Ok, how is Tennessee's state system set up? The devil is always in the details.
Like I said, I would support a system that runs
purely from collected premiums from its customers. That way, none of my tax dollars are forced to pay for it. If the system runs off of taxpayer money, then it just isn't going to work. We've seen that time and time again. I've done a ton of research on other countries' health care systems, as my family has had a particularly hard time with America's. I've often thought about how to make it better here.
The only country who's system I've seen that remotely works is Switzerland, who has heavily regulated but privatized health insurance. Canada and the UK have horrific waiting times for some procedures. The Germans are said to have a good system, but they've actually been moving towards MORE privatization rather than less. They've got the same "Hey, we need more competition!" idea that I do.
I think America just needs more options. Open up insurance to cross state lines, create more non-profits and improve the tax incentives for them, and force insurance companies to be more up-front about their practices. Right now, a customer has very little idea about how good their insurance provider is until they actually get sick. You pay premiums for years only to get dropped the second you become seriously ill, for any
reason the corporate lackeys can come up with. (even
typos have been used to deny a claim or drop a policy!) Few states require insurance companies to publicize that information. One insurance company in California was found to deny 39.6% of claims. The average in California was 21%. One in five!
So, assuming a state were to set up a tax-free health insurance company, I'm ok with it. If they were to raise taxes or increase the deficit to pay for health care, well, then I'm not.