NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/NEWS06/712190365/1001

Petition to ask Michigan voters to pass universal health care

December 19, 2007

BY DAWSON BELL

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

A campaign that claims support from key Michigan labor and religious groups, the AARP and Lt. Gov. John Cherry plans to launch a petition drive next month to ask Michigan voters to approve statewide, universal health care.

The coalition would amend the state constitution to require the Legislature to enact "affordable and comprehensive health care coverage" in the same way the constitution mandates state support of free public education.

Advertisement
Health Care for Michigan, headed by former state Rep. John Freeman, an Oakland County Democrat, is to appear today before a state elections panel to ask for approval of its petition forms. But the campaign is already well under way, spokesman Gary Benjamin said Tuesday. The group's polling shows broad popular support for the idea, he said.

The amendment would "create a duty to provide health care coverage for everyone," Benjamin said. "But it's not a plan; it's a constitutional amendment."

An estimated 850,000 to 1.1 million Michiganders do not have health care insurance.

Benjamin said passage of the amendment would create political pressure for the Legislature to act and a legal standing to compel action if political pressure wasn't enough.

Steve Gools, Michigan director for the AARP, said passage of the ballot proposal would be the organization's top state priority in 2008, and that it was prepared to put $100,000 into the campaign.

AARP members, including many enrolled in Medicare for older citizens, won't necessarily benefit directly, Gools said, but "their concern is not so much for themselves as it is about their kids and grandkids."

He said the organization isn't wedded to a specific plan. Nor does universal coverage mean a government takeover of health care, he said; it just means that everyone is covered.

But the broad language proposed for the constitution is exactly what concerned Bob LaBrant, an elections specialist at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

"Affordable is in the eye of the beholder ... and comprehensive is a term of art," LaBrant said.

A constitutional amendment mandating health care coverage for every citizen could eventually mean that "we all get plastic surgery," he said.

Benjamin said coalition members believe universal coverage can be achieved without adding to the overall cost of health care in Michigan. Michigan health care costs about $60 billion a year, or $6,000 per person, Benjamin said, easily enough to provide coverage to the state's 10 million residents.

The campaign will need to collect the signatures of more than 380,000 registered voters to put the issue on the November ballot. Benjamin said the group's goal is 475,000 signatures in all to provide room for error, at a cost approaching $1 million.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Jennifer Granholm said the governor is considering the proposal.

Granholm supports the goal of universal, affordable care, but has not taken a position, spokeswoman Liz Boyd said. Boyd said she was not aware that Lt. Gov. Cherry's name was listed among the endorsements on a Web site linked to the campaign.

The Web site, www.michuhcan.com, also lists the Service Employees International Union and the faith-based Metropolitan Organizing Strategy Enabling Strength among the campaign's supporters.

A state plan would be among the first in the country and could be modeled after similar state-mandated coverage in Massachusetts.

Contact DAWSON BELL at 313-222-6604 or dbell@freepress.com.

An interesting tactic, making it a constitutional requirement rather than a simple law. I like that it's ambiguous as it will allow us to weigh our options and decide what will work best for us. Luckily Massachusetts is already beginning an experiment with universal healthcare so we can decide whether or not we want to take the route they're taking. I'd prefer a single payer system, but I honestly don't know if that's the way we should go.

Anyway, do you think we'll see similar proposals in other states?

Don't you know Nouvelle, the 'right'(privilege) of rich libertarian elitists not to be taxed overrides the right of the common people to have good health.

Don't you know Nouvelle, the 'right'(privilege) of rich libertarian elitists not to be taxed overrides the right of the common people to have good health.

That's what Mike Bishop (the state Senate majority leader) tells me.

Where are they going to get the money for it?

I mean, it does have logic behind it (UHC systems in other countries are a major competitive disadvantage for US automakers, since they're forced to cover that cost themselves rather than have the government shoulder the burden as in Japan or most of Europe), but given the poor state of the Michigan economy and its already high tax burden, it seems like it will be difficult to really bring in to effect.

Where are they going to get the money for it?

iirc universal health care for the US would save 280 billion a year, mostly in admin costs

also lets hear it for catching up with the rest of the industrialized world :)

iirc universal health care for the US would save 280 billion a year, mostly in admin costs

also lets hear it for catching up with the rest of the industrialized world :)

Where did you hear this savings of 280 billion a year. Also it will be interesting to watch Michigan on this one.

Another point about AARP members is that they already have a option for no premium insurance. What they will do I think is just extend out the medicare style plans to the general public. If they do that I will retire a very rich man. :D

iirc universal health care for the US would save 280 billion a year, mostly in admin costs

Yeah, believe those estimates. What was it they told us the war would cost again? It's the government, remember. ;)

Where are they going to get the money for it?

I mean, it does have logic behind it (UHC systems in other countries are a major competitive disadvantage for US automakers, since they're forced to cover that cost themselves rather than have the government shoulder the burden as in Japan or most of Europe), but given the poor state of the Michigan economy and its already high tax burden, it seems like it will be difficult to really bring in to effect.

At this point, we might as well do it anyway, regardless of the state of the economy.
With fewer and fewer jobs in major cities like Flint, Grand Rapids, Saginaw and especially Detroit, the drain that presents to the economy is already there.

Its not even the big ones either.
Look at me. I work 35+ hours a week and I dont have health care either.
If I suddenly needed surgery, I would be absolutely screwed, and owe someone a LOT of money.

At this point we have no choice. Michigan has so many uninsured people that need just as much care as anyone else, maybe more.

I recently watched Michael Moore's Sicko.

Thats the film that shocked and alarmed both sides of the political party.
He takes three 9/11 rescue workers who now suffer with serious health problems from inhaling all the dangerous crap in the air at "Ground Zero".
None of them were eligible for insurance (or were denied for "pre-existing" conditions).

They end up being treated by doctors in Havana Cuba, whose free health care, and cheap medicine, couldnt be obtained anywhere on American soil.

Except for one place.

GITMO!

The only place on american soil to offer its "residents" entirely free, quality health care.

Thats right, every single western nation offers its citizens free quality health care. FULL STOP.

Let it start in Michigan, and spread to the rest of the damned country! While we're at it, why dont we keep up with everyone else and just convert to the metric system!
MAYBE...just maybe its time for my country to open its fucking eyes, and take a lesson from other, currently more sucsessful nations, and change the way we're doing things.

iirc universal health care for the US would save 280 billion a year, mostly in admin costs

also lets hear it for catching up with the rest of the industrialized world :)

Oh, yeah, it would save us a fortune, make us healthier, boost productivity...it has to be done in some form, or else our competitive advantage will just erode in the face of rising healthcare costs (and don't even get me started on what will happen when the really advanced stuff becomes available and our workers can't afford to get the upgrades needed to compete). Universal healthcare, preferably universal insurance, is absolutely necessary to contend with the growing economic role of healthcare in our economy.

I would say healthcare today is in the same place that electricity, gas, or roads were back in the 19th century; without government investment in this critical infrastructure, quality of services, economic growth potential, productivity, and quality of life will all suffer. Countries made the mistake of not funding these in the past, and it cost them dearly.

In the short term, however, there would be a lot of additional costs for setting up the system and getting it operational. That's the main challenge for setting up a system like this; governments can't really raise capital like private companies, making it hard to finance projects like this without raising taxes. Raising taxes isn't a problem in and of itself, but if the economy is already weak and highly taxed, it may have a very significant negative effect.

Where are they going to get the money for it?

I mean, it does have logic behind it (UHC systems in other countries are a major competitive disadvantage for US automakers, since they're forced to cover that cost themselves rather than have the government shoulder the burden as in Japan or most of Europe), but given the poor state of the Michigan economy and its already high tax burden, it seems like it will be difficult to really bring in to effect.

That's a very good question. I'll be up front about it and say that we'd probably have to raise taxes and possibly go to a graduated income tax (we currently have a flat tax). The question is, would Michiganders be willing to do this?

As we can see from this graph, we seem to largely prefer spending cuts to fix the budget.

http://www.freep.com/assets/images/020607_poll1.jpg

However, as we can see health care costs are a huge concern to Michiganders, so perhaps we'd be willing to shoulder more taxes for universal healthcare.

http://www.freep.com/assets/images/020607_poll2.jpg

Where did you hear this savings of 280 billion a year. Also it will be interesting to watch Michigan on this one.

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

is a pretty spiffy site I have on hand

Yeah, believe those estimates. What was it they told us the war would cost again? It's the government, remember. ;)

I think the fact you spend 40% more per capita on health care than anywhere else goes along with this estimate no?

That's a very good question. I'll be up front about it and say that we'd probably have to raise taxes and possibly go to a graduated income tax (we currently have a flat tax). The question is, would Michiganders be willing to do this?

As we can see from this graph, we seem to largely prefer spending cuts to fix the budget.

http://www.freep.com/assets/images/020607_poll1.jpg

However, as we can see health care costs are a huge concern to Michiganders, so perhaps we'd be willing to shoulder more taxes for universal healthcare.

http://www.freep.com/assets/images/020607_poll2.jpg

I certainly would be willing to pay more taxes for free health care.

The budget cut tactic has worn through. Theres nowhere else to cut.
Remember the "governmental shutdown" a while back?
We're broke already.

When they start cutting police funding, education, and everything else...its time to shell out the bucks from the general public.

However, as we can see health care costs are a huge concern to Michiganders, so perhaps we'd be willing to shoulder more taxes for universal healthcare.

Especially given that a UHC system will address the top three concerns (I can pretty much guarantee removing that $2,000 health care cost from GM/Ford/Chrysler will give them a huge competitive boost), it's pretty easy to make the case for supporting such a program.

Well, let's see how they do it. In principle I don't have a problem if the massive revamp the US healthcare system needs means more state-involvement. Personally I think a properly managed and regulated private system would be even better, but I don't think the US government is capable of providing such good rules and regulations.

Whether or not a socialised system will be successful depends on whether or not they can set it up properly. I have my doubts, but the chance is still better than the alternative.

Of course, whether Michigan is really the place to start is a different question. Maybe it would be better to find a state with its finances well in order to make the first experiements.

I certainly would be willing to pay more taxes for free health care.

The budget cut tactic has worn through. Theres nowhere else to cut.
Remember the "governmental shutdown" a while back?
We're broke already.

When they start cutting police funding, education, and everything else...its time to shell out the bucks from the general public.

I agree fully. However, as I'm sure you're aware, the Republicans seem to want no government whatsoever. Remember that ridiculous 21% increase freshmen had to pay at Central Michigan. I agree that there's nowhere else to cut and now the libertarian right and the progressive left in our state are going to collide head on rather than push it off year after year.

I also want to make a point at how much a Medicare advantage style plan cost the federal government. Depending on where the plan is written in the nation in can be anywhere from $750-$950 per month per person. So an average of lets say $800 would cost Michigan about $9600 a year per person to implement a medicare style system in state.

Where does that money come from?

I know companies would save massively on health care but how would they raise that kind of capital? Michigan's population is currently at 10,250,000 approx. x $9600 = $98.4 billion. Now that is based off senior citizen health care. Because the average age in Michigan would be far less then the retired group the cost would be much less. Lets say it would be half for arguments sake. That is still damn near 50 billion for the entire state. Add the people moving in state to take advantage and you could see a much higher number.

How would they cover these costs?

I agree fully. However, as I'm sure you're aware, the Republicans seem to want no government whatsoever. Remember that ridiculous 21% increase freshmen had to pay at Central Michigan. I agree that there's nowhere else to cut and now the libertarian right and the progressive left in our state are going to collide head on rather than push it off year after year.

I do indeed remember the increase.
Not good.

In fact, the IT classes I was taking didnt get funded for the next year, due to the budget slashes.
So..no classes for me.

How would they cover these costs?

Hm. Sounds like Jeff Daniels would have his work cut out for him. :p

Hm. Sounds like Jeff Daniels would have his work cut out for him. :p

Indeed he would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi8iiqD0ADM

edit: Dammit, I read it as Charlie Daniels

I assume you're talking about the "Pure Michigan" commercials.

SNIP

ah I see you have been shocked by Western European health care standards...


...but are you man enough for NORWAY! (http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/19529-michael-moore-cut-this-scene-from-sicko-because-no-one-would-believe-it)

edit: Dammit, I read it as Charlie Daniels

Heh. I was waiting for his cameo in that clip, but it never came. ;) Still some good 90s nostalgia.


I assume you're talking about the "Pure Michigan" commercials.

Not sure what they're called, but he did/does a lot of tourism/business promotion for Michigan. We get them here in California occasionally, but they plagued my t.v. in Illinois, and I've seen them in Kentucky and basically everywhere else. :p

ah I see you have been shocked by Western European health care standards...


...but are you man enough for NORWAY! (http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/19529-michael-moore-cut-this-scene-from-sicko-because-no-one-would-believe-it)
Pah. Everyone knows that Norway is fictional, like the land of Oz or Hoboken, New Jersey.

Heh. I was waiting for his cameo in that clip, but it never came. ;) Still some good 90s nostalgia.

Wasn't that him in the chair at the beginning and end of the clip?

Not sure what they're called, but he did/does a lot of tourism/business promotion for Michigan. We get them here in California occasionally, but they plagued my t.v. in Illinois, and I've seen them in Kentucky and basically everywhere else. :p

I'm not sure what they're called either. They don't play them much here ;) However, I do that he and Tim Allen do a lot of that sort of thing. Patriotic Michiganders, the both of them.

Where does that money come from?

That's very much the question. We would have to raise taxes on all sectors of the economy to pay for it. It would really only be of benefit if it brought the costs of it down because, as we all know, even Medicare is too expensive.

Personally I think it would be insane to add it to the state constitution without having a clearly defined plan for implementing it. Just adding "The govt shall provide healthcare to all citizens" is a disaster waiting to happen.

As for UHC in the US step one is to reduce drug costs. That is one of the biggest money sinks in health care as is. When you can buy the same drugs from Canada as the pharmacy and they are less than half the cost there is a problem.

Wasn't that him in the chair at the beginning and end of the clip?

I meant Jeff Daniels. I saw the clip before the edit. :p

Personally I think it would be insane to add it to the state constitution without having a clearly defined plan for implementing it. Just adding "The govt shall provide healthcare to all citizens" is a disaster waiting to happen.

I disagree. I think that putting a specific policy into the constitution wouldn't be the way to go. What if that particular policy didn't work, or didn't work as well as another policy?

As for UHC in the US step one is to reduce drug costs. That is one of the biggest money sinks in health care as is. When you can buy the same drugs from Canada as the pharmacy and they are less than half the cost there is a problem.

Agreed.

I know companies would save massively on health care but how would they raise that kind of capital? Michigan's population is currently at 10,250,000 approx. x $9600 = $98.4 billion. Now that is based off senior citizen health care. Because the average age in Michigan would be far less then the retired group the cost would be much less. Lets say it would be half for arguments sake. That is still damn near 50 billion for the entire state. Add the people moving in state to take advantage and you could see a much higher number.

How would they cover these costs?
Elder healthcare costs is massive compared to younger care costs because of all the pills and upkeep costs, so to say. And with costs covered, people would be more likely to go in for preventative care, which is also much cheaper than treating illnesses that are so serious that you have to go to the doctor. Which also means people would be off sick less, costing the company less money.

I disagree. I think that putting a specific policy into the constitution wouldn't be the way to go. What if that particular policy didn't work, or didn't work as well as another policy?

I just think you need some plan, because trying to model it after anything that already exists in the US will cause it to be incredibly expensive, which will ultimately lead to either very poor health care or economic problems. You may not be able to say we are going to use a 3% sales tax to pay for it, but I think any plan should define the sort of services covered (regular check-ups, necessary surgery, emergency room visits, ect) or else people are going to start demanding that plastic surgery be covered.

I think there should also be something to protect doctor's salaries. It wouldn't be right to cut their salaries in order to reduce costs. Doctors deserve a good pay check, they literal have people's lives in their hands I want the best to be working in the field.

ah I see you have been shocked by Western European health care standards...


...but are you man enough for NORWAY! (http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/19529-michael-moore-cut-this-scene-from-sicko-because-no-one-would-believe-it)


I cant tell you how depressing that is.

To know that this country could easily be the greatest nation on the planet, like we like to claim we are, and yet, greed and bullshit are driving us into the ground.
Theres a disgusting amount of money being made from the drug companies, and the ever-increasing price of medical care is slowly being eliminated from those who cannot afford the bloated bill.

Its just wrong.

However, mention the words "socialized medicine", and you become a "Liberal Commie Pinko Fairy-fag!"

Elder healthcare costs is massive compared to younger care costs because of all the pills and upkeep costs, so to say. And with costs covered, people would be more likely to go in for preventative care, which is also much cheaper than treating illnesses that are so serious that you have to go to the doctor. Which also means people would be off sick less, costing the company less money.


I am in the industry. I know very well how much healthcare costs. Medicare advantage programs are geared toward preventitive medicine for the most part. I agree with what your saying however the costs are still high when covering the whole population.

:headbang: I know this is only one state...still. This is not the job of the federal, State or local government. Nor within their rightful authority. Duly warranted regulation is one thing. However, overreaching power grabs like this, are not only unscrupulous and dangerous, but just plain wrong.

What's worse is that it's ambiguous and openended, framed basically as an uncompromisingly emphatic guarantee/mandate/right.

Everyone needs to stop for a moment, and try to look past the impulsive, emotional (impetuous) nature of issues like this. Past all the emotional rhetoric and propaganda.

We have yielded far too much of our power and far too many of our rights and freedoms to father knows best, pseudo neo- fascist/socialist nanny state demagogs. "Protect you from yourself", anti-individual type groupthink dogma etc.



But the broad language proposed for the constitution is exactly what concerned Bob LaBrant, an elections specialist at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

"Affordable is in the eye of the beholder ... and comprehensive is a term of art," LaBrant said.

A constitutional amendment mandating health care coverage for every citizen could eventually mean that "we all get plastic surgery," he said.
Could? It already does in some places, without any constitutional amendments! Breast enlargement, GRS and other cosmetic procedures.

I know this is only one state...still. This is not the job of the federal, State or local government. Nor within their rightful authority. Duly warranted regulation is one thing. However, overreaching power grabs like this, are not only unscrupulous and dangerous, but just plain wrong.

What's worse is that it's ambiguous and openended, framed basically as an uncompromisingly emphatic guarantee/mandate/right.

Everyone needs to stop for a moment, and try to look past the impulsive, emotional (impetuous) nature of issues like this. Past all the emotional rhetoric and propaganda.

We have yielded far too much of our power and far too many of our rights and freedoms to father knows best, pseudo neo- fascist/socialist nanny state demagogs. "Protect you from yourself", anti-individual type groupthink dogma etc.

So the way we're running things now is just fine?

We have a select few getting rediculously rich while millions go uninsured?

This isnt a radical proposition, its long past due.

I do indeed remember the increase.
Not good.

In fact, the IT classes I was taking didnt get funded for the next year, due to the budget slashes.
So..no classes for me.
Minnesota is not as bad but with some rather questionable choices being forced on the public university system I myself moved out into the public sphere about 3-4 months ago

[Posted by BackwoodSquatches] "I work 35+ hours a week and I dont have health care either.
If I suddenly needed surgery, I would be absolutely screwed, and owe someone a LOT of money. "
Yeah, I work full-time now and have no health care-- except I DO suddenly need surgery, and am absolutely screwed. I am arranging to get it done in Canada, in a few months, the delay giving some time to raise money, not half as much as I would need to get it done in Michigan.

This is not the job of the federal, State or local government. Nor within their rightful authority.

Were a people to put it in their constitution, would it not become the job of their government, and in its rightful authority? Or do you just imagine that everyone should live the way you want them to?

ah I see you have been shocked by Western European health care standards...


...but are you man enough for NORWAY! (http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/19529-michael-moore-cut-this-scene-from-sicko-because-no-one-would-believe-it)Michael Moore does subtlety tell you why Norway is so rich and can afford such a large state expenditure - the oil industry is state-run and funds their budget deficit.

However, I will admit the general mentality in Norway is much more community orientated and as such the country benefits as a whole.

Everyone needs to stop for a moment, and try to look past the impulsive, emotional (impetuous) nature of issues like this. Past all the emotional rhetoric and propaganda.
Yeah, so why didn't you?

i fully agree, and i also think that i shouldn't have to pay for someone else's problems, however, healthcare is something that should not be a capitalistic enterprise. trying to sell people life is complete BS.
I disagree, but then again, I disagree with the self-centric, 'greed before need' American individualism.

its not so much greed before need as it just isnt our job to pay for it.

I read "greed before need." No idea what you actually said, but that's what I read.

however, that is their right as an american citizen. as bad as it sounds, you cannot force them to spend their money on someone else. it is unconstitutional.
Really? Taxes are unconstitutional? Good luck with that one, skippy.

we are our own country because of the b.s. taxes of england in the first place. we wanted a limited government, to stay out of our business, but do keep the peace, and i intend to keep this country that way.

That's an unusually quick move into self-parody.

way to ignore the rest of the post because you are being difficult.

taxing me to pay for someone elses medicine is illegal. not taxes in general.

Explain the difference between taxing you to pay for medicine and taxing you to pay for food or other forms of welfare.

taxing me to pay for someone elses medicine is illegal. not taxes in general.
Since you are so smart, please point out the appreciable difference between taxing for medicine and taxing for anything else?

way to ignore the rest of the post because you are being difficult.

taxing me to pay for someone elses medicine is illegal. not taxes in general.

They already are. What do you think happens to the expenses accrued when someone with no health care goes to the emergency room with a life threatening and expensive condition that could have been prevented for a fraction of the cost if that person had health care coverage? It comes from your healthcare rates and your taxes. You're already paying for the pound of cure. Pity you seem to think paying for the ounce of prevention instead is a bad idea.

however, that is their right as an american citizen. as bad as it sounds, you cannot force them to spend their money on someone else. it is unconstitutional.
This is the point where you offer proof.

Michael Moore does subtlety tell you why Norway is so rich and can afford such a large state expenditure - the oil industry is state-run and funds their budget deficit.

unlike say the current HDI leader Iceland or its neighbor Sweden

however, that is their right as an american citizen. as bad as it sounds, you cannot force them to spend their money on someone else. it is unconstitutional.

is that an Anarchist on the radar :p

that being said (libertarian point of view)

oh no your just in denial :(

we are our own country because of the b.s. taxes of england in the first place. we wanted a limited government, to stay out of our business, but do keep the peace, and i intend to keep this country that way.

aww where did you hear that then?

oh trust me i think wellfare and foodstamps and all the other are bullshit also.

Yeah, you made it quite clear that you're one of those barely functioning e-libertarians. Don't really care, we were talking legality. Are they illegal too?

So, the unions finally got it through their head that the Big 3 can't pay for their healthcare. So now they have the rest of the state pay for it.

How delicious.

Dispite having near 10% unemployment, dispite having the shittiest Economy in the union. Dispite a mass economic slowdown when the "Emergency Income Tax" was passed to get a working budget, they want us to take on more tax obligations to pay for blue collar workers that are already overpaid and overbenifitted.

It looks like they're trying to tax us into prosperity.

So, the unions finally got it through their head that the Big 3 can't pay for their healthcare. So now they have the rest of the state pay for it.

How delicious.

Dispite having near 10% unemployment, dispite having the shittiest Economy in the union. Dispite a mass economic slowdown when the "Emergency Income Tax" was passed to get a working budget, they want us to take on more tax obligations to pay for blue collar workers that are already overpaid and overbenifitted.

It looks like they're trying to tax us into prosperity.
Firefox (www.firefox.com) Use it.

we don't have to quarter soldiers even if they need shelter. we don't have to give our percent of our home to someone who needs it.
If you are trying to imply taxes == quartering, you arn't even worth humoring any more.

do you even read the whole post, or just pick out the first line if you don't like it?

taxes don't = quartering, but they are rather similar.
Obviously I didn't need to read any further because that is why you were implying and thus everything else you said since is ignorable. Taxes are not similar to quartering.

Well damn. Hopefully this move fails, and no other states make similar moves.

What's the point of raising taxes? Why not simply cut in half the wages of all those bureaucrats, downsize the bureaucratic machine and cut funding from stupid military projects of "Space Marines LOL" (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/printerfriendly/aviationspace/f2c1d65a5f59f010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html) or with other fail "Wars in Space" programs.

I wonder how many of the people here bitching actually live and work in Michigan as opposed to just being your standard moronic "without taxes, everyone would donate enough to charity to cover everyone's health cost!" elitists.

yes, quite. it is up to me on a personal level if i want to take care of someone who has no money. the government cannot force me to, nomatter how you would like to look at it.

I want to look at it like this: they clearly can force you to. In fact, they already are.

I wonder how many of the people here bitching actually live and work in Michigan as opposed to just being your standard moronic "without taxes, everyone would donate enough to charity to cover everyone's health cost!" elitists.

The poor are poor due to poor choices. That children born into wealth tend to end up wealthy is clearly just indicative of some as-yet-undiscovered 'good choice' gene. Get on to that, scientists.

Don't you know Nouvelle, the 'right'(privilege) of rich libertarian elitists not to be taxed overrides the right of the common people to have good health.

Troof. I do so love Gov Granholm for No Worker Left Behind, and I hope she gets behind this.

jeez, i never said that. i said it isn't our job to pay for the poor and their problems, that is up to charity. it is not forcible. i never said anyone would pay for it, i just said that is the correct way.

So, I'm unsure what reality you live in where the "correct" way to do something is a way that results in it not getting done. Perhaps you can explain to me how the "correct" way to build a rocket ship is the way that results in it exploding on take off...

So, I'm unsure what reality you live in where the "correct" way to do something is a way that results in it not getting done. Perhaps you can explain to me how the "correct" way to build a rocket ship is the way that results in it exploding on take off...

perhaps you could explain to me how the middle and upper class paying for the poor because the poor made bad life decisions makes any sort of sense. it is no one's job to pay for the poor and their problems. they can solve their own problems, or die.

i find it beffudling that the concept of taking care of yourself is so hard to deal with.


ps final post forever, not useing my country anymore...so you will never be annoyed by me again. love you. :)

Where are they going to get the money for it?

I mean, it does have logic behind it (UHC systems in other countries are a major competitive disadvantage for US automakers, since they're forced to cover that cost themselves rather than have the government shoulder the burden as in Japan or most of Europe), but given the poor state of the Michigan economy and its already high tax burden, it seems like it will be difficult to really bring in to effect.

they could take more of our Canadian garbage...:D

Where are they going to get the money for it?

I mean, it does have logic behind it (UHC systems in other countries are a major competitive disadvantage for US automakers, since they're forced to cover that cost themselves rather than have the government shoulder the burden as in Japan or most of Europe), but given the poor state of the Michigan economy and its already high tax burden, it seems like it will be difficult to really bring in to effect.
There are far better ways to make US auto companies both competitive and independent of off-shore manufacturing that don't involve UHC.

But, if Michigan is going to insist on a State run health care system, they could do far worse than Tennessee (http://www.state.tn.us/tenncare/news-about.html). Tenncare replaces Medicaid and supplements Medicare, in addition to giving the uninsurable a source of health care. Tennessee managed to do that without raising taxes. It's not what I'd prefer, but it's better than UHC, i.e. it targets the needy, not those capable of buying a health care plan.

perhaps you could explain to me how the middle and upper class paying for the poor because the poor made bad life decisions makes any sort of sense. it is no one's job to pay for the poor and their problems. they can solve their own problems, or die.

"Alright children, that's enough Dickens for today"