On Feb 6, 2008, at 7:16 PM, tully wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 February 2008, Marta Russell wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 2008, at 2:26 PM, tully wrote:
>> San Francisco is a WEALTHY city girlfriend.
>
> San Francisco has plenty of poor and will no doubt obtain many
> more with their new healthcare ruling.
>
>> If this is what you think realize then that only the rich
>> counties, cities and states will be able to provide any
>> healthcare. Medicaid, for instance is a shared cost between
>> the feds and the states. Most states could not afford it
>> without "central" funds.
>
> That is mainly because so much money (from income and payroll
> tax, etc.) is collected at the central level and trickled back
> down to the states. If federal income tax went down drastically
> and state income tax went up drastically, to essentially the
> same values the citizens are currently paying, the states could
> easily afford it, albeit some much more easily than others.
> South Dakota, for example, would be in even more serious trouble
> while California and New York would be richer than they are now.
>
> People could then pick and choose where to live. If they wanted
> a low tax region, they'd go to the red states, if they wanted
> paid healthcare, they'd move to the blue states. Would we then
> see a major split between rich and poor states? I don't think
> it would be too bad, because there is always low wage work that
> needs doing and if no one was there to do it, something would
> have to give to attract it there.
>
> A trickle up direction could also allow richer states to
> contribute to the poorer states as they were able, much like
> happened during Katrina. It may not be perfect, but aren't we
> seeing in very clear and stark terms that the centralized
> trickle down gov't monopoly is a disaster?
>
> --tully
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>