03/17/2010 06:00:37 AM EST

A Question

posted by ResidentCanuck

I have an idea that's probably been discussed before but I just don't see it discussed much. I wonder why that is or if I'm just misunderstanding.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

In Canada, healthcare is administrated by the province, not federally.

I'm not 100% on how things work in the US, but why don't some very democratic states like, say, Vermont, implement a state-wide universal health care program?

 Do individual states have the power to do this? If so, why hasn't it been done yet?

 Thanks.

< Really? A 3000% Reduction in Costs? | Bankers, Democrats, and the 21st Century >
 Display:
A Question | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)
Mish mash (none / 0)
Some do, some have state sponsored clinics. There's 50 states; probably 50 plans?

Where I live in Oregon, when the "Kitzhaber Plan" first went into effect, it was a good thing. Choices, lots of plans...then one by one they decided that Southern Oregon wasn't profitable enough for them so they pulled up stakes and moved to the prosperous Portland area. This didn't happen overnight. It took a number of years. Eventually, the ONLY choice was the state program - where you take a number to see of you qualify for the lottery for the few slots which open every year. I'm NOT kidding! I just got the invitation to join in the fun the other day!

I have other options. I think about the developmentally disabled people I used to work with...they're probably "grandfathered" in, but the coming generation is going to be feeling the budget cuts (state level).

I said at the time (over a decade ago) and still believe that allowing a company to do business in a state should mean they serve the ENTIRE state, not just where they can pick and choose the best areas. It's a privelege, not a right. If they feel that's too harsh a requirement, they can always serve Texas...

by MedfordTim on 03/17/2010 08:03:13 AM EST

Nice idea (none / 0)
That's a nice idea.

Too bad the HMO's bought out all your (and my) state politicians long ago.

As long as legalized bribery in the form of lobbying exists, all attempts at reform are doomed, vain, hopeless wastes of time.

by RedPossum on 03/17/2010 11:11:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm surprised no one knows the answer (none / 0)

This is surprising, that no one has truly been able to answer the question. Yes it has part to do with health insurance buying out local politicians but it is even deeper than that. When Kucinich was against the bill and wanted certain concessions, this was exactly one of them.

He introduced an amendment that would allow states to set up a single payer system in their own state. States already has the ability to do that, but health insurance corporations can sue the state if they tried to set up a single-payer system. The amendment would therefore block the health insurance corporations from suing the state. That’s why it hasn’t been done yet, because the states would be liable if they tried to set up a single payer system.

by lleytian6 on 03/17/2010 01:02:35 PM EST

Thank you (none / 0)

Thanks for the reply. I didn't know about Kucinich wanting that concession nor did I know about insurance companies being able to sue the state for setting up a health care system.

 I knew I liked Kucinich for a reason.

by ResidentCanuck on 03/17/2010 07:25:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
heres 1 (none / 0)
Every resident of Massachusetts is required to obtain health insurance coverage. Through the law, Massachusetts provides free health care for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1], and partially-subsidized health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale. The law is credited with covering an additional 439,000 Massachusetts residents

Probably more covered now that was from 08


by Chinese Democracy on 03/17/2010 01:51:27 PM EST

A Question | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: