Interesting article: Is free market health care possible?

[ruralsurg4now]

What this study demonstrates is that red states are lower income states, on average.

That's nice, but it doesn't actually explain anything because you still haven't explained how broke states are funding America. It's still magic!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Trek19]

Not sure if you're advocating a VA-like national healthcare system. If so...

I'm not advocating for this type of system, the point was that we need to be careful labeling a system as a stand-alone success when it is actually partly dependent on external organizations.

 

[Jabbed]

I'm not advocating for this type of system, the point was that we need to be careful labeling a system as a stand-alone success when it is actually partly dependent on external organizations.

Gotcha. I just saw "VA" and "admirable" in the same paragraph and became very suspicious.

 

[hubriz]

That's nice, but it doesn't actually explain anything because you still haven't explained how broke states are funding America. It's still magic!

Well, this study doesn't explain how broke states are funding America and I never claimed that to be the case. States don't fund the federal government per se, whereas the federal goverment does fund states. However, you expressed that you consider CA a broke state, and the data does demonsrate that CA - through its residents and corporations -is funding America, by definition. The federal funding received in CA is less than the amount this state contributes to the federal government by way of taxes.

According to the chart, CA contributes to the federal government $1.00 for every $.78 dollars they receive from the federal government.

Further, it is not hard to conceptualize a scenario where a state is broke because of internal mismanagement of funds or bad policy, among many other reasons that you are implying. That does not alleviate their resident's and corporation's requirements to contribute to federal funds. In other words, a state being broke and its funding the government are mutually exclusive conditions, rather a misnomer, because it is actually the people and corporations that fund the federal goverment.

 

[hubriz]

Thank you for the contribution, however there is some information about that analysis that isn't immediately apparent but is very important:

"Federal Aid" includes Military Bases, Military Funding, Native American Reservations, Federal Research Labs, Disaster Relief, and Public Servant Retirement/VA benefits.

Many low population states with low tax yields are dotted with very expensive military bases and other programs. Retired public servants may also move to places like Virginia or Florida as well. These things skew the data in a very significant way.

Bottom line: things are complicated and attempts to simplify them are often misleading.

You have rock-solid points here, and I appreciate the constructive and non-partisan input. Well done.

 

[hubriz]

Well, this study doesn't explain how broke states are funding America and I never claimed that to be the case. States don't fund the federal government per se, whereas the federal goverment does fund states. However, you expressed that you consider CA a broke state, and the data does demonsrate that CA - through its residents and corporations -is funding America, by definition. The federal funding received in CA is less than the amount this state contributes to the federal government by way of taxes.

According to the chart, CA contributes to the federal government $1.00 for every $.78 dollars they receive from the federal government.

Further, it is not hard to conceptualize a scenario where a state is broke because of internal mismanagement of funds or bad policy, among many other reasons that you are implying. That does alleviate their resident's and corporation's requirements to contribute to federal funds. In other words, a state being broke and its funding the government are mutually exclusive conditions, rather a misnomer, because it is actually the people and corporations that fund the federal goverment.

*edit - I meant to say "does NOT alleviate their resident's....

It won't let me edit the original. bah

 

[ScarcelyMedical]

*edit - I meant to say "does NOT alleviate their resident's....

It won't let me edit the original. bah

That's such a left-wing talking point.

How do broke states fund the government?

 

[rain4venus]

Blue states, on average, have higher per capita incomes than red states. So the residents in blue states pay more in taxes. Because the red states are poorer (and as Trek19 pointed out, expensive military bases and the like), they're getting more, on average from the federal government. See, everyone around the country has to give money to the feds, then they give some of it back to each state. The people in blue states tend to give more to the feds than the state gets back. The people in red states tend to give more to the feds than the state gets back. This doesn't mean Delaware (or whatever state it was ruralsurg was complaining about before) is paying for most of the federal government, or even for a plurality or anything like that. It just means that the people of Delaware are putting a lot into the system compared to what they're getting back.

Now, even if the state has a relatively high per capita income, that doesn't preclude them from having a broken state government. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that blue states also had higher state spending, which could lead to an unbalanced budget if they aren't getting enough revenue. This doesn't keep them from paying money to the feds though, because that's happening through federal taxation of the people, which is in (and businesses, etc... I don't know what all is being taken into consideration in this claim that "red states are net takers and blue states are net givers" thing).
So that's how broke "states" are funding the government. And it actually has been explained a number of times over these 7 pages of comments.

This is seriously not difficult to get.

The financial status of the state government and the financial status of the people in that state are not the same thing.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

However, you expressed that you consider CA a broke state, and the data does demonsrate that CA - through its residents and corporations -is funding America, by definition.

a) It's not that I "consider" CA a broke state. It is a broke state, as it cannot meet it's financial obligations. It's not a matter up for debate.
b) If CA residents and corporations cannot even fund their own state, then I don't actually see how they can fund the entire country, which includes their state.

 

[rain4venus]

a) It's not that I "consider" CA a broke state. It is a broke state, as it cannot meet it's financial obligations. It's not a matter up for debate.
b) If CA residents and corporations cannot even fund their own state, then I don't actually see how they can fund the entire country, which includes their state.

Dude, do you just not believe that CA contributes more in taxes than they get back in federal funds? Are you claiming this is some kind of conspiracy? Do you think the federal government is getting more in taxes from Mississippi's residents, even though they're on average poorer than Californians? Or is it that you think Mississippi is just so uninterested in federal funding that they try to take as little of it as possible?

California, New York, Illinois: none of these states is "funding the government" in that they're paying most of the federal government's revenue, but like has been said approximately a hundred thousand times in this thread, they're just paying more INto the system than they are getting OUT of the system.

You seriously don't believe that the liberal policies of blue states are bankrupting their state governments while the residents in those states are still heavily taxed by the federal government? This seems like it would make perfect sense to a conservative.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

See, everyone around the country has to give money to the feds, then they give some of it back to each state.

Ah, I see where the problem is in everyone's thinking. You guys apparently think that everyone sends in tax money to the government and then the government gives it equally to all fifty states. Similarly, there seems to be some false understanding, for example, that since New York City or Los Angeles has a "higher income" that there aren't hundreds of thousands of impoverished people there. You essentially have to ignore the fact that these places have a handful of extremely wealthy people and millions of extremely poor people.

This doesn't mean Delaware (or whatever state it was ruralsurg was complaining about before) is paying for most of the federal government, or even for a plurality or anything like that. It just means that the people of Delaware are putting a lot into the system compared to what they're getting back.

Right. And thusly, Delaware is the engine driving the country.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Dude, do you just not believe that CA contributes more in taxes than they get back in federal funds?

I believe I'm being quite clear with what I'm saying, which is that CA is bankrupt and therefore any claim that they "fund the country" is a hilarious statement.

 

[Pacna]

I read the first 3 replies to this thread and gave up hope that anything intelligent would be said.

 

[rain4venus]

Ah, I see where the problem is in everyone's thinking. You guys apparently think that everyone sends in tax money to the government and then the government gives it equally to all fifty states. Similarly, there seems to be some false understanding, for example, that since New York City or Los Angeles has a "higher income" that there aren't hundreds of thousands of impoverished people there. You essentially have to ignore the fact that these places have a handful of extremely wealthy people and millions of extremely poor people.

Literally every bit of this is wrong. We are *not* saying that the government gives it back equally. We are saying that they give it back based on who makes the most compelling argument that they ought to get it. Honestly, CA probably gets more back than MS, but if CA pays in 2x what MS does and only gets 1.5x back, then CA is, on average, paying more per dollar that they get back compared to MS.
Secondly, the argument is that NY state or CA makes more income per capita than most red states. Of course there are lots of impoverished people there, but that doesn't change that the average income is higher, which means the average tax burden is higher. We're not ignoring that fact; all those people are getting taken into account when you look at thing per capita. That's pretty much the point of per capita.

 

[rain4venus]

I believe I'm being quite clear with what I'm saying, which is that CA is bankrupt and therefore any claim that they "fund the country" is a hilarious statement.

CA state is bankrupt. That doesn't mean the feds stop taxing the citizens living there. Or if it does, I need to move to one of those broke blue states ASAP.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Honestly, CA probably gets more back than MS, but if CA pays in 2x what MS does and only gets 1.5x back, then CA is, on average, paying more per dollar that they get back compared to MS.

Sure, but my point is you're missing quite a lot because your analysis is "MS people are poorer on average than CA people." That's great. Now take a look at all the poor people in major metropolitan CA cities, the vast amounts of money they spend on illegal immigrants (welfare, healthcare, border security), the vast amounts of money they spend on drugs, the vast amounts of money they spend on silly pits like their high-speed rail projects ...you're deliberately looking at a single factor, which I'm saying is nearly irrelevant.

We're not ignoring that fact; all those people are getting taken into account when you look at thing per capita. That's pretty much the point of per capita.

Right, which is why Delaware is apparently the engine that drives America.

 

[rain4venus]

Sure, but my point is you're missing quite a lot because your analysis is "MS people are poorer on average than CA people." That's great. Now take a look at all the poor people in major metropolitan CA cities, the vast amounts of money they spend on illegal immigrants (welfare, healthcare, border security), the vast amounts of money they spend on drugs, the vast amounts of money they spend on silly pits like their high-speed rail projects ...you're deliberately looking at a single factor, which I'm saying is nearly irrelevant.

Only one of those things effects the amount they owe in federal taxes (that some Californians are poor) and I already explained that they were taken into account as soon as per capita income was mentioned.
The other things only explain why the state government is broke. Remember that I'm not denying that CA is broke due to poor budgeting by the state. I'm just denying that the feds are giving the citizens a tax break because of that.

Right, which is why Delaware is apparently the engine that drives America.

I already addressed what it meant and you ignored it. Until you give any indication that you understand what the claim "red states are usually net takers and blue states are usually net givers" actually means, there's not really any reason to continue. Delaware puts in more than they take out. That's a fact. That doesn't mean that they put more money in than any other state and I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really just don't understand what everyone else here gets so easily.

 

[rain4venus]

Also this:

You seriously don't believe that the liberal policies of blue states are bankrupting their state governments while the residents in those states are still heavily taxed by the federal government? This seems like it would make perfect sense to a conservative.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Remember that I'm not denying that CA is broke due to poor budgeting by the state. I'm just denying that the feds are giving the citizens a tax break because of that.

I never said they were getting a tax break. I just said that if a state is broke -- and we agree that it is -- then I don't see how they are "paying for" their state PLUS forty-nine others.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Oh, and one other thing: notice how, when the topic of healthcare cannot be defended, what happened was that some liberal guy just suddenly said "blue states pay for red states"? That's generally how these debates work. People can't defend a position, so they just throw out a talking point that they heard on Democrat Underground one time and then it becomes a debate about that false talking point. Then that guy disappears, never to return to the thread.

 

[rain4venus]

I never said they were getting a tax break. I just said that if a state is broke -- and we agree that it is -- then I don't see how they are "paying for" their state PLUS forty-nine others.

1) Because the state government isn't the one funding the federal government. The people of the state are. And since they're not getting a tax break for living in a broke state, they're paying in a lot.
2) Because CA isn't the only state that's paying in, on average. If half the states are net paying in while half the states are net taking out, then 50 states are paying for 50 states.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

1) Because the state government isn't the one funding the federal government.

I know. And the people can't even fund their state government, so how are they funding their state government PLUS forty-nine other state governments?

 

[Lya]

I read the first 3 replies to this thread and gave up hope that anything intelligent would be said.

+1

Sigh.. I think the original question and topic have been discussed enough in length, though..

 

[rain4venus]

I know. And the people can't even fund their state government, so how are they funding their state government PLUS forty-nine other state governments?

That's not how it works. I assume you know that and are just pretending not to.

 

[papi89]

+1

Sigh.. I think the original question and topic have been discussed enough in length, though..

I think that's the natural trajectory of this conversation topic, market discussions about healthcare rarely go smoothly for very long.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

I think that's the natural trajectory of this conversation topic, market discussions about healthcare rarely go smoothly for very long.

That's generally because there's a segment of the population which demands free stuff.

 

[Jabbed]

I think that's the natural trajectory of this conversation topic, market discussions about healthcare rarely go smoothly for very long.

That's generally because there's a segment of the population which thinks that every time an insurance company makes a payout, freedom dies.

 

[hubriz]

a) It's not that I "consider" CA a broke state. It is a broke state, as it cannot meet it's financial obligations. It's not a matter up for debate.
b) If CA residents and corporations cannot even fund their own state, then I don't actually see how they can fund the entire country, which includes their state.

Since this concept continues to elude you, perhaps you would benefit from spending more time thinking and less time typing.

 

[sazerac]

I hate to wade into this steaming pile of a thread, but for the economically clueless:

Let's say California has a population of one. This person earns $50,000 a year, pays $10,000 in federal taxes, and the feds turn around and pay $5,000 to shine some lights on a big redwood tree in Redwood Forest National Park.

Meanwhile, the state government collects another $7,000 from its citizen, and decides to blow it all in a spectacular fireworks show on Cinco de Mayo. The fireworks were a little more expensive than anticipated, grand total $9,000, so the state government of California sells a $2,000 bond to cover the difference.

In such a scenario, California the state government is "broke-azz", but California the state GDP is a net contributor towards the federal government's coffers.

Broke state governments and net federal contributor state GDPs aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think the issue is that complicated.

 

[BlueLabel]

I hate to wade into this steaming pile of a thread, but for the economically clueless:

Let's say California has a population of one. This person earns $50,000 a year, pays $10,000 in federal taxes, and the feds turn around and pay $5,000 to shine some lights on a big redwood tree in Redwood Forest National Park.

Meanwhile, the state government collects another $7,000 from its citizen, and decides to blow it all in a spectacular fireworks show on Cinco de Mayo. The fireworks were a little more expensive than anticipated, grand total $9,000, so the state government of California sells a $2,000 bond to cover the difference.

In such a scenario, California the state government is "broke-azz", but California the state GDP is a net contributor towards the federal government's coffers.

Broke state governments and net federal contributor state GDPs aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think the issue is that complicated.

I started it with such high hopes, shoulda seen this coming