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:
-
Doing Obama care half assed, when something like 80% people wanted a public option.
-
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.
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”)
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.
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.
I’m certain that none of this is correct
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.
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
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
California and New York have GDP’s above most other countries in the world.
But Cali and New York do not reap the tax revenue of a country with the GDP of their size; they can only reap part of it, both because Federal taxes remove a portion of that taxable income, and because states are necessarily more limited in their options for taxation than national governments.
It’s possible, don’t get me wrong, but significantly more difficult.
Tell me why I shouldn’t blame the democrats for:
Doing Obama care half assed, when something like 80% people wanted a public option.
Bruh, do you not remember how Obamacare was passed?
As far as the first part of your response: Hmm, that’s interesting.
As far as the, “Bruh, do you not remember…”
Yes, I remember how Obamacare was passed.
Do you you remember how it seemed like a public option should pass- it had a ton of support- people were rallying behind it.
And then DroopyDog Senator Lieberman had that touted “meeting with Obama” and the public option was scuttled.
From the moment that happened, I thought, “Lieberman’s the fall guy. The democrats don’t want the public option, and Obama isn’t any different from everyone else before him.” (think Flint, think Guantanamo, think Bank bailouts, think Bank Bailouts again). If Obama had wanted it, he could have done it. I mean, look at Trump. He didn’t.
At the time I was furious with Lieberman and Obama- now, just Obama.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-15-la-naw-health-senate16-2009dec16-story.html
If Obama had wanted it, he could have done it.
Lord.
Yeah.
I also think he could have closed Guantanamo.
And I even think he could have bailed out the people that lost their houses and not the people that owned (banks, through predatory loans) the houses.
I still think he should have nationalized the banks that failed and renamed them to “Bank A” and “Bank B.” But no, no consequences for the rich under Obama just like everyone else.
Crazy huh.
I also think he could have closed Guantanamo.
Apparently you don’t remember how that went either.
And I even think he could have bailed out the people that lost their houses and not the people that owned the houses.
Oh, sure, just pass an executive order for it, right?
I still think he should have nationalized the banks that failed and renamed them to “Bank A” and “Bank B.”
Jesus Christ man.
Crazy huh.
In desire, no; in perceptions of what the president has the power to do, yes.
Obama won in a landslide. The democrats owned both houses.
People at the time really thought Obama would be on the the side of the people- not the rich. I mean, come on, he was our first black president; you would have thought he would at least be on the side of the blacks.
If he had been, then Bernie wouldn’t have been such a sensation. If he had been, and Hillary was like, “Obama and the DNC has anointed me his successor, and I will continue to do all the great things he has done,” Bernie wouldn’t have existed. Bernie was the message that Obama had actually failed. Flint was real.
Anyway. If Trump has one Lieberman senator stopping him from getting some signature item, you can bet that their meeting isn’t going to end with that signature item being scuttled, it’s going to be that Lieberman would be afraid he’ll lose everything.
Trump is extreme, but Obama could have made the final push. Same with our black torture rendition site.
For me, seeing Obama is cringe. I wonder if that viewpoint is radical. I mean, Obama is a saint when compared to Trump, but…
Perhaps I am unjustified.
I see a lot of refutation, but if the year has taught us anything it’s that the rules of the game are about as rigidly enforced as the rules of monopoly. Every single politician in my life could have chosen to just ignore the rules for the benefit of the people, instead the first one that does is the one that’s out to hurt us.
But Cali and New York do not reap the tax revenue of a country with the GDP of their size; they can only reap part of it, both because Federal taxes remove a portion of that taxable income
I’d love to see people like Newsome, Kotek, Ferguson, and Hochul grow some balls and start co-opting Trumps rhetoric on these trade deficits but with federal taxes instead. Currently most blue states pay more to the federal government than they receive and those dollars that they do receive are just returning the very tax revenue they sent out but with Trump’s ridiculous conditions tacked on. He currently has his base of useful idiots talking about how uninhibited islands like the Mcdonald Islands are “ripping us off” so they should strike while the iron is hot and threaten to seize federal tax revenue generated from the workers and industries in their respective states just the same. If Trump is going to gut every federal office and program that actually impacts people’s lives, what are we even sending them money for?
deleted by creator
This is literally why I rename “centrist” Democrats to Republicrats.
If you mean just rely on state-level taxation, it’d create a incentive to work in (low tax) states that didn’t provide state-subsidized health care, then retire in a state that does.
You want any kind of intergenerational wealth transfer to happen at the federal level, else you will tend to get those misincentives.
You need healthcare for all your life, not just when retiring. Why wouldn’t you want to live and work in the state with healthcare if it actually works out cheaper for you and less risky? It’s a completely false economy to live in the other state with no healthcare but have to pay high insurance rates and have high deductibles?
The elderly have much higher per-capita healthcare consumption than do people during other points in their life.
One element of the ACA was capping insurance premiums for seniors at an 3:1 ratio, where seniors couldn’t be charged more than 3 times the premiums of people at other ages in life.
Damn, they should do this to CEO:Employee compensation too
The elderly population has greater healthcare spending per cap than the 20-30 year old population. Getting old sucks.
Maybe that could be a plus. Make a large death tax. People die off in your state, and fund the next set of people coming and and more?
I don’t know about New York, but California calculated that they can’t afford it on their own and need federal funding. Problem is, the politicians at federal level is beholden to for-profit medical sector.
I’m very interested in reading about this. But not much comes up when I search. What did California find out?
It has been years since I have read about it. I can’t find it now either. However, my search did mention that having single payer healthcare will cost California $500 billion annually, double the state’s entire annual budget as of 2024. https://www.wordandbrown.com/NewsPost/Single-Payer-2024
For now, California has been subsidising healthcare costs through existing programmes.
deleted by creator
It’s honestly insane how expensive all this shit is.
ITT: people who don’t understand that Medicaid is not Medicare, and that means-testing means a service isn’t “for all.”
Editing to add: Medicaid is funded mostly by the federal government, 69% vs 31% funding from the state. So even if it wasn’t means-tested (one has to have an income below a certain amount, or be disabled to a certain degree before qualifying) it would not meet OP’s definition, a single payer health insurance system funded by the state.
To answer OP’s question, a state funded single payer health insurance program would likely run afoul of the Commerce Clause of the constitution which states the federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. UHC, Aetna, and other nation-wide insurance companies would absolutely sue over the state programs interfering with their right to conduct interstate commerce, and they would almost certainly win, even without a hard right SCOTUS like the current one.
Also, people who are just going, “eh, fuck the commerce clause, the states should just do their own thing!” totally forgetting the absolute shitshow this would unleash, both from private companies and conservative states.
Yeah, look at any number of things (including Medicaid implementation) that have been left up to the states and what a complete dumpster fire they are.
Yeah but we’re clearly no longer using the Constitution
The conservatives justices (if you buy into the whole conservative/liberal justices thing) would 100% be eager to up hold a state healthcare law if it meant getting to strike down Wickard v. Filburn and allocating more power to the states.
But thanks for being at least one person in this thread who appreciates that Medicare and Medicaid are not synonyms.
That was then, this is now. The Nazis don’t respect the law, nor court decisions, and do whatever the fuck they want. The law no longer exists, and states can do anything they want. If the serial killing insurance companies want to sue over interstate commerce, then the states can simply prohibit them from doing business in the state - problem solved.
Besides, who cares if they sue? Ignore them, ignore the decisions (unless its a win), and do what serves the PEOPLE, not the corporations. Then raise the state corprate taxes to 100% of revenues.
Fuck the corporations, fuck the Sociopathic Oligarchs who own them, and any MAGA Nazi traitor that supports them. They are the enemy, and we have no obligation to do anything that serves their interests in the slightest way.
that’s crazy, it in no way affects interstate commerce to provide a service for free…
affecting interstate commerce would be something like having racially segregated restaurants
Lol, California unemployment is capped at 450/week. No chance we can afford universal medicare
I was getting 450/week 10 years ago. It’s pretty crazy they haven’t raised it.
They can. Cali at least has a partial plan.
Hell even a city could.
Hawaii already does.
I’m looking for a public-option health care in Hawaii. Haven’t found yet. Do you have a link? If I find I’ll post a link
The political will within those states isn’t there. The two states have very large socially liberal rich populations which are a large part of Democrat support in the states. A lot of poor districts in those states are Republican, which will fight a state based Medicaid for all program tooth and nail.
What do you consider Medi-Cal to be? 🤨
Medicaid, which services those with disabilities or who are below an income threshold. At least that’s what I get from the wikipedia page.
If there’s limited criteria for getting it, it’s not “medicare for all”, yeah?
deleted by creator
I wonder how many make fun of those people who want to get rid of Obamacare because they have the ACA to take care of them.
Because they don’t want to.
Full stop.
Why not half stop? Or double stop?
Mostly because we’re stuck supporting the red states that suck at the Federal titty.
The federal government can print its own money and therefore can pay for its debt with modest and predictable increases in inflation. The states cannot.
Does this imply that a state funded health insurance for all will operate at a net loss?
The state isn’t a business. Services don’t lose money, they cost money.
Instead of paying your insurance and having them take a profit out of it before providing the service, you pay taxes and the money goes more directly into the service.
In the same way that the USPS operates at a loss
It uh… actually doesn’t.
NY has a bill floating around for this but it’s never gone anywhere.
Source: https://www.nysna.org/campaigns-healthcare-all/single-payer-system-new-york-state
Yeah! Something like this. But with other states involved to reduce risk, normalize costs.
I mean cali is about double NY but add in a few other blue states like illinois, washington, new jersey, massachusetts, and colorado and you will have more than doubled cali. and even though other blue states may not be as big any additions help make for a more robust pool. The big problem is people going to red states while young and healthy and then going to blue states if they get ill.
At a glance, looks like it would cover anyone working 20 hrs/wk in MA
