Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

States Rights (Win the battle or Lose the war)

24

Posts

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    dispatch.oshryke
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Doodmann
  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    What about Romneycare?

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    7 things I can think of off the top of my head.

    -Healthcare. If I were a Democratic run state, I would be moving to get my own universal healthcare in place and then clobbering the shit out of the GOP, when they try to take it away. Also another one up there with minimum wage that could be used to effectively lock the alt right out of state politics. Get people on healthcare and they aren't going to want to give it up.

    This isn't a given. Kentuckyians loved their Kynect but still voted to fuck it all over.

    Admittedly several of them didn't make the connection, or so it was implied.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    dispatch.oEdith UpwardsCalicaLostNinjaGundi
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Works at the provincial level. It's not actually hard if you bother to try.

    TubularLuggageShadowhope
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    7 things I can think of off the top of my head.

    -Healthcare. If I were a Democratic run state, I would be moving to get my own universal healthcare in place and then clobbering the shit out of the GOP, when they try to take it away. Also another one up there with minimum wage that could be used to effectively lock the alt right out of state politics. Get people on healthcare and they aren't going to want to give it up.

    This isn't a given. Kentuckyians loved their Kynect but still voted to fuck it all over.

    And Colorado overwhelmingly voted down single payer.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    shryke
  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    7 things I can think of off the top of my head.

    -Healthcare. If I were a Democratic run state, I would be moving to get my own universal healthcare in place and then clobbering the shit out of the GOP, when they try to take it away. Also another one up there with minimum wage that could be used to effectively lock the alt right out of state politics. Get people on healthcare and they aren't going to want to give it up.

    This isn't a given. Kentuckyians loved their Kynect but still voted to fuck it all over.

    And Colorado overwhelmingly voted down single payer.

    I'm pretty certain it was because the rules behind it were iffy.

    zepherin
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Why the fuck would you give tax breaks to companies ? The employer should not be involved in healthcare, outside of paying their taxes.

    NartwakV1m
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    mrondeauNartwak
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Why the fuck would you give tax breaks to companies ? The employer should not be involved in healthcare, outside of paying their taxes.
    Because companies are currently the gatekeepers of healthcare, and they have the lobbying power to stay that way. There is literally no plan any group that could come up with that has a chance of success, that doesn't involve easing the transition with a tax break.

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Why the fuck would you give tax breaks to companies ? The employer should not be involved in healthcare, outside of paying their taxes.
    Because companies are currently the gatekeepers of healthcare, and they have the lobbying power to stay that way. There is literally no plan any group that could come up with that has a chance of success, that doesn't involve easing the transition with a tax break.

    Why would you give a company a tax break for cutting their costs ? You are already cutting their costs.

    Nartwak
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Why the fuck would you give tax breaks to companies ? The employer should not be involved in healthcare, outside of paying their taxes.
    Because companies are currently the gatekeepers of healthcare, and they have the lobbying power to stay that way. There is literally no plan any group that could come up with that has a chance of success, that doesn't involve easing the transition with a tax break.

    Why would you give a company a tax break for cutting their costs ? You are already cutting their costs.
    Maybe I'm not understanding the plan you are putting forth. It sounds to me like you are proposing a single payer system that causes the employers to pay higher taxes to cover the extra costs. Did I get that wrong?

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    Ten years? Geez, does anything else have that strict of a residency limit?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    zepherin
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Why the fuck would you give tax breaks to companies ? The employer should not be involved in healthcare, outside of paying their taxes.
    Because companies are currently the gatekeepers of healthcare, and they have the lobbying power to stay that way. There is literally no plan any group that could come up with that has a chance of success, that doesn't involve easing the transition with a tax break.

    Why would you give a company a tax break for cutting their costs ? You are already cutting their costs.
    Maybe I'm not understanding the plan you are putting forth. It sounds to me like you are proposing a single payer system that causes the employers to pay higher taxes to cover the extra costs. Did I get that wrong?

    You will have to raise taxes in general to pay for universal healthcare. That's what make it universal: it's independent of job or ability to pay.
    The tradeoff is that company won't have to pay for health assurance, which would cut their costs quite a bit.

    Also, people would actually get the healthcare they need.

  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    Healthcare needs to be Federal unfortunately. Many multistate providers will happily shut down or shift losses to a state program if they can keep shunting the sickest patients to the publicly funded care system.

    Watched the Veterans Administration fight with ACA mandated care provider in Missouri over who had to cover the cost of my dying father's hospice care. Hospital threatened to send him to Arkansas because the VA had a hospital in Ft Smith, AR but not in Springfield MO. That's not even private payer insurance. That's the state trying to get out of paying and dumping it on another state.

    Healthcare is a bad example of state vs fed. As human beings we need to stop treating illness and healthcare as a profit driven industry. You can make money even if you cut costs and fix a few things, but no one wants to give up the tiniest fraction of their stock value in the name of decency. I work in a hospital and I can tell you without question as a species we are proper fucked.

    States are the only way this system of governance works, but just barely. I don't really think things will progress nationally until the people 65+ finally let up their creepy deathgrip on power and by then it may be too late.

    Captain MarcusNobodyArdolCalicaSpoitGiggles_FunsworthDarkPrimusMegaMek
  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    Ten years? Geez, does anything else have that strict of a residency limit?

    Citizenship. Presidency. Probably some rqs in the military. Ten years is decent enough to get rid of the desperate. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. That's how we ended up in this situation to begin with. Why can't we copy the Romney system?

    LoisLane on
    mrondeauNartwak
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    e:wrong thread.

    I bet that, whatever the state of State's Rights is, MiDAS is going to be replicated by as many state and federal Agencies as possible.

    Edith Upwards on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Why the fuck would you give tax breaks to companies ? The employer should not be involved in healthcare, outside of paying their taxes.

    Blame WWII. No, really. The employer based healthcare system came out of employers trying to find ways around the wage freeze during the war. And afterwards, the government continued the system with laws.

    Fun fact: There's only one remaining part of the shipping empire built by Henry Kaiser, the architect of the Liberty Ships today. That part - a health plan Kaiser implemented to keep his workers healthy in the shipyards. Today, that health plan is Kaiser Permanente, one of the largest healthcare corporations in the US.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    ElvenshaeMillFeralCptKemzikDarkPrimusCalicaDiplominator
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Uh, didn't Vermont's plan just fail?

  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    I have the horrifying suspicion that unless there's a full-throated attack on the Supremacy Clause, we're going to see Russian style selective enforcement of the law by Director Comey's FBI, combined with automated data collection and profiling software developed by marketers.

    I recommend switching your party affiliation to Republican. If enough of you do it at once it'll also help foil gerrymandering!

    Nah, voting records down to the precinct are public. We couldn't trick them by all converting to GOP because they target that based on where Democrats get votes, not where Democrats are registered (since the remnants of the Dixiecrats and such among the elderly mean that there are some untouchably red districts that have Democratic registration majorities).

    Trump can't use the military to enforce immigration law per Posse Comitatus Act (ironically, designed to make sure that Reconstruction stayed dead after the Hayes Compromise killed it, so that the government couldn't send in federal troops to fight the Klan any longer). He could activate the local national guard, much as was done during the Civil Rights movement, but that's a little further removed. His option is to massively beef up ICE, a personnel surge that would take his whole first term to get the kind of numbers he needs.

    These sorts of things rely hugely on cooperative local law enforcement, where the states could have the advantage.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    Ten years? Geez, does anything else have that strict of a residency limit?

    Citizenship. Presidency. Probably some rqs in the military. Ten years is decent enough to get rid of the desperate. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. That's how we ended up in this situation to begin with. Why can't we copy the Romney system?

    If you can pay for it, go ahead and copy it. It is unclear whether the Commonwealth exchange can survive without similar national support, as costs to the state have continued to increase since adoption.

    But if you're going for a 10 year residency your state will suffer greatly. It will hurt people requiring mobility in their life and their jobs, especially if other states impose similar restrictions. You may see an explosion of uninsured for a few years, followed by a population quite different from the rest of mobile america.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    enlightenedbumArdolElvenshaeDoodmannFencingsaxQuidFeralSpoitIncenjucarGiggles_FunsworthDarkPrimusMegaMeklonelyahavaArbitraryDescriptor
  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Uh, didn't Vermont's plan just fail?

    The state couldn't make it work without a huge increase in taxes, in a state with already high taxes and not enough services thanks to the low population.

    We wanted it, though.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    shryke
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Uh, didn't Vermont's plan just fail?
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Uh, didn't Vermont's plan just fail?

    The state couldn't make it work without a huge increase in taxes, in a state with already high taxes and not enough services thanks to the low population.

    We wanted it, though.

    Yes, it would be harder for Vermont, but since Prince-Edward-Island does have a public healthcare system, Vermont should be able to do it.

    Especially since those tax post-increase were well below what we pay around here.
    That's something the USA left will have to understand and try to promote: taxes are too low.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    You're not wrong. Especially when you consider that the tax increase would at least be partially offset by not having to pay for insurance or medical bills anymore.

    But you can't sell that to people in the US. And we're already one of the few blue states taking more money from the Fed than we contribute.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Why the fuck would you give tax breaks to companies ? The employer should not be involved in healthcare, outside of paying their taxes.

    Offering tax breaks to companies is the easiest way to coax employers to come to your state.

    Many major US companies have special tax deals with state or local governments.

    Example: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/boeing-saved-305-million-last-year-from-state-tax-breaks/

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    Keep in mind that when a low-income household moves, it is more likely to be involuntary, while when a high-income household moves, it's more likely to be voluntary. Consequently, residency requirements tend to favor high-income people (incidentally, this is one of the reasons that rent control doesn't work).

    Also, would you be willing to give a 10-year tax break to anybody moving in to the state? If you don't, then new residents are effectively subsidizing the healthcare of incumbent residents. If that doesn't sound awful to you, take a look at how Prop 13 has worked out in California.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    Giggles_FunsworthDarkPrimus
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    Keep in mind that when a low-income household moves, it is more likely to be involuntary, while when a high-income household moves, it's more likely to be voluntary. Consequently, residency requirements tend to favor high-income people (incidentally, this is one of the reasons that rent control doesn't work).

    Also, would you be willing to give a 10-year tax break to anybody moving in to the state? If you don't, then new residents are effectively subsidizing the healthcare of incumbent residents. If that doesn't sound awful to you, take a look at how Prop 13 has worked out in California.

    Prop 13 is the inverse, though - newcomers subsidize long term residents.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Residential requirements. Tax breaks for companies. We're Americans. If the europeans can figure this out then so can we.

    Europeans are a collection of countries with independent sovereignty. They can control their borders a lot better than states can.

    It isn't a problem right now. But we're rapidly approaching the date when a large portion of the population will be hospital bound. We need to distribute the load, and if the other states dine and dash - which European countries can't do without risking revolt (with no federal government to bail them out), we'll perish holding the bill.

    How doesn't residential requirement solve the problem? Ten years excluding children born to residential parents.

    10 YEARS seriously?!?

    "Hey, Americans: never move."

    Americans aren't moving like they used to anyway. And if you're resident of a liberal state moving to another state that isn't a liberal state(which is now 3/5 of the country I might remind you.) then you're fucked anyways. At least the ones who stay will be taken care of and there's nothing stopping more expensive private insurers of picking up the transients. If you have a better state-applicable idea then I'm all ears.

    Keep in mind that when a low-income household moves, it is more likely to be involuntary, while when a high-income household moves, it's more likely to be voluntary. Consequently, residency requirements tend to favor high-income people (incidentally, this is one of the reasons that rent control doesn't work).

    Also, would you be willing to give a 10-year tax break to anybody moving in to the state? If you don't, then new residents are effectively subsidizing the healthcare of incumbent residents. If that doesn't sound awful to you, take a look at how Prop 13 has worked out in California.

    Prop 13 is the inverse, though - newcomers subsidize long term residents.

    ...that's what I said. Newcomers subsidize long term residents.

    In the case of Prop 13, newcomers are subsidizing a property tax break (ie, a tax expenditure) for incumbents.

    In the case of our hypothetical single payer system, newcomers are subsidizing a state healthcare expenditure for incumbents.

    In both cases you end up disincentivizing mobility and the tax burden ends up regressively structured (though there are obviously differences: for example, our hypothetical state healthcare system would not disincentive intrastate moves as Prop 13 does).

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Honestly, there are three ways I can imagine individual states would implement health care benefits for their citizens:

    1) If the ACA actually does get repealed, some states will probably opt to keep their health insurance exchanges anyway, and I could see a few of those states passing their own employer mandate law.

    2) The state funds their own expansion of Medicaid benefits. This wouldn't be universal, not at first (or possibly ever), but there's no reason a state can't fund this on their own.

    3) Other supplemental medical benefits. For example, a lot of states have (or had, pre-ACA) subsidies for healthcare plan premiums.

    Regarding #2: I've long believed that slow expansion of existing benefit programs (Medicaid, Medicare, and VA) is the best path to universal health care in the US. By slowly increasing the income minimum for Medicaid, decreasing the Medicare retirement age, increasing funding for Medicare disability benefits, and increasing the number of vets who have service-connected VA coverage, we could chip away at this over time and I think it would be much easier to sell, politically, then any kind of broad reform like the ACA.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    Elvenshae
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    Mobility in general thwarts states' abilities to do "drink your medicine" kinds of unpopular-but-necessary reforms like anything involving tax hikes, because folks can just leave, especially when "low taxes" are what most states compete on to get people to move in except for high-demand residencies like California and the Northeast Megalopolis.

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Why the fuck would you give tax breaks to companies ? The employer should not be involved in healthcare, outside of paying their taxes.

    Offering tax breaks to companies is the easiest way to coax employers to come to your state.

    Many major US companies have special tax deals with state or local governments.

    Example: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/boeing-saved-305-million-last-year-from-state-tax-breaks/

    Or the state of Indiana offering Carrier $7mm in tax-breaks to stay in Indiana and save 800-ish jobs!

    ...

    ...

    Carrier already plans to use the money to update and automate their plant, which will put somewhere around 700 people out of work.

    <standing applause> THE GLORIOUS LEADER, WILL SAVE US

    Sorry. Needed to get that out.

    NartwakSpoitPolaritieFeralshrykeGiggles_FunsworthDarkPrimusRhesus PositiveCalica
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    States Rights means two different things to two different groups. To Republicans it's a dogwhistle that says the Democrats want to legislate away all the "isms" you hold dear. To Democrats it's the rights of the states to go one step farther than Federal legislation, to improve upon Federal Law by tailoring state laws to the issues of that particular region, etc.

    We're not going to have a productive conversation with Republicans about this until we are operating with the same definitions.

    Things like this are what make me skeptical of the entire "dogwhistle" construction. I think it's grasping at something real, but it seems highly vulnerable to "When my political enemies say reasonable things, they're ACTUALLY speaking in a secret code, which just further proves that they are evil mutants."

    Lol What? States Rights is like the great great granddaddy of all dog whistles. Go ask some rural white southerners what the US Civil War was REALLY about.
    Nah, it was totally about Economic Anxiety*.

    steam_sig.png
    dispatch.oPanda4YouMegaMekRhesus Positive
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    Yo fuck the NC GOP and this whole HB2 thing

    jesus christ they are just such turd sandwiches

    raoADVy.png
    Phoenix-Ddispatch.oArdolLoisLaneHarry DresdenShadowfireMegafrostshrykeMartini_PhilosopherForarDarkPrimus
  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Yo fuck the NC GOP and this whole HB2 thing

    jesus christ they are just such turd sandwiches

    I was going to post about that. Dems are in desperate need of a spinal transplant. For those not in the know.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/21/po...hb2/index.html

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Aistan wrote: »
    It's not exactly a dogwhistle, Republicans just mean States' Rights in that there's too much Federal regulation and it needs to be gutted so that the States can do whatever they want without outside interference. This then leads to the actual whistle stuff because all they care about is abortion, guns, and screwing over poor (black) people.

    When you model republicans that way, it's no wonder they don't want you telling them how to live their lives.

    I think both sides are going to have to grapple with this issue when it comes to the state's rights question. We have a very divided country - not just red and blue, but urban and rural. Distinct cultures with distinct needs and values and economies. If one of those cultures holds power in the federal government, should they get to tell the other culture what to do? Assume you don't know WHICH side is going to end up in power. How much power do you want the federal government to have? What issues should be decided federally, and why?

    This "separate culture" thing is pure goosery. That's ignoring how contemporary mass media works. It also ignores how few owners there are in mass media.

    There are certainly different facets of media & culture. There are certainly different genres in music, games, movies, and to a certain extent, news. But there's a distinct, overwhelming culture we share. It's so broad and all encompassing a culture that other countries have mandated their media outlets have to produce a certain amount of native media every year instead of just importing everything that the US churns out.

    So I'm going to stop this nonsense right there. We are not a culturally divided nation. Nor are we a values divided nation. Every single one one of us wants to live a safe, civil life.

    What divides exist are wholly manufactured by those seeking a way to exploit fears and uncertainties.

    So you think that the cultures of rural and urban America are identical? You don't see any meaningful differences?

    I didn't say either of those things and feel like you're just looking for ways to keep people divided from seeing their commonalities.

    Yes, people live different lives based on their location. What food they have is a clear example of that. Some people have access to fresh seafood, while others have access to cheap beef. That doesn't mean that either has a different culture.
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    As a few counterexamples: People in rural areas are twice as likely to own a gun. They're more likely to be evangelical Christians. They're very different economically - many rural small towns have economies based on one big local business (ie: mines, manufacturing plants), while cities generally don't. They Vote differently. Would you say all of these are just manufactured and don't matter?

    First "gun culture" is the most manufactured idea of a culture as there has ever been. The NRA of today didn't come about until the 1970s when the group got invaded by a bunch of nutters and staged a leadership coup. And enthusiasm alone for a thing does not give the aspect of a culture any more than a favored painting makes it masterpiece.

    Furthermore, economies are never isolated. The whole study of economics is predicated on trade. So again, no. They're not different. Their goods have to go somewhere and what they buy has to come from somewhere. Everywhere is connected to everywhere else. Everything is shared. This is one of the more enraging arguments about tiered minimum wages.

    The same can be said of religion. Just because one is more prevalent than another doesn't make a bit of difference. The idea of it came from somewhere. And while I may have philosophical, eccumenical, and theological questions for the practicioners of evangelicals it doesn't mean that the overriding sameness of their faith to that of the vast majority of the citizens report to share means anything. It is shared. It is shared almost universally across the whole of the US.

    We have one nation and one culture. The divisions purported to exist for the purposes of your argument are superficial to imaginary.

    Have you ever lived in a rural area? As someone who grew up in the rural South (but whose family was not actually from the rural South) and now lives in the urban South, I might as well be living in a different country.

    Actually, I take that back. I have more in common with people I have met from London and Tokyo than I do with the people I grew up with. In a myriad of different ways, the people in these areas have an entire different moral philosophy and outlook on life and society than those who grew up elsewhere.

    This isn't some media-fueled mirage that hides our true similarities. You are talking about groups of people who do not share any values and whose ways of thinking are alien to each other at fundamental level. If anything, the age of social media has removed the polite fiction of the mass media age that "we are all one big nation" by exposing people to each other's beliefs, and we are just experiencing the wave of mutual revulsion that has resulted in our politics.

    dispatch.oLoisLanePanda4YouSynthesisDarkPrimusIncenjucarMegaMekCalica
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, state by state universal healthcare is insolvent. You'll run out of money

    Nope.

    Other states will dump their sickest on your doorstep and take the businesses that don't want your premiums.

    Poor people are extremely sticky. They tend to stay near family and don't have the resources to move.

Sign In or Register to comment.