In a nationalized healthcare system, you need to know who is who – otherwise the machine could never find a way determine who is entitled. The structure depends how the machine is done and designed, but with a nationalized healthcare system you is going to be tracked by their state where you reside and the way you move in a fashion that’s unseen in America. The nationalized healthcare system becomes a vehicle for population control.
If you leave the United States and are no further a resident of their state, even though you are a citizen and might maintain a driving license, you will have to report immediately if you want to prevent the 13% healthcare tax. I personally use the number 13% as it is in Sweden to exemplify the actual tax pressure that’s laid upon you for the nationalized health care.
Let’s say you moved and you don’t want to pay for the 13% tax for services you don’t receive, can receive, or wish to taken out from the tax roll. The mammoth entity doesn’t have interest to enable you to go so easy. You can become being forced to reveal your private life – partner, dwellings, travel, money, and job to prove your case that you’ve the proper to leave the public healthcare system and do not require to pay for the tax. When you yourself have to find an appeal, your information is actually a element of administrative court documents which are open and public documents. As soon as you return to the United States, you is going to be automatically enrolled again and the taxes begin to pile up.
Public universal healthcare doesn’t have interest in protecting your privacy. They desire their tax money and, to fight for your rights, you will have to prove that you meet the requirements never to be taxable. For the reason that process, your private life is up for display.
The national ID-card and national population registry that features your medical information is a foundation of the nationalized healthcare system. You will see where that is going – population control and ability to utilize the law and healthcare access to map your whole private life in public areas searchable databases owned and operated by the government.
By operating an impeccable population registry that tracks where you live, who you live with, when you move and your citizen status including residency the Swedes can separate who is able to receive universal healthcare from those not entitled. The Swedish authorities will know if you have a Swedish social security number, with the tap of the keyboard, more info about yourself than you are able to remember. The Swedish government has taken sharing of information between agencies to a new level. The reason is very simple – to gather healthcare tax and suppress any tax evasion.
It is heavily centralized and only the central administration can change the registered information in the data. So if you want to change your name, even the slightest change, you’ve to file a software at a national agency that processes your paperwork. This centralized population registry afford them the ability to find out who is who under all circumstances and it’s essential for the national healthcare system. Otherwise, any person could claim to be entitled.
To implement that in the United States needs a brand-new doctrine for population registry and control. In an American context that would require that every existing driving license had to be voided and reapplied under stricter identification rules that would match not just data from Internal Revenue Service, state government, municipal government, Social Security Administration, and Department of Homeland Security but just about any agency that delivers services to the general public. The key reason why a new population registry would be needed in the United States is the truth that lax rules dating back again to the 1940s up before the War on Terrorism, and stricter identification criteria following 9/11, has made a substantial percentage of personal information regarding individuals questionable.
If America instead neglects maintaining secure records, determining eligibility for public healthcare would not be possible and the floodgates for fraud would open and rampant misuse of the machine would prevail. This would eventually bring down the system.
It is financially impossible to produce a universal healthcare system without clearly knowing who is entitled and not. The machine will need limits of its entitlement. A cultural security number would not be adequate as these numbers have already been given out through decades to temporary residents that may not really are now living in the United States or might today be out of status as illegal immigrants.
The Congress has investigated the cost of lots of the “public options”, but nevertheless we’ve no clear picture of the actual realm of the group that would be entitled and under which conditions. The risk is political. It is very easy for political reasons to extend the entitlement. Politicians could have a hard time being firm on illegal immigrants’ entitlement, as that would put the politicians on a collision course with mainly the Hispanic community because they represent a substantial part of the illegal immigrants. So the easy sell is then that everyone that’s a legal resident alien or citizen can join according to at least one fee plan and then your illegal immigrants can join according to a different fee structure. That assumes that they actually pay the fee which is really a wild guess since they are apt to be able to get access to service and never having to state that they are illegal immigrants.
It would work politically – but again – with no impeccable population registry and control over who is who on a national level, that is unlikely to succeed. The machine would be predestined to fail because of insufficient funds. If you design something to provide the healthcare needs for a population and then increase that population without any additional funds – then naturally it’d result in a lower degree of service, declined quality, and waiting lists for complex procedures. In real terms, American healthcare goes from being a first world system to a third world system.
Thousands, if not really a million, American residents live as any American citizen but they are still not in good standing using their immigration even when they’ve been here for ten or fifteen years. A widespread healthcare system will raise issues about who is entitled and who is not.
The choice is for an American universal healthcare system to surrender to the truth that there’s no order in the people registry and just provide healthcare for everybody who shows up. If that is completed, costs will dramatically increase at some level depending on who’ll get the bill – their state government, the government, or the public healthcare system.
Illegal immigrants which have arrived within the last years and make-up a substantial population would create an enormous pressure on a general healthcare, if implemented, in states like Texas and California. If they are given universal healthcare, it would be a pure loss for the machine because they mostly benefit cash. They will never be payees to the universal healthcare system as it is based on salary taxes, and they cannot file taxes.
The difference is that Sweden has very little illegal immigrants set alongside the United States. The Swedes do not provide healthcare services for illegal immigrants and the illegal immigrants can be arrested and deported if they might require public service without good legal standing.
This firm and uniform standpoint towards illegal immigration is important to avoid a general healthcare system from crumbling down and to keep up a sustainable ratio between those that pay into the machine and those that benefit from it.
The working middle-income group that is the backbone to pay for into the machine would not only face that their existing healthcare is halved in its service value – but most likely face higher cost of healthcare because they could be the ones to grab the bill.
The universal healthcare system could have maybe 60 million to 70 million “free riders” if predicated on wage taxes, and maybe half if predicated on fees, that’ll not pay anything to the system. We already know that approximately 60 million Americans pay no taxes as adults add to that the estimated 10-15 million illegal immigrants.
There’s no way a universal healthcare system can be viably implemented unless America creates a population registry that can identify the entitlements asthma treatment management for every individual and that would need to be designed from scratch to a top degree as we can not depend on driver’s license data as the quality would be too low – a lot of errors.
Many illegal immigrants have both social security numbers and driver’s licenses as they certainly were issued without rigorous control of status before 9/11. The choice is that you had to exhibit a US passport or perhaps a valid foreign passport with a natural card to be able to register.
Another problematic task is how many points of registration. If the registration is completed by hospitals – and not really a federal agency – then it’s highly likely that registration fraud would be rampant. It would be very easy to trespass the control of eligibility if it’s registered and determined by a hospital clerk. This supports that the eligibility needs to be determined by a main administration that’s a vast access to data and information regarding our lives, income, and medical history. If one single registration at a healthcare provider or hospital would guarantee you free healthcare for a lifetime and there’s no rigorous and audited process – then it’s a given that corruption, bribery, and fraud would be synonymous with the system.
This involves a substantial degree of political strength to confront and set the limits for who is entitled – and here comes the real problem – selling out healthcare to have the votes of the free riders. It is apparent that the political power of the “free” healthcare promise is extremely high.
A guarantee that can not alienate anyone as a stronger population registry would upset the Hispanic population, as lots of the illegal immigrants are Hispanics – and many Hispanics might be citizens by birth but their elderly parents are not. Would the voting power of the younger Hispanics act to place pressure to extend healthcare to elderly that aren’t citizens? Yes, naturally, as every group tries to maximise its self-interest.
The risk is, even having an enhanced population registry, that the band of entitled would expand and put additional burden on the machine beyond what it was designed for. That may come though political wheeling and dealing, sheer inability from an administrative standpoint to recognize groups, or systematic fraud within the machine itself.