View Poll Results: County Cooperatives

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am a liberal and I support this proposal

    2 20.00%
  • I am a liberal and I do NOT support this proposal

    1 10.00%
  • I am a conservative and I support this proposal

    2 20.00%
  • I am a conservative and I do NOT support this proposal

    0 0%
  • I am neither and I support this proposal

    3 30.00%
  • I am neither and I do NOT support this proposal

    0 0%
  • Other...

    2 20.00%
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 52

Thread: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

  1. #31
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Links, lists, and stuff...
    Very informative, I thank you.

    This, indeed, seems like an at least somewhat plausible idea to greatly reduce or eliminate health care issues.

    I am curious, however, as to what opponents of this proposal/idea have to say.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Very informative, I thank you.
    Sweet, glad you like it!

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I am curious, however, as to what opponents of this proposal/idea have to say.
    Me too, me too.

  3. #33
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

    I love the plan.

    I think a card system could be helpful not just for keeping track of patients home counties, but for their medical conditions. If you find some guy passed out on the high way and he is check into the local emergency room, they could identify if there's been any previous issues with this guy with the card.

    I think that a system is do-able at the county level, but at the Federal level is borderline insanity to believe a handful of people could possibly figure out what is best for the nation.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  4. #34
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

    The idea is certainly intriguing, but a couple of hitches I see would be:

    Tax sources widely range in specific geographical areas. Large urban areas have large businesses and a higher concentration of wealthy people (as far as I currently know- maybe I'm wrong). Smaller towns tend to have a higher porportion of elderly and poor, thus lower tax receipts at the property and/or state tax end of the scale. These more rural areas probably have a higher requirement for outlay based on the population. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but this is my personal anecdotal observation. You would have to have more "regional" rather than local sources for payment.

    Since Social Security and Disability funding come from the Federal level, then it seems that there would be a problem with the Feds dictating who "qualifies" for "poor health care", and the locals would have no say in determining where their local/state tax dollars are going.

    Last, but not least, when the Feds have any part whatsoever in funding or determining funding of any program, they set the rules and regulate it.

    I don't know. I'll have to mull this over more. My first reaction was generally positive, but having dealt with the Federal government on reimbursement, in a business setting (healthcare business) in the past, I'm skeptical with what I can glean from how this plan would work.

  5. #35
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,178

    Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I am curious whether people would be in favor of the following proposal. It is only 4 pages long so please take a moment. The budget is not worked out, but assume it will be.

    http://vawhigs.org/dp/County%20Cooperatives.pdf

    If you answer NO, please post and tell me why.

    thanks.

    It's not the worst idea I've heard, but I have reservations.

    In a sense it is moving the problem of entitlements from the Fed level to the State and local level. States and counties would typically have to increase their taxes. Presumably the Fed would be lowering their rates... presumably. I wish I could trust that.

    On one hand it puts things more in local control, and I like that aspect of it. That could also be a problem for some states and counties... some places have far more people on the dole than others, and if they have to pay their own way locally then property taxes are going through the roof. This can result is productive people moving out, further worsening the producers-to-leeches ratio.

    Also, any plan that purports to address the entitlement problem without taking on Social Security isn't really fixing the issue. SS is going to either go bankrupt, or break us entirely, within a generation. It has to be reformed or phased out or replaced with something more workable.

    On the whole it is an intresting idea, but I don't think it would really help overall. It might "solve" certain Fed problems, but at the expense of creating state and local problems.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    I love the plan.

    I think a card system could be helpful not just for keeping track of patients home counties, but for their medical conditions. If you find some guy passed out on the high way and he is check into the local emergency room, they could identify if there's been any previous issues with this guy with the card.

    I think that a system is do-able at the county level, but at the Federal level is borderline insanity to believe a handful of people could possibly figure out what is best for the nation.
    Wow, I am really glad you love it! For sure, it isn't perfect. I am increasing the number of people covered, by a lot, so the taxes is an issue.

    The issue with card-based medical records, whether they are stored on the card or the card can be used to unlock the records over the net, is security and privacy. If the card carries or unlocks data, how do we insure that only authorized users can access it?

    Thanks for commenting!

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    The idea is certainly intriguing, but a couple of hitches I see would be:
    Thanks for commenting, lizzie! I am so glad you find the idea intriguing. For sure, it isn't perfect. I am increasing the number of people covered, by a lot, so taxes is an issue as they will have to increase.

    Tax sources widely range in specific geographical areas. Large urban areas have large businesses and a higher concentration of wealthy people (as far as I currently know- maybe I'm wrong). Smaller towns tend to have a higher porportion of elderly and poor, thus lower tax receipts at the property and/or state tax end of the scale. These more rural areas probably have a higher requirement for outlay based on the population. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but this is my personal anecdotal observation. You would have to have more "regional" rather than local sources for payment.
    I had thought of this as well, but I didn't make it clear. Different states will use a different mixture of taxes available to it. These can be property taxes, which would be an advantage to populous states with urban areas, or income/consumption taxes, which may be more appropriate to rural states. One concern I had was farmers. They have large property holdings but low incomes. They tend to operate on a margin. Increasing property taxes would be devastating. The bottom line is that it is up to each state.

    There is also the issue of who will need to be covered. There seem to be higher elderly populations in certain states, increasing their burden. Balancing this is that many urban areas have many poor. I definitely think that each state needs to be able to care for the people it has, so no federal funding. It is up to each state how they pay for this.

    Since Social Security and Disability funding come from the Federal level, then it seems that there would be a problem with the Feds dictating who "qualifies" for "poor health care", and the locals would have no say in determining where their local/state tax dollars are going.
    I need to separate these two, as I haven't given any thought to Disability.

    For Social Security, I didn't realize there was an evaluation of "poor". I thought simply that you were covered. As such, they would be eligible in the Co-op as retired and not have a premium. Am I wrong?

    What's Disability? Is there a federal program? It should be included in programs that are removed from the federal level. It may result in the situation you are describing, where the feds determine eligibility. Tell me more.

    Last, but not least, when the Feds have any part whatsoever in funding or determining funding of any program, they set the rules and regulate it.
    We want to avoid that at all costs. It is none of their business.

    I don't know. I'll have to mull this over more. My first reaction was generally positive, but having dealt with the Federal government on reimbursement, in a business setting (healthcare business) in the past, I'm skeptical with what I can glean from how this plan would work.
    I am glad your reaction was positive. But tell me how it wouldn't work. Where is it weak? How would you structure healthcare reform?

    Cheers!

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    It's not the worst idea I've heard, but I have reservations.
    Thanks for commenting, Goshin!

    In a sense it is moving the problem of entitlements from the Fed level to the State and local level. States and counties would typically have to increase their taxes. Presumably the Fed would be lowering their rates... presumably. I wish I could trust that.
    It would be part of the legislation enabling this. The fed's budget would fall 37%. Whatever that amount is, states are going to have to take it on. Therefore, the fed has to drop it's tax receipts by that amount. A couple of things: first is that we are not touching Social Security, so those receipts are untouched. This means that the $$ amount of 37% of budget comes out of non-SS tax receipts. Second, the fed runs a deficit, therefore, if we remove the $$ amount of 37% of budget, it actually reduces the tax receipts by more than 37%. The fed would run a higher deficit. It's totally screwed up.

    On one hand it puts things more in local control, and I like that aspect of it. That could also be a problem for some states and counties... some places have far more people on the dole than others, and if they have to pay their own way locally then property taxes are going through the roof. This can result is productive people moving out, further worsening the producers-to-leeches ratio.
    Please see my response to lizzie on this topic.

    Also, any plan that purports to address the entitlement problem without taking on Social Security isn't really fixing the issue. SS is going to either go bankrupt, or break us entirely, within a generation. It has to be reformed or phased out or replaced with something more workable.
    I am claiming to take on a significant part of the entitlement problem, but not the entire problem. SS is screwed up. It is an unfunded liability in that current payments from productive works pays for current recipients. The government has obligated to the current recipients the payments. Furthermore, these payments are based on income of the recipient.

    The government can't tell future recipients that they wont be covered but they still have to pay.

    We can't take on SS recipients through the Co-op and expect a Co-op in SC to pay for the income-base payment for a retiree from NY.

    I decided not to touch it and let it get resolved separately.

    On the whole it is an intresting idea, but I don't think it would really help overall. It might "solve" certain Fed problems, but at the expense of creating state and local problems.
    It does shift the burden to the local government, but they would be the one collecting taxes to resolve those problems.

    Cheers!

  9. #39
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    One concern I had was farmers. They have large property holdings but low incomes. They tend to operate on a margin. Increasing property taxes would be devastating. The bottom line is that it is up to each state.
    They also have large property holdings, but pay relatively low property taxes due to agricultural exemptions. Their property taxes would likely not rise.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    There is also the issue of who will need to be covered. There seem to be higher elderly populations in certain states, increasing their burden. Balancing this is that many urban areas have many poor. I definitely think that each state needs to be able to care for the people it has, so no federal funding. It is up to each state how they pay for this.
    The concentration of elderly populations seems to be in small towns and rural areas, where costs of living and taxes tend to be smaller, but the needs of the community (health related) seems to be higher, due mostly to aging-related health problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    For Social Security, I didn't realize there was an evaluation of "poor". I thought simply that you were covered. As such, they would be eligible in the Co-op as retired and not have a premium. Am I wrong?
    It's not so much an evaluation of "poor", but federal programs seem to be mostly focused at that level in the general population when it comes to handing out subsidies such as welfare and other programs. I would think a good portion of those who qualify for free health care at a local or state level, are already on the federal roles for federally funded welfare programs, so what I am saying is that the government subsidized programs, at local, state, or federal levels, will be close to the same targeted population. I don't foresee differing standards of determining who qualifies for subsidies, and it seems it would be adding a new level of bean counters and paper pushers on the local or state level. We would in effect be paying more people to determine the same data and information.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    What's Disability? Is there a federal program? It should be included in programs that are removed from the federal level. It may result in the situation you are describing, where the feds determine eligibility. Tell me more.
    There's two different disability programs at the federal level. The funding for one of them comes from the general fund, and the other comes from Social Security funds. They pay monthly incomes for those who qualify as disabled, for a variety of reasons. The numbers on these rolls are growing and keeping lots of people out of the working population, adding to the tax burden on the productive. Some of them truly are unable to work, but it seems to be a highly abused and over-utilized system.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    One concern I had was farmers. They have large property holdings but low

    I am glad your reaction was positive. But tell me how it wouldn't work. Where is it weak? How would you structure healthcare reform?
    It would shift the burden from the federal to the local and state levels, and most likely (from what I can tell) wouldn't lessen costs, and perhaps raise them instead.
    If I were going to restructure health care, you wouldn't recognize it. It would look more like the health care model in the 60's, and shift the responsibility of payment for routine care back into the hands of the consumer.

  10. #40
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

    Ok. I have been watching this thread and while Reefedjib is doing a great job answering questions, the very fact that there are so many questions about what happens to which group tells me that this scheme will not work or at least it will not be any simpler or less costly than what it will be replacing.

    Think about it, if you have any system where you have to start accounting for the multitude of different situations that occur for different groups of people, you are going to end up with a system as complicated and as bloated as the one you are replacing.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 02-08-10 at 12:22 PM.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •