View Poll Results: County Cooperatives

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 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 52 of 52

Thread: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 01:52 PM
    Blog Entries

    Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

    Thanks for commenting, Kandahar,

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Here are my objections to this idea:

    1. You can't simply devolve a program from the federal government to the local governments and expect it to work the same. In many ways, this is no different than simply abolishing the entitlements altogether, as that is exactly what many local communities will inevitably do. If we, as a society, consider these programs important enough that they require federal involvement because they affect the entire nation, then they must remain at the federal level.
    No, local communities have to offer universal healthcare to those unable to afford or obtain it. And they have to pay for it.

    2. The document cites lowered federal spending/taxes as a benefit of this idea. But if that is offset by higher local spending/taxes, it's no better from the taxpayer's perspective.
    The bottom line may be the same, but the destination is different. A local co-op under the taxpayers control is where his money will now be spent, instead of a national program distant in Washington. Getting entitlements off the federal books is a very desirable objective, since they aren't good at cost control and spending our money. It is also considered unconstitutional by some.

    3. It will be funded by property taxes, which I think is a bad idea for anything other than basic local services and infrastructure...and certainly for entitlements. Just as we've seen with public schools, those in wealthy areas will continue to shine while those in poor areas will get worse and worse.
    I changed this to open the way for states to determine how to pay for it out of some mixture of property taxes, income taxes, consumption taxes, and luxury taxes. It is up to the state to decide.

    4. "For coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, there will be premiums assessed." Enough said.
    This is not an extra premium. The poor and the elderly will have it waived. The poor because they cannot afford it and the elderly because Medicare promises coverage.

    5. The promises this proposal makes are not realistic IMO. There is no way that I can think of in which we can have universal coverage, affordable outlays, and complete freedom regarding our choice of doctors/insurance/pharmacies. We can pick any two of those three, but I don't see any realistic way to have them all.
    The only way is to have taxpayers pay for it. Regarding freedom to pick doctors/insurance/pharmacies: it may be likely that a co-op purchases clinics, hospitals, pharmacies and staffs them with doctors and nurses and so many in the co-op should not have freedom to pick and so we can control costs. I can even imagine co-ops sponsoring a doctor to med school and pay for it for 10 years co-op service.

    Also, the document promises that it will be portable across county lines. But if you've just devolved this responsibility back to the counties, I don't see any way that is possible.
    They will be issued an insurance card.

    6. The document correctly points out that you can't do this with social security, because it wouldn't be fair if a person works in New York and then retires in South Carolina. However, the same logic applies to these programs as well. People could work wherever they wanted, then move to the county with the best benefits as soon as they got sick.
    It's not the same. Social Security is an unfunded, paygo liability. Healthcare is not.

    7. Very few local communities would be on board with this idea. For the last 50 years (when revenues exceeded outlays for Medicare/Medicaid), the federal government has been in charge of the program and collecting the money. And now that the programs are about to become a budgetary time bomb, the feds want to hand them over to the local communities? I think most mayors and governors would strongly oppose this.
    It would be interesting to get their opinion as well. They aren't the best at managing money.

    There are lots of great ways to get our entitlement spending under control and to cover everyone, but I don't think this is one of them.
    I'd like to hear about some of these other ideas, if you'd care to mention them...

    Thanks again!

  2. #52
    Tavern Bartender
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 PM

    Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Good idea. What would you have in mind? Perhaps issuing healthcare cards that would be used to transfer payments for services in non-home locations? In the absence of a card, when it is an emergency, treatment will be given.
    I don't know, but it seems you're stuck working wherever you start this coop. I think anything brought to the most local administrative level is less expensive, and can be customized better.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

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