Bwahahahahaha!

*breath*

hahahahah

ha

*ahem*

If she didn't have money to pay for health insurance, how exactly was she going to pay for a good lawyer? Or any lawyer at all?

The guy had a $300 car.

No car insurance.

He rented a shitty little apartment in a shitty part of town.

He was a day laborer who got paid in cash.

You can't get blood from a stone.

It's not holier-than-thou, it's sick-of-unsupported-and-generally-incorrect-posts.

Because the private sector has done soooo much better when government have contracted things out ( see Iraq and the abortive Social Security privatisation/destruction plan). Also, why would you want to introduce a profit motive where none needs to be?

You and millions of other Americans already do that. They're called HMOs, and they routinely deny procedures and medications because they cost too much.

So you're fine with state-run single payer healthcare, but not Federally-administered programs?

Which is what is already going on now.

PS - what does your link have to do with anything? It indicates a general budgetary condition that is pretty obvious and broad and does nothing at all to support your argument.

And where did I say that GA was run better than the rest of the country? Sorry keep grasping those straws there.

Here is some more to think about. The new bankruptcy law, passed by the Do nothing 109th Congress, makes no allowance for bankruptcy caused by catastrophic illness. So that now, if you become ill - insurance or no - and get wiped out financially (and with the current structure of two income families there is now no "reserve worker" who can enter the labor force if the primary breadwinner is incapacitated) those debts cannot be discharged, Which means that even the relatively well off middle class familty can end up in the street after a couple of years following a catastrophic illness.

The system has gone beyond broken - it is malicious.

EDIT:
= Sorry - I just thought I should fix this fucked up post.

When you went off on a long rant about how the states would do better at running health care than the federal government, the logical implication is that you believe that each of those states individually is better run the collective whole. If you don't believe that, then you're recommending that the administration of healthcare be devolved to an admittedly less competent authority. And that's just crazytalk.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "the country as a whole."

Ok let me start over because people are assuming way too much, and reading into what I am saying to hear what they want to hear.

Putting socialized medicine into the hands of the federal government will simply create one more system that will be abused by senators trying to bring in health care money to their respective states at the expense of other states services. If the burden of health care is placed into the hands of the states themselves, some US states are larger than most countries that do have socialized medicine so I do not understand why this should be an issue, will at least keep the money more local. Money from Califonia should not be going to Colorado just because the senator from Colorado is buddy buddy with the appropriations committee.

Basically rather than create a huge system I think that all medical bills should be billed back to the governments of the individual states. All people can walk into their own doctor or whoever they get the care they need they walk out, the doctor or hospital submits a bill to the government. Done and done. The state governments are more than capable of handling such a system, they can buy drugs from wherever is cheapest that gets the best benefit, and can more closely control the cost of medical procedures in their home states as opposed to letting some ass hat 1,000 miles away decide what things should cost. People would still end up paying the same amounts however what you would not have is Insurance companies making money and not providing services to people who have been paying them money for years.

I do understand your point, Coliinism, I just think it's entirely fallacious reasoning.

You might as well type, "I hate the federal government, so they shouldn't do it."

I have lived in multiple states where people felt their state tax dollars were being sent to other counties and muniicipalities, and they felt it was unfair, cronyism, graft, what have you. The same issues have to be dealt with whether it's a federal or a state program.

I think the whole debate, at least, needs to start at the federal level, and at a fundemental place. We have to answer the question for ourselves, "Is basic (nonelective) medical care an inalienable right?" Then falls the overlong debate about what constitutes nonelective medical care.

If we start the debate philosophically, the details can make more sense. I could get behind programs administered by states if there were federal guidelines that defined nonelective care. States could then bolster such care, offer other treatments/procedures/etc., which would give a form of state-to-state competition that might help please the anti-federalists.

However, being a federalist, I'd just as soon leave it to the Fed after streamlining beauracracy and forcing Big Pharma to lower prices and stop marketing.

See I can agree with that almost 100% The only reason I want the fed to stay out of this is because it would limit the power of lobyists to screw the pooch at the federal level, tho the Fed should definately be involved in setting price limits on what procedures can and should cost. The fed needs to be involved by protecting the states from price gouging.

This statement along with your linked graphic illustrates a fundamentally poor grip on federal funds distribution logic. Funds dedicated for a specific need can be distributed in a very lopsided way for very good reasons, for instance:

New York City should get a larger share of mass transit funding (per capita) than, say, rural Kansas. Why? Because there is a large pre-existing mass transit system in NYC that is extremely heavily used and is absolutely critical to the area's economy.

Even though federal gas tax revenue (historically a major source of mass transit funding) isn't that large in NYC precisely because so many use mass transit, they still need and should get more dollars back than they generate from the mass transit funding portion of the gas tax.

Similarly, Federal Medicare spending will be far higher in places like Miami Florida and Ocean County New Jersey, where there are huge numbers of retirees that need a lot of expensive medical care than in places like Vegas where the population is far younger and healthier.

This is not rocket science and the principal can be applied to virtually any area administered by the federal government.

It's clear where you're headed, but your conclusions, while succinct are equally brief on facts and rational.
-Medical "systems" are national in nature. Regardless of the system and "some" local policy interpretation, firms like Anthem BCBS are national
-States with smaller populations would not wield the economic leverage of states with larger populations creating an imbalance in service per health care dollar
-States with smaller populations coincidently have lower average household incomes - read as "double whammy"
-Many federal employees already participate in a very effective federal program, so on some level, they give up their programs, or we support BOTH, federal and state programs
-Insurers and healthcare providers are not inclined to support 50 different programs for pricing, reimbursement, care obligation, fiduciary reporting, (this list goes on forever)

There is no question that Federal budget programs have warts. The national highway system has warts. Nevertheless, you don't drive on one side of the road in Massachusetts and then switch to the other side of the road in Pennsylvania. Red always means stop. The signage is standardized and familiar, etc. You get the point, and I'm sure you understand the advantages. I think you may have gone over the top in your loathing of the federal government.

Now, I lobbying as a discrete issue. It's a problem whethr you're talking about health care or defense contracts. It's also just as heavy a problem in most states as it is in Washington.

Ok perhaps I am being too harsh. I should have added that states that CANNOT provide for their own funding should get aid federally if needed.

I am not referring to money that should be redistributed, I am referring to monies missapropriated. Just to clarify.

It's not that I think that Colinism doesn't have a point. It's that I think he's not making it well.

Federalism does have its advantages, and a public healthcare system that worked well in New York might not be as functional in, say, Wyoming.

But neither am I at all certain, nor have I been given any reason to believe, that a state-run system would necessarily be superior to a federally-run one.

I always make points poorly. I just accept that and move on. eventually I will realize where people are not understanding me and fix what I am trying to say.