In a nationalized medical care system, you need to know who’s who – otherwise the device could never find a way determine who’s entitled. The structure depends how the device is created and designed, but with a nationalized medical care system you is likely to be tracked by their state where you reside and the method that you relocate a fashion that’s unseen in America. The nationalized medical care system becomes a vehicle for population control.

In the event that you leave the United States and are no further a resident of their state, even although you are a citizen and might maintain a driving license, you will need to report immediately if you wish to prevent the 13% medical care tax. I use the amount 13% as it is in Sweden to exemplify the particular tax pressure that’s laid upon you for the nationalized health care.

Let’s say you moved and you do not want to cover the 13% tax for services you do not receive, can receive, or wish to taken out from the tax roll. The mammoth entity has no interest to let you go so easy. You find yourself being forced to reveal your private life – partner, dwellings, travel, money, and job to prove your case that you’ve the right to leave people medical care system and do not want to cover the tax. If you have to seek an appeal, your information could be a part of administrative court documents that are open and public documents. When you go back to the United States, you is likely to be automatically enrolled again and the taxes start to pile up.

Public universal medical care has no fascination with protecting your privacy. They want their tax money and, to fight for your rights, you will need to prove that you meet certain requirements to not be taxable. In that process, your private life is up for display.

The national ID-card and national population registry that includes your medical information is a basis of the nationalized medical care system. You can see where this is going – population control and power to utilize the law and medical care access to map all of your private life in public places searchable databases owned and operated by the government.

By operating an impeccable population registry that tracks where you reside, who you reside with, whenever you move and your citizen status including residency the Swedes can separate who are able to receive universal medical care from those not entitled. The Swedish authorities will know when you have a Swedish social security number, with the tap of the keyboard, additional information about yourself than you are able to remember. The Swedish government has brought sharing of information between agencies to a new level. The main reason is simple – to collect medical care tax and suppress any tax evasion.

It’s heavily centralized and only the central administration can change the registered information in the data. So if you wish to change your name, even the slightest change, you’ve to file a credit card applicatoin at a national agency that processes your paperwork. This centralized population registry afford them the ability to find out who’s who under all circumstances and it’s necessary for the national medical care system. Otherwise, any person could claim to be entitled.

To implement that in the United States requires a brand-new doctrine for population registry and control. Within an American context that will require that each existing driving license must be voided and reapplied under stricter identification rules that will 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 provides services to the general public. The reason why a new population registry could be needed in the United States is the fact that lax rules dating back to the 1940s up before War on Terrorism, and stricter identification criteria following 9/11, has made a significant percentage of personal information regarding individuals questionable.

If America instead neglects maintaining secure records, determining eligibility for public medical care would not be possible and the floodgates for fraud would open and rampant misuse of the device would prevail. This may eventually bring down the system.

It’s financially impossible to make a universal medical care system without clearly knowing who’s entitled and not. The device needs to have limits of its entitlement. A social security number would not be sufficient as these numbers have been given out through decades to temporary residents that may not reside in the United States or might today be out of status as illegal immigrants.

The Congress has investigated the expense of many of the “public options”, but nonetheless we’ve no clear picture of the particular realm of the group that would be entitled and under which conditions. The risk is political. It’s super easy for political reasons to extend the entitlement. Politicians would have trouble being firm on illegal immigrants’ entitlement, as that will put the politicians on a collision course with mainly the Hispanic community because they represent a significant area of the illegal immigrants. And so the easy sell is then that everyone that’s a legal resident alien or citizen can join according to 1 fee plan and then a illegal immigrants can join according to another fee structure. That assumes that they really pay the fee which is really a wild guess as they are likely to be able to get access to service and never having to state that they are illegal immigrants.

It works politically – but again – without an impeccable population registry and control over who’s who on a national level, this is unlikely to succeed. The device could be predestined to fail due to insufficient funds. In the event that you design a method to provide the medical care needs for a population and then increase that population without any extra funds – then naturally it’d result in a diminished level of service, declined quality, and waiting lists for complex procedures. In real terms, American medical care goes from being truly a first world system to a next world system.

Thousands, if not a million, American residents live as any American citizen but they’re still not in good standing with their immigration even when they’ve been here for ten or fifteen years. A common medical care system will raise issues about who’s entitled and who’s not.

The choice is for an American universal medical care system to surrender to the fact that there is no order in the population registry and just provide medical care for everyone who shows up. If that is done, costs will dramatically increase at some level depending on who will pick up the bill – their state government, the government, or people medical care system.

Illegal immigrants which have arrived in the last years and make up a significant population would create a huge pressure on a universal medical care, if implemented, in states like Texas and California. If they’re given universal medical care, it would be a pure loss for the device because they mostly work for cash. They’ll never be payees to the universal medical care system as it is based on salary taxes, and they do not file taxes.

The difference is that Sweden has almost no illegal immigrants compared to the United States. The Swedes do not provide medical care services for illegal immigrants and the illegal immigrants may be arrested and deported if they need public service without good legal standing.

This firm and uniform standpoint towards illegal immigration is necessary to prevent a universal medical care system from crumbling down and to keep up a sustainable ratio between people who pay into the device and people who benefit from it.

The working middle class that is the backbone to cover into the device would not only face that their existing medical asthma treatment management care is halved in its service value – but almost certainly face higher cost of medical care because they will be the ones to get the bill.

The universal medical care system would have maybe 60 million to 70 million “free riders” if based on wage taxes, and maybe half if based 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 particular the estimated 10-15 million illegal immigrants.

There is no way that the universal medical care system may be viably implemented unless America creates a population registry that will identify the entitlements for every person and that would have to be designed from scratch to a higher degree as we can’t count on driver’s license data as the standard could be too low – too many errors.

Many illegal immigrants have both social security numbers and driver’s licenses as we were holding issued without rigorous control of status before 9/11. The choice is that you had to show a US passport or even a valid foreign passport with a green card to be able to register.

Another problematic task is the number of points of registration. If the registration is done by hospitals – and not a federal agency – then it’s highly likely that registration fraud could be rampant. It could be super easy to trespass the control of eligibility when it is registered and determined with a hospital clerk. This supports that the eligibility has to be determined by a main administration that has a vast access to data and information regarding our lives, income, and medical history. If one single registration at a medical care provider or hospital would guarantee you free medical care forever and there is no rigorous and audited process – then it’s certain that corruption, bribery, and fraud could be synonymous with the system.

This calls for a significant level of political strength to confront and set the limits for who’s entitled – and here comes the true problem – selling out medical care to obtain the votes of the free riders. It’s apparent that the political power of the “free” medical care promise is extremely high.

A guarantee that will not alienate anyone as a stronger population registry would upset the Hispanic population, as many of the illegal immigrants are Hispanics – and many Hispanics may be citizens by birth but their elderly parents are not. Would the voting power of the younger Hispanics act to place pressure to extend medical care to elderly which are not citizens? Yes, naturally, as every group tries to increase its self-interest.

The risk is, even having an enhanced population registry, that the number of entitled would expand and put additional burden on the device beyond what it was made for. That might come though political wheeling and dealing, sheer inability from an administrative standpoint to recognize groups, or systematic fraud within the device itself.