1d ago

Why can't California and New York make their own medicare for all?

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.

68 comments

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.
  
  There is something of a welfare cliff for medicaid, but aren't there also means tested subsidies/discounts on the health insurance market for when you make more than that but are still poor?
- Same with Washington and I think Oregon too. They call it by different names.
  
  Washington's Apple Health is great. Easy and accessible. The state could definitely expand that to everyone.
  
  Support Whole Washington! That’s basically exactly what they are trying to do. I try to volunteer anytime I can.
  
  Are they closer to a public option than NY? NY really isn't a public option.
  
  No, it's similar to NY. You have to be at a certain income level. Washington State is a rich state of billionaires and millionaires with Costco, Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, etc that have headquarters here or are a major presence, but they don't pay their fair share of taxes. That's one of the biggest problems.
- 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.
  
  The people overall want it, but the r's shut that shit down any chance they can. Take a look at Canada if you want to see the far rights trying to take down their public option. Right now, the administration is trying to take away Social Security and Medicaid.
  
  But Democrats have majorities in California and NYC and other blue states. The republicans aren't necessary for this to happen. I think?
  
  Yeah Dems say they want this stuff on TV, but when push comes to shove, they do whatever they can to prevent it from actually passing. Case in point was the ACA where they bailed on the single payer option in order to maintain the private insurance scheme with a plan written by Mitt Romney. They claimed they did this to "reach across the aisle" and gain Republican support but they had a super majority and didn't need Republican support. Zero Republicans voted to support this plan.
  
  Yep. And even tho Lemmy gets mad at people who point this out, you are 100 percent right.
  
  Funny thing: insurance companies donate to both parties ;).
  
  I know in Washington State, everyone thinks it's a blue state. Yes, we vote blue overall, but the actual politicians lean right as they cater to the oligarchs that have set up shop here. The oligarchs don't pay their fair share in taxes.
  Our governor, which I held my nose to vote for btw, is a POS. He's a republican in democrat clothes. Every state has a different political climate.
  The oligarchs basically act like mob bosses. That's why Boeing left for Chicago, they didn't like that there were so many unions and regulations here. The workers would never have stood for the shit that passed through inspection because they had decades of experience. As soon as they separated the white collars from the blue collars, you could see the disasters coming. It actually took a bit longer than I personally expected.
  What I'm saying is, it's complicated. The greeds run everything, not sure how to fix it.
  
  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.

68 comments