage before going on the state's plan. And it's not as though the United States doesn't have problems with immigration at a national level as well. The alternative looks rather bleak for the public option; there's widespread opposition to it, and given the scale of the implementation there's reason for concern. Allowing the states most sympathetic to the idea to go forward with it gives precedence for the idea within the United States, and allows for smaller differences in implementation to be observed and appraised.

There are far stronger controls on national immigration though. Building similar checks at the state level would lead to a lot of inefficiency.

The other reason this would likely need to be a Federal issue is the dollars. Providing a basic level of healthcare is a huge program, and would need the base of a national income tax behind it, otherwise it's likely going to be something only the wealthier states could afford.

But yeah, I agree with the fate of the public option, in part because it doesn't have the overwhelming support needed, but mostly because it's pretty clear the Democrats don't want to upset the private insurance companies. If there isn't going to be a public option, it makes sense for the Feds to stay out of the issue entirely, and let the starts handle it their own ways.

I do agree on the necessity of the federal government decoupling insurance from employment, though.

Yeah, I mean... if you believe in a free market you believe in the power of people to choose, so why not let them choose their own insurance?

sebster wrote:Identifying someone moving into the state for three or four years to complete their education is a much clearer thing than identifying someone moving in to look for work... who just happens to be looking at on-going medical work on his spine.

You could put qualifying periods into place, or make immigration conditional on employment, but it would get messy quickly.

Would it necessarily be an issue of immigration, though? I mean, you could simply have the requirements in place when you sign up for the state's public option (or for similar benefits; state colleges, Alaska has that oil dividend, I'm sure there are others I'm thinking of), and otherwise leave immigration alone, I should think.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Would it necessarily be an issue of immigration, though? I mean, you could simply have the requirements in place when you sign up for the state's public option (or for similar benefits; state colleges, Alaska has that oil dividend, I'm sure there are others I'm thinking of), and otherwise leave immigration alone, I should think.

I mean immigration between states. I don't know how tightly this is controlled in the US but in Australia there is completely free movement between the states, and I assumed it was the same in the US. If you start having significant differences in available healthcare, that free movement would have to stop.

And yeah, Alaska has that payment but you have more a long way and to a massively different climate to get it. But could you imagine if New York had public care and New Jersey didn't? Every working man who got cancer would move over the border at negligible cost?

There's similar freedom of movement between states; maybe I'm thinking of a different healthcare policy than you, though.

If the public option was only offered to residents of the state in question, then to cross the border and go to a hospital without gaining residency - and thus ability to be on the state's plan - wouldn't be any better than showing up in a hospital without insurance in their home state. Or at least that's what I was thinking.

America has a quota system by state. If you wish to move to another state, you must submit a BLRA- Bi-Lateral Relocation Agreement. You are placed in a queue, during which time you must secure an agreement with another party to purchase your residence and coinciding with this event be able to obtain residency in another state. Once private agreements are resolved, the RTA (Residence Transfer Agreement) is submitted to the state Interstate Translocation Bureau, who in turn submits it to the Department of Housing and the Department of Transportation. 2 forms must be presented; one to your state's RTA, and one to the state in which you wish to move.

Now once the data is processed, your line in the queue for state movement is preserved. Failing to obtain another residence or secure the paperwork within a 3 month window annuls the BLRA you originally submitted and thus begins the process all over again.

The queue time depends on the ratio of population between states. It takes longer to get into smaller population states than larger ones. Circumstances such as PII or Population Increase Initiatives may increase the annual quota imposed per state, and exemptions occur for those in NOs, or Necessitated Occupations, depending on the workforce needs of the state. Exemption status however can only be used if paperwork is submitted to the Federal Department of Labor via a state's Unionization and Certification Board approving your occupational niche has an excess of those with your job within the state and the deficient state has need of your job. This is called a Graduated Employment Transfer, or GET.

Once your processing number comes up in the queue, then your final task is to appear before a Transfer Board with the other 2 parties (one for buying your residence and one for selling the residence you are moving into) within the boundaries of either of the states involved in the move. They certify the documentation and submit the paperwork to the proper Border Transfer Enforcement offices and the federal government so clearances between state boundaries can be approved.

And there you have it! A worst case scenario inspired by Glenn Beck when government bureaucracy goes wrong.

Orkeosaurus wrote:There's similar freedom of movement between states; maybe I'm thinking of a different healthcare policy than you, though.

If the public option was only offered to residents of the state in question, then to cross the border and go to a hospital without gaining residency - and thus ability to be on the state's plan - wouldn't be any better than showing up in a hospital without insurance in their home state. Or at least that's what I was thinking.

Sure, but what happens when your wife is diagnosed with MS, and your insurance won't cover it? You move across the border and wait out the qualifying period. Unless you have extremely long periods before qualifying for residency, then with sufficient warning of a long term condition the switch could be made.

There could be some form of medical screening for uninsured/underinsured immigrants if "camping" becomes a major issue. This is a problem faced at a national level as well; it may be more significant to a state than a country, but there are also going to be drawbacks to having one system made to cover 300 million people over fifty sizable legal districts, even before the political conflicts it would cause.

An influx of immigration would also be, in some cases, of net benefit to the state even with an increase in healthcare costs; population growth without the education expenses.

Orkeosaurus wrote:There could be some form of medical screening for uninsured/underinsured immigrants if "camping" becomes a major issue. This is a problem faced at a national level as well; it may be more significant to a state than a country, but there are also going to be drawbacks to having one system made to cover 300 million people over fifty sizable legal districts, even before the political conflicts it would cause.

An influx of immigration would also be, in some cases, of net benefit to the state even with an increase in healthcare costs; population growth without the education expenses.

Primary and secondary education costs are miniscule compared to healthcare though. Tertiary education is very expensive, but tertiary educated people will mostly have private care, even when a public option is available.

And I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of medical screening for prospective immigrants, that seems like it would screw people over just like the clauses for pre-existing conditions do now.

But it's all speculation. I don't know anywhere in the world that allows each state its own healthcare, where some states have chosen to have a public option. I'm not even sure it's possible given the lower state revenue bases.

How would you apply state health insurance to people living outside the state in question?

For example: even if I go to school out of state, I'm still considered to be a resident at my permanent address, and therefore subject to my home state's insurance program.

Similarly, how would state insurance affect people that travel frequently, and therefore are more likely to incur medical costs outside the state itself. Are they covered, or must they seek healthcare 'in network' as is the case with most private sector plans?

sebster wrote:Primary and secondary education costs are miniscule compared to healthcare though. Tertiary education is very expensive, but tertiary educated people will mostly have private care, even when a public option is available.

Possibly, although there seem to be a lot of college graduates working in coffee shops. The net benefit of immigration is usually going to exceed the costs of education by quite a bit though (as it is usually desirable to maintain a growing population even with those costs), and their drain on the insurance is only going to be so far as the exceed what the average person would cost.

And I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of medical screening for prospective immigrants, that seems like it would screw people over just like the clauses for pre-existing conditions do now.

What do you mean? If you mean being dropped after the existence of a pre-existing condition surfaces later (after being accepted), then the presence of that policy can be set by the state. If you mean it sucks for people in state Y that they can't get the healthcare of state X because they have a pre-existing condition, then that may be true, but that's federalism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:How would you apply state health insurance to people living outside the state in question?

For example: even if I go to school out of state, I'm still considered to be a resident at my permanent address, and therefore subject to my home state's insurance program.

Similarly, how would state insurance affect people that travel frequently, and therefore are more likely to incur medical costs outside the state itself. Are they covered, or must they seek healthcare 'in network' as is the case with most private sector plans?

Hmm, this is getting a little technical for me. Presumably people of a state could be covered while traveling, as a private insurer might, once they're signed up.

For college students, or people owning multiple residences (who aren't so rich they don't care, of course), it may be a little trickier. It seems like the key isn't where the person actually is, but what connection they have to the state providing the public option; the state wants to avoid migrants who are only associating with the state for health benefits (driving up the cost of insurance for the pool), and uses residence as something of an "anchor". I'm no expert on multiple residences, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I need to go to sleep!

Dreadwinter wrote:So, what I have learned from this thread:

1. Glen Beck is a knucklehead.

2. We need to invade/join forces with Venezuela and capture/import their women.

Sound about right?

Youbetcha

Frazzled wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:So, what I have learned from this thread:

1. Glen Beck is a knucklehead.

2. We need to invade/join forces with Venezuela and capture/import their women.

Sound about right?

Youbetcha

I dunno why or what these guys are still arguing about. The thread has pretty much been solved.

I think the thread was solved once we had a refresher course on some of Venezuela's precious assets.

Screw oil, we want broads.