- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/34117495
[OC]
Original still created by @gedogfx (IG). Title source: “Inkl”
Edit: I’m not on any other social media platforms, so feel free to share this elsewhere if you want
Hey, Americans, nothing stops your Democrat-run blue states from improving your healthcare.
massachusetts did it and it works great; not as good as single payer, sure, but better than the alternative.
Is this a reference to Romneycare or did they improve upon that?
that’s a bit of a misnomer since it was passed by the overwhelmingly democratic statehouse while romney fought it the entire time
Sorry, I italicized it now. Anyone who uses that name, uses it in jest. The funniest part was during the ACA thing and him acting clueless.
Given the two party system, and the fact that republicans arent in power in these states, that only leaves the Democrats themselves.
End First Past The Post voting. Introduce competition into the electoral process. FREE voters ability to choose.
But I guess that isn’t profitable enough for some.
Nothing lasts forever…
These sound like commitments you guys should be asking of the Democrats.
It’s certainly harder to do on a state level. There is no inter-state border control. Doing single payer on a state level is likely to bring in the worst cases from at least neighboring states.
California might do it, but they have a few big advantages. First, their population is high enough that they can absorb a little cross state immigration without hitting the balance too hard. Second, the states near them tend to be more sparsely populated, unlike the east coast.
Basically you’re looking at only California and New York if you want to do it on a state level. And they’re both going to face huge lobbying against it.
If this is something you want to get done, it’s got to have a lot of public support. And if you’re able to gather that much public support, why not just do it federally? It works better that way anyway.
They’ve been asked. Request was denied.
Capital flight.
The right wing bogeyman. If it were that simple, California would be as broke as Alabama and Louisiana would be New York.
Out of California, New York, Massachusetts? Lol, yea right.
Maybe. It’s worth trying.
Why? UHC is cheaper than the current system. You wouldn’t need any extra taxes.
Really shows me how traumatized I am by United Health Care when I see UHC and it immediately brings them to mind and not Universal. I had to put in some work to understand that Acronym
It’s only cheaper if you consider current healthcare costs. It would require tax increases, and under current progressive tax models, those would be disproportionately high for the upper class, for whom the increase would not offset the elimination of their healthcare premium.
I don’t know how you can say with any confidence that the increase would not offset the elimination of their healthcare premium when the system literallydoesn’t exist.
I said under current progressive tax models.
And what would this non-existent healthcare system cost them to contribute to?
It depends on the state. Massachusetts actually does have a flat income tax, so maybe it would be easier to do there. But even so, wealthy people might prefer to buy private plans, and see the tax as redundant.
This is a wildly different comment/take than what you were saying earlier.
No, the sum of all premiums paid by all Americans is way more than is required. You could make it a flat tax and it’d still be cheaper.
The tax increase is more than offset by the cost of premiums.
That may be the case, but do you have any evidence or reasoning? There are a certain number of people right now who don’t have insurance or who have very bad insurance, and a universal insurance would have to have to make up what’s missing for those people.
There’s a variety of ways to implement it, but the vast majority save trillions in the long run. https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check-medicare-for-all-would-save-the-u-s-trillions-public-option-would-leave-millions-uninsured-not-garner-savings/ has a couple sources listed, even a Koch-funded institute found it would save money.
The reasoning is simple: you cut out the middlemen who demand a portion of the premiums for themselves. Those costs are instantly removed, and there isn’t really anything that starts costing more in return.
There’s also collective governmental bargaining on procedures and medication which lowers prices.
I understand that it saves money overall. I don’t understand how it could save money for individual high-income tax payers. At some earning level, your taxes will be raised by more than you would pay for insurance. Even under a flat tax, that has to be the case, right? You would need a regressive tax to actually make it beneficial to every single resident.
Yeah we need to deflate the disproportionately high pricing of the health care caused by insurance as well, if we could get it at the national level we could eliminate a lot of the back office overhead, and then maybe negotiate a revisit of the master charge list so that Tylenol in hospital isn’t something crazy like $250 dollars a dose. State by state this would probably be much more difficult.