So, Obamacare is like this for the individual. However, for the economy as a whole it also saves money by being more efficient. Because a non-safe car kills people and little kids and animals and damages property all over the place. So, in the end Obamacare is more efficient (at least for the people and states that fully embrace it).
So, when people and states fight Obamacare they help their states medical systems go bankrupt. This is the problem as I see it. Fighting Obamacare as many Republicans are choosing to do is actually helping bankrupt their state governments and making them more dependent upon the Federal Government. So, they are sort of cutting off their noses to spite their faces by fighting Obamacare.
If you took a car and then stole the wheels off it you could say this is a bad car. Of course! Especially if you lie to your people that you were the one who stole the wheels off this car. This is basically what states are doing who are Republican and saying Obamacare is bad. They have stolen the wheels off Obamacare so that possibly within that state it might not work right (at least as far as state systems are concerned.
So, is it better to live in a more democratic state if you are dying without Obamacare? The answer to this might be: "If you want to stay alive and not die from Obamacare that doesn't work in your Republican state you might want to move to a state where Obamacare actually works because the people there embrace it."
There is the macro level where it saves the national economy so much money in efficiency that we are all the richer for it nationwide. Then there is the personal level where it costs a little more to have the safety features of all your friends and relatives not dying unnecessarily from catastrophic illnesses when they don't have to. However, if all the state officials in your state are trying to destroy Obaamacare by "stealing the wheels off the safe car of Obamacare in your state" and you are going to die without Obamacare then maybe you need to move to a democratic state in which Republicans aren't stealing the wheels off the car (obamacare) that you need to stay alive!
Also, Republican states in general tend to be the least efficient and most dependent on government handouts despite what Republicans might want you to believe. As the following article documents:
- Huffington Post - 5 days agoIn the map below, green states are the least dependent, while red states ... states it is seen as a political boon to turn down federal handouts.
What may come as some surprise is where these two warring tribes tend to live. The states with elected officials most likely to espouse anti-taker sentiments -- i.e., Republican-dominated states -- are the most dependent on federal spending, while returning the least to Washington in the way of tax dollars.
That's according to the consumer finance site Wallet Hub, which crunched federal tax and spending data and then ranked states from most to least dependent on Uncle Sam. In the map below, green states are the least dependent, while red states -- appropriately -- are the most dependent.
The "takingest" states, in a tie, are Mississippi and New Mexico, according to the analysis. Both states take about $3 in federal spending for every $1 contributed in taxes. Both states are highly dependent on federal funding as a percentage of state revenue. And New Mexico, especially, has lots of federal workers.
The state with the lowest return on taxpayer investment is South Carolina. Its citizens pay $1 in taxes per capita for every $7.87 in federal funding received.
The two states that come closest to breaking even are Washington and Georgia. These states get back $1.05 for every $1 in taxes paid.
Wallet Hub tabulated its results using three metrics: taxes paid as compared to federal spending per capita, what percentage of state revenue comes from federal dollars, and the number of federal employees per capita. The first two categories were given more weight than the third.
While the rankings are obviously somewhat arbitrary -- one would get different results using different metrics -- they do broadly correspond to patterns of poverty. States like Mississippi and Alabama, which are hugely dependent on federal tax dollars to help feed, clothe and shelter their citizens, are among those with the largest deficits, in terms of what they get in federal help versus what they give back in tax dollars.
For most of American history, bringing home the federal pork, in extra benefits for citizens or spending projects, was a badge of honor for elected officials. The rise of the Tea Party has changed this calculus. Now in the most conservative states it is seen as a political boon to turn down federal handouts. In essence, they are trying to become less taker-y.
The most obvious evidence of this trend can be seen in the expansion of Medicaid, the health plan for the poor, under the Affordable Care Act. Of the 10 states with the biggest dependency gap, as determined by Wallet Hub, seven -- Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, South Dakota and Tennessee -- have decided not to expand their Medicaid programs, even though the funding would come from federal coffers.end quote from: