If you have some sort of medical crisis, you will not be turned away from a medical provider. You just go into debt and declare bankruptcy.

Personally, I don’t feel like paying for others’ healthcare. I have a job that a lot of people probably wouldn’t like doing because I want to pay for myself and not be a burden on society. It’s called a job, get one. There is such a feeling of entitlement among the “less fortunate” in this country. Full-time students can’t get food stamps, but the people sucking out the welfare and unemployment can? Then they go to Safeway and spend $10 on a sandwich or try to get the deli girl to mark their fried chicken as cold so they can get it on the Oregon Trail card (trust me, it happens).

Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that I’m already paying enough for the lazy people in this state, I don’t want to pay more for them to make my healthcare worse. This ballot measure will (hopefully) fail just like the last one and maybe one day the politicians in this state will figure out that we’re tired of being gouged (yeah, right).

Under socialized medicine everyone will have “access” to healthcare. And because it’s a public good, everyone will “have” healthcare. Just look at canada.

When the government started rationing healthcare, they did it with time. Now it takes 3 months+ for an MRI, 18+ months for non-emergency surgery, and politicians get to skip the lines because they are deemed more important.

Sounds exactly like the soviet system of healthcare. And don’t forget the cubans have the best healthcare in the world. (which was espoused at the UO campus)

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

We can have a long discourse on the role and importance of stable, non-tyrannous government in the development and sustained existence of free market economies, and there’s certainly room for debate about the direction of the causal relationship (I’m of the Milton Friedman school of thought, myself), but, regardless, the government must still sap off of the productive sectors of the economy in order to have revenue. Taxes cause dead-weight loss, and thusly in cases that aren’t provision of true public goods* a government solution will be less efficient (and thusly not maximize utility) than a market solution. And don’t start on me with the stuff about aggregate preference orderings, I’m well aware of this.

On the Oregon question: I’ll gladly concede that there are problems with the health care market (Link). However, I’d argue that government intervention through subsidy of consumption, aiding cartel pricing, making it difficult to bring new treatments to market, and heavy regulation is a cause of many of these problems rather than a solution to them. The socializers will often argue that the government is doing a lot anyway so it might as well do more, but if so much government intervention is demonstrably failing to have the intended positive effect, how can more possibly be the solution?

If the goal is provision of the best health care to the most people, the market-based solutions that work for so many other things will work just as well.
______________________________________________
*Goods that are BOTH non-rivalrous in consumption and non-excludable. Healthcare is definitely not one of these, although it is a private good with (some and I’d say less large than many would suspect) positive externalities.

What if I’m a healthy 20-something who doesn’t want to pay for health insurance?

What if I’m a rich guy who can afford to pay for any medical expenses out of my pocket?

You going to make either of my hypothetical persons pay for health care they do not need or want?

Your statement, “states only have one way to raise money in the long run. ” is incorrect.
Some money comes as a result of being part of the Union. The union has managed to leverage its power to create wealth. This IS a result of taxes, through the military, and intelligence, however, it is a rather convoluted business plan and is rarely accounted for on the books.

I repeat, I dont believe that some people should have health care while others do not.