not needed, I have excellent health insurance this seems like more welfare for those who often spend too much time on the system then they really need to.

Does your health insurance provide restaurant inspections and enforce clean water laws and provide vaccinations, STD screenings and pre-natal care to people who don't have health insurance?

Who was asked and where was this survey conducted? I was not asked and my vote is no. I will also take my vote away from those politicians who attempt to vote this into reality.

I'm concern about how they came up with such a lowball figure of only $10 per household. The yearly budget for this department is 10 million. They hope to get about 5 mill from the state (but the state has been cutting back on everything.) They then hope to make up the difference thru grants (which is like playing the lottery) and thru fees. What happens if none of the above work out to cover the 10 mil? Will services be cut/scaled back, staff reduced, satalite offices closed, or finally, taxes raised to cover it all?

It's been $10 per household all along. They need $500,000 from each county. I guess we'll see what that pays for if Lamont McClure doesn't help the Ron Angle Republicans put the kibosh on it for good.

Let's starting being honest. In today's climate $10 is a lot of money to a lot of people. If you are unaware of that I suggest that you get out of the basement and see what is going on. This is nothing but more entitlement/socialism that we do not need. As to Muhlenberg being behind the survey, what would one expect from a liberal college today.

I'm pretty sure most people can afford $0.86 a month for these services. If people were to go to a doctor and pay for pre-natal care or an STD screening directly, it would cost much more than $10. It's a good value.

As for "socialism", can you explain why the private sector isn't providing public health services or restaurant inspections?

Jon
It is not the job of the private sector to "volunteer services" other wise they would be socialist industry. Jon, we need to return to the days when we were self sufficient and took care of ourselves. That was not all that long ago--you could find it in the 1950's and even into the early sixties. People should go to the doctor. Are you paying any attention to the fact that Obamacare is sending doctors into early retirement. You might be surprised by the affect of this on the price of items. My family doctor charged $5 for an office visit and $7 for coming to my house. His office was in Stroudsburg and he arrived at my house in a Mercedes driven by a chauffer in livery. He was a great guy and took care of a lot of people until he retired in the 1970's. What you might want to ask yourself is why are costs up not only in medicine but everywhere

If you don't like Muhlenberg's survey, would you rather have our tax dollars pay for a survey?
If we're going to be honest about this issue, we have to stop painting this as a partisan issue. It's a simple decision of whether we scrape together modest funding for a program that will benefit ALL residents of the two counties. This is not a blatant entitlement program. With a bi-county health department, EVERY resident will receive the benefit of a coorindated response to epidemics of anything from measels to new & deadly strains of flu. I know a lot of people in this area have disdain for entitlements and people who use entitlement programs. But this issue goes beyond race. Regional epidemics of anything will affect everyone. The more people without access to immunizations or education about what to do during an epidemic, the more the virus will spread. Just because you have health insurance does not mean that you will not be infected. Part of what a bi-county health department would do is take steps to limit the spread of an outbreak. The idea is to prevent health crises before they get out of hand. The only thing socialist about that is the bold idea that EVERYONE regardless of race, age, or economic status has a right to, at the very least, preventative health care. Preventative health care also benefits people who are not directly receiving the entitlement, and it can take the form of restaurant inspections, immunizations, or simple educational programs.

That's exactly my point. It's a market failure. The private sector is not providing the services that the public health department would provide. It would be "socialist" if the government was directly providing a service that the private sector *could* be providing, but It's not clear that anyone can make a profit doing these things. And yet the need for them is there.

Health costs are rising faster than all other costs, and this is driven by increases in the cost of care. Providers - hospitals, doctors, medical devices makers, pharma - are charging more for health care services than they used to. They are charging more in this country than their counterparts in other countries do.

Jon
Private enterprise usually gives their employees health, dental, and even eye care. Nazareth School District, a public enterprise paid out $18K per teacher and I assume other employees for benefits. Not to shabby. Our politicians over the years feel that they need to help us or as Barbara Malkulski put it "every morning I wake up and think about what I can do for my constituents." Please, please Barbara stop doing that. People need to take care of themselves. Health care costs are rising because we need tort reform. Health care costs are rising because of the regulations imposed by governmen who believe it is helping us. Health care costs are rising because politicians like LBJ and BO fail to believe it when their own people tell them that things like Medicare will break us. Health care costs are rising because our political leaders start out underfunding a program so that the folks can be weaned to the program and then decide that they can live without it. Wake Up Jon, The bad guys are really in your back yard.

Again, if there was a market for restaurant inspection services, and enforcement of clean air and water laws, in the sense that firms could make a profit doing it, I would be all for it. But the fact is, these services are not being provided. It's a market failure.

Now, every market failure doesn't justify government intervention. You have to weigh costs and benefits. And in this case, the benefits clearly win out. You're getting a lot of services for just $0.86 a month per household. It's a very good deal.

The State already provides restaurant inspections through the Department of Agriculture and enforcement of clean air/water laws through DEP. In addition, the EPA enforces federal air/water laws.

If your point is that we don't do enough restaurant inspections, then advocate that we hire a few more inspectors. Don't advocate spending $10 million (which I'll guarantee is low, it always is for new bureaucracies) we don't have on services that are already being done by someone else.

The state operations aren't nearly good enough, especially since Tom Corbett has staffed those agencies with people who have an ideological aversion to enforcing the laws. It's hardly a matter of just hiring a few more inspectors. The whole package of services that the health department will provide is easily worth $10 million.

Then close the state agency, lay everyone off, and use the savings to fund the new agency. I'm tired of paying for incompetence.

In case you missed it, the Agriculture Agency was no better under Rendell.

Ok, but then the problem in both cases is that you have administrations erring on the side of being too lax on inspections. Either they're cowering at being called "anti-business" or some such nonsense, or they're intentionally not enforcing the laws because they're corrupt, or they're afraid to raise taxes to increase the capacity of the regulatory agencies. Whatever the problem is, the solution is more and better enforcement. You're not going to get that by closing the state agency. You're going to get it by electing better Governors and appointing better people.

Now, if we're talking fantasy politics, I would definitely support your idea to close the state agency and replace it with a metro-level agency. I'd actually go further than that and disband the whole state government in favor of metro governments based around regional economies. But you have to have those metro governments ready to go before you disband the state government.

Restaurant inspections should be within the authority of local government and whether or not they want to do that. The state should be out of it all together If an eatery is to stupid to keep their kitchen clean let them suffer the consequences.

I do believe restaurants are a matter of public safety and should be inspected. I'm not sure I agree with putting local governments in control of this process, to me it allows for even more political crap than doing it at the state level - neighboring towns with different standards and inspection processes, a town going 'easy' on restaurants to get more of them to locate there, etc.

I think it needs to be done at the state level, with all employees involved considered 'at will' so that it is easier to terminate incompetence.

I disagree with Jon's approach for metro governments, that would result in even more catering to large cities than we already have, at the expense of everyone else.

That's just the thing - current policy at the local, state and federal level has a strong pro-rural bias at the expense of cities. Cities are the job centers. Philly, Pittsburgh and the Lehigh Valley have the highest GDP of all the metro areas in PA. That's where most of the state's money should be going, but it doesn't. It's spread thinly across the state in very stupid ways.

This is Obamacare at its finest, and the main reason why it is not good for us, society or our country.

I am drinking tea...again. Join the party!

Totally against this bi-county Health Dept. We don't need to add another program. We pay for too much already that should be personal responsibility.

Government does not do any program well...and it always costs more than they estimate. I still NO to this new program as vigorously as I can.

I'm confused. If there is no "public health" outside the cities, what do the state health centers do in the Lehigh Valley? I thought those were the "county" health departments that did the free immunizations for kids and other things.

Cities are also significant drains - Philly's pension deficit alone is almost $3 billion (Philly Business Journal 4/8/11). This is the result of decades of mismanagement and not just the result of the 2008-09 market drop.

Why is it the rural areas' responsibility to funnel more cash to cities that have shown they can't handle their own affairs?

It appears that Muhlenberg did not do a very good job with thier survey. Who did they check their staff and students. Those of you who enjoy spending i suggest you begin to understand that the bucks are not out there for more toys.

It's not the rural areas' responsibility to "funnel more cash to cities", but it's certainly not the cities' job to funnel more cash to unproductive rural areas. My point is that a *neutral* policy from Harrisburg, where everybody gets roughly the share of state funds that they contribute in GDP would result in significantly more money flowing from Harrisburg to Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and the Lehigh Valley than is currently the case. My view is that state and federal government incentives should nudge people toward big metros, not away from them as is currently the case. Migration to low-density areas is absolutely killing US productivity.

Chris, that's pathetic. You just think it's a bad poll because it revealed that youir position is unpopular. The margin of error is +/- 5%. If anything it's probably underestimating the level of support since most of the respondents valued these services at $100-500 a year and *a supermajority still said yes*.

As one who has lived in a rural now suburban area for well over 50 years. I would remind you that rural areas provide those of you in the cities with an item called food. Sadly most people do not have a clue as to how those things in cellophane wrap and cans get filled with tomatoes, beans, peas and meat. Many people would starve to death if it weren't for those rural areas. We have poured scads of money into the cites and what has it got us. Allentown, use to be known as the Queen city now the place is a dumb run by a dumbo and his spawned staff. It is not a safe place and to think just a few years back you went there to see Santa Clause. To make matters worse the stealing and more has spread to the outlying communities and sections of what was once a proud city. Let me note that Easton is right behind it and Bethlehem is on the way. This after millions have been sent there by the outlanders. Let's also toss in the two hell holes Philly and Pittsburg. So your solution is to poor more money into these rat holes. As to the poll, just for you it was a bit of tongue in cheek. But given the nature of polls today, people do lie in polls, i really don't believe them particularly when it comes from a liberal institution like a college. You would be the pathetic one here Jon for not doing your home work and not realizing that they are loaded.