Ask Lemmy

Short answer : Neoliberals

Longer answer : the Democratic Party apparatus in both those states is FULLY controlled by the 1980s-Republican-Party-esque wing… and they have ZERO interested in anything economically meaningful. Their role is to act as a backstop against “the left.”

The best you’ll get from Nancy “let me grab some more gelato from my 2nd dedicated Sub-Zero brand freezer” Pelosi and Gavin “I want to do more podcasts with Steve Bannon” Newsom is kneeling in Kente Cloth and military weapon contracts covered with 🏳️‍🌈 decals.

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.

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.

Lol, California unemployment is capped at 450/week. No chance we can afford universal medicare

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.

California had a bill like that pass the legislature in 2022, and Governor Newsom ~~vetoed~~ somehow stopped it from making anything happen. I don't remember the details but he basically didn't want to upset the insurance industry, which I would have thought was the whole point of such a bill. He later backed some kind of watered-down bill which as far as I know did nothing.

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/10/newsom-resurrect-single-payer-health-care/

solri

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

They can. The issue is people want everything to be federal and ignore their own state. Most Americans can't even tell you what the first article of their own state's constitution is about. Or their own state house rep.

Mostly because we're stuck supporting the red states that suck at the Federal titty.

They can. Cali at least has a partial plan.

Hell even a city could.

Hawaii already does.

Because they don't want to.

Full stop.

What do you consider Medi-Cal to be? 🤨

Because for all the big talk and anti-rich/anti-corporate talk that many Dem politicians preach--they aren't really willing to do anything other than talk about it in order to get votes.

Republicans aren't out to help you. Democrats aren't either. And most of Lemmy is too busy playing PokemonGO, to actually do anything close to a revolution that would change anything. They'll talk about it, upvote it, but they won't actually do it. lol