The rundown for those who don't follow links:
Hawaii has just canceled their Universal Child Care initiative. Why, you may ask?
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free,"
Really? People will take advantage of a government program?
These programs only "work" in two places. On paper in Utopian dreams and in a strong socialist/communist system where everyone is required to participate.
The only socialized medical systems I know of that seem to remain functional without financially burdening their citizens are those that have a minimal universal health coverage that take care of major issues. Above and beyond that, people have to either pay for themselves or purchase their own.
I imagine it is possible for us to have some type of UHC in the US if we changed one aspect of our current governmental process. We would have to spend less than we take in. Then we could create an actual budget. Not a budget of "wow, we really need all these programs so we'll come up with the money somehow. That was the consumer failure side of the whole sub-prime mortgage issue.
No, in fact, if I were able to reform the whole system, here is what I would do if I could:
I would return to the original constitutional tax system. The federal government would only be allowed to pay for things that the individual states were unable to do effectively themselves - defense, postal systems, and setting national standards to be implemented and governed by the states. They would then levy taxes to the states to cover those costs. If the individual states felt strongly about specific programs such as UHC, social security, improving education, agriculture, providing breaks/incentives for business, etc. they could do so on their own.
I really am a strong believer in the concept that the farther away decisions are made from the individual people, the less input the people have on those decisions.
This also would allow people to move if they didn't like the way their state handled programs to another state that more closely matched their ideals. Current example: If the citizens of Massachusetts feel that their statewide UHC program has overly increased their tax burden and feel that their voice isn't heard in the states socialist political climate, they are free to move to somewhere on the other extreme . . . say . . . Wyoming. Or they can move to any other state that most closely meets their social, political, moral, etc. values.
If we had national UHC, there is no longer an option for the individual who feels that such socialism robs them of their liberty (like me).
Many of the far reaching federal programs fit this same mold. Education, for example. I have no problem with the federal government deciding that our children need to meet certain standards to be competitive in the world. Great. Set the standards then allow the states to implement and enforce those standards.
Simple - the children from those states don't have the advantage that those do who come from states who do implement/enforce.
<Whine>But Travis, that's not fair!
No, no it's not. But then neither is life. For some reason we have come to this bizarre mindset that things should work differently for human beings than for the rest of the world. Really, stop and think about what would happen if we did have a true economic failure. Those who have been sitting around whining about fairness will either figure out that life isn't fair or they will be crushed by those who are going to survive.
Under my model (and the founder's for that matter) life ends up being more fair than otherwise. If you don't like what is going on where you are and you can't effect change - move somewhere that is more in line with what you desire.
Your topic appropriate musical treat for today comes from DEVO. Enjoy