I want to know why I’m wrong- because this question has been eating at me for years- and I secretly blame the Democrats for all of the health insurance problems.

Why can’t California and New York bind together in an interstate compact, and create medicare for all of their citizens?

California and New York have GDP’s above most other countries in the world. In general, democrats hold majorities. Tell me why I shouldn’t blame the democrats for:

  1. Doing Obama care half assed, when something like 80% people wanted a public option.

  2. Not just doing it themselves. For instance even NYC by itself has a GDP above Denmark, and NYC is filled to the brim with the super rich.

  • @floo@retrolemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    85
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    New York State Medicaid is basically that, if you make under $28,000 a year or something like that. I was on it for a while. It’s good. everything is free.

    The only problem is that not every provider accepts it. But most in the city do.

    • I hate those arbitrary cut offs for aid. Oops, you got a raise and now make $28,100 sorry no more medicare. It locks people into low paying jobs because if they make too much, they instantly loose all the benefits that their little raise doesn’t match.

      if we’re not going to do free-for-all, it should at least be on a very large scale,

      make less then 28k = 100% covered,

      29, 99% covered

      30, 98% covered

      All the way up to when 128k = 0% covered

      (You’d have fix healthcare prices too, procedures/medicines are priced so insurance looks like they are doing you a favor “you only had to pay $700 for this $25,000 procedure and the $600 follow up medicine will only cost you $100 a week”)

      • @EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        73 months ago

        Agreed. All cut-offs for everything should have a ramp-down rather than full to zero. Lose $1 of benefit for every $X above the threshold. You should never be worse off for making a few bucks more.

    • @blaggle42@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      223 months ago

      It’s “basically that.” But it’s not “actually that.”

      A public option would provide necessary health care at zero cost. Without regard to your income. Without regard to your job.

      This creates a situation, where if you earn a little bit more, you get “taxed” a lot. And quite frankly, sometimes it’s better to earn less and get healthcare than to earn more and lose it.

      Also, I’m under the impression, and could be wrong about this, but I believe NYC gets the funding for the NYC state of health from the federal government. So it can be held as ransom, by bullies like Adams or Trump.

      I’m suggesting that NYC should do an actual public option not using federal money. Instead binding together with other states to increase leverage and lower costs.

    • @dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      43 months ago

      Funny story, if it cuts off at a certain income level, it’s not for all.

      I can’t imagine making a survivable go of it in New York for 28k/year.

      • @AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        This is probably a red vs blue thing too. There are plenty of rural conservative parts of NY with much lower cost of living than NYC

    • @AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Yeah I think every states Medicaid is similar. It’s partly funded by the feds but only covers the lowest incomes

      You need to figure out how to include all those of us paying into expensive private healthcare - including employer contributions