State backed health care vs national health care?

Question

along the lines of my previous question, which form would you prefer to have if you had to choose? Which would offer more choice and greater care? One model I found very intersting is the Healthy Indiana Plan.

Answer 1

In Canada we may never have had a public system if the provinces hadn't done it first.  Through an accident of history health, education and social powers were thought to be basically nothing in 1867(the year of Canadian confederation) so the provincial government got those.  In the forties the CCF pushed through a publicly funded health-care system, and starred down a doctors strike to do it.  Many years later the Canadian government offered a matching dollar agreement(now changed to block grants) based on Saskatchewan's plan.  It is unlikely they would have done so if there was no working model on hand, or if they had to face a nation-wide doctors strike themselves.  To this day some provinces cover ambulances, some don't.  some cover optometry, some do for those under 19, and over 65, and others don't at all.  Some have special health premium taxes, others cover healthcare from general revenues.  It works well, but the federal government keeps all the provinces honest with a Medicare Act, and control of the purse strings.  Federal funding and gaurantees, with the states working out the details would likely work well for you too.

Answer 2

they both suck

Answer 3

Rather the freedom of a 4000 -5000 dollar credit per person to buy any health care HMO or PPO without Obama telling me were to go. Want to have a Government runed food store ?  80 years ago, the Fed went into making steel and it cost 200 dollars per ton versus private company 15 dollars per ton. Which is the cheaper one ?  Canadian heath care is so  bad that it sends it's heart patients to U.S. for health care. And yes, the Canadians are complaining