There is no healthcare planning at the federal level in the US and states vary greatly in how they regulate healthcare. There is nothing stopping California Democrats from implementing publicly funded healthcare other than they don’t want to do this because it runs contrary to the interest of their donors and PACs. State funded programs already provide primary care in cases where people aren’t served by FFS. This even goes to municipal-level public health clinics. The idea a state government can’t provide healthcare funding to it’s citizens is contrary to programs that already exist. Expanding public health clinics and having the government negotiate fees with practitioners is absolutely doable because it already happens.
There is no healthcare planning at the federal level in the US
No one said there was?
But honestly… Well, it reminds me of when I was a really young kid and I watched soccer. I couldn’t understand why the players ran really fast sometimes and couldn’t just do that all the time.
That’s sort of what this argument sounds like.
It’s about as compelling as your nonsensical decision that protecting the right to abortion was pretty much the same as instituting a radically different form of healthcare.
I think this has been as productive as it’s going to be. Cheers.
The amendment passed in Ohio is determining which healthcare services it’s residents will have access to. If there’s no federal planning for healthcare then you understand this to be at the state level. This means when a party has power in a state they are able to pass bills that control healthcare in the state or introduce ballot initiatives, amendments, etc.
Recognizing those factors while simultaneously saying Democrats in California cannot impose any sort of fully public option is contradictory. I think you want to see the Democrats as favoring public healthcare because you agree it’s a necessary service for human rights, and you’re forced to view the Democrats as the only viable option for any progress. However you also know they don’t support public healthcare, so instead of resolving this conflict in your own political ideology, you have to blame me for not understanding things when simply stating the obvious. If Democrats supported public healthcare they would say they support it, what they support are tax schemes that in effect bolster the current structure of healthcare and all it’s inherent problems. If they supported any other form of healthcare they would be introducing those changes in states where they have deterministic control over the delivery of healthcare.
This is the story of the left Democrat voter, making concessions and justifications for why they aren’t a left-minded party, and why you’re forced to support them as the only viable path for progress. Sad place to be especially when they’re very actively bringing politics to the right over time. Even still people in this thread openly say, criticizing the Biden Democrats for supporting genocide is bad because it will help Trump, if Dems can’t openly oppose genocide for this reason there’s no hope. Instead of calling for Biden to step down so a better candidate can win they just roll over.
No one has said that states can’t pass laws about healthcare. Obviously states can run their healthcare, that’s within state jurisdiction.
What you are either not understanding or refusing to grasp is that there are gigantic hurdles with being the only universal healthcare provider in a country where everything else is privatized. (Just think about integrating medicare into that.) Simple hypotheticals though: I live in Oregon, don’t pay insurance and am diagnosed with a long term cancer, the bill for which would be in the millions. Why don’t I just move somewhere cheap in California and let the system handle it?
Universal healthcare works for the same reason insurance works, the healthy subsidize the sick. But, if you have a system that incentivizes the expensively sick to come, you are begging for trouble.
That’s not to say anything of the nightmare of either state-lizing the hospitals, which are currently privately owned and usually part of large networks. The doctors are also employed privately. So you either take them over or need to train an entire new crop. You also have just created an entire new system for a single state that somehow needs to integrate with the framework that serves the other 88% of the population. You also worry about your best doctors fleeing for better paying opportunities (unless you think the public sector will in this one instance, and contrary to everywhere else in the world, offer the same wages) etc.
If Democrats supported public healthcare
Ahhhhh, I get it. You’re not dumb, just young. Unsure how old you were in 2008, but had you been old enough to be paying attention, the Democrats ran on this goddamn promise in 2008 and were stymied by Republicans, leading to Obamacare.
As you get older, you will learn that things are actually pretty complex. It’s worth learning about how systems work so that when you advocate change, it’s not just stupid slogans and silly examples that again, are like saying “why don’t these idiots just sprint all the time.”
You’re arguing all the same tired points that the Republicans do against public healthcare and using condescension as a crutch. The countries surrounding the US all have public or mixed healthcare as well as all the other G20 nations. You of course know that a US state can verify whether someone is a resident, as they already do, but the more wrong you are the more you have to rely on being disingenuous and condescending.
You of course know that a US state can verify whether
No one said they couldn’t. Again, a really basic question, what’s to stop cancer ridden folks who can’t afford treatnent from moving (and thus becoming residents) to California?
And yes, thankfully my country has public healthcare. Which is why I understand the issues with having a public system intermingled with a private one. (Hint, it doesn’t work)
It works in that you have healthcare and aren’t broke because of things beyond your control. The places where it doesn’t work are due to underfunding and inefficiencies. You don’t recommend voting for people who want to fix this though, you want to vote for people who impose tax schemes that basically soften certain people from the exploitation inherent in the system.
what’s to stop cancer ridden folks who can’t afford treatnent from moving (and thus becoming residents) to California?
“What’s to stop people from the bad place moving to my good place” is a disgusting way to think about people. Obviously “cancer ridden folks” and their families contribute to society. If you believe in the tenants of socialism you would love for sick people needing care to move to and contribute to a better society that cares about them, that’s the whole point. I’m glad you revealed your way of thinking about this in such a blunt and dehumanizing way.
So, that’s an “I don’t actually have an answer to this very basic problem” then.
People should be treated for all their issues, that’s why I’m in favour of universal healthcare. But there is no way California can simply be the “come here if you need free expensive medical treatment” place for all of America.
Reality is important. While reality can be blunt, it is important to acknowledge it. It’s just a very simple example of why one state cannot on its own go ahead with universal healthcare, despite it being a lofty and nice thing to have happen. Because then universal healtchare in California turns into no healthcare in California.
There are two choices, demand nonsense that doesn’t work and never improve anything OR to be realistic and think how to actually improve things. I know which I’d prefer.
no way California can simply be the “come here if you need free expensive medical treatment” place for all of America.
That’s why nobody is saying this, obviously being a resident implies you live and pay taxes and contribute to the pool, and are likely generating income for someone else who’s being taxed on it, and have families who will also be doing the same thing. This is how countries work and why people get upset at immigrants “taking what’s ours” and BS like that. The cost of treatment is brought down when the government can negotiate with providers in a fully public framework, that’s why care is so expensive in the US for the same things vs all the other G20 countries. The exact same drug in the US will cost many times more than in Canada for instance, because in Canada the government will negotiate with drug companies on the prices, same with NIH in UK etc. In the US you just have a tax scheme that covers the differences for certain people, but it’s incredibly wasteful and upholds the exploitative price structure. You were also wrong before about hospitals in the US operating on a for-profit basis, most of them are owned by non-profits. Insurance companies and providers want the cost of care to be as high as possible, medicade enables this as a stop-gap “solution.”
So you’re making two false assumptions: People moving to the good place to take all the good stuff will ruin the good place (completely fucked opinion on humanity, doesn’t match reality else there’d be no good places), and the cost of care in the US currently reflects the actual cost to provide that care (it doesn’t, it’s set by providers to maximize profits).
Oh and the whole condescending “we have to be adults and think about reality” bit is completely nullified by the fact that the reality I’m proposing is already the status quo in most of the world. You’re the one building the fantasy land here, all I have to do it point at any G20 country to have my reality reaffirmed. I also think the whole “we have to keep things shitty here on purpose because it will be too good” thing is hilarious.
There is no healthcare planning at the federal level in the US and states vary greatly in how they regulate healthcare. There is nothing stopping California Democrats from implementing publicly funded healthcare other than they don’t want to do this because it runs contrary to the interest of their donors and PACs. State funded programs already provide primary care in cases where people aren’t served by FFS. This even goes to municipal-level public health clinics. The idea a state government can’t provide healthcare funding to it’s citizens is contrary to programs that already exist. Expanding public health clinics and having the government negotiate fees with practitioners is absolutely doable because it already happens.
No one said there was?
But honestly… Well, it reminds me of when I was a really young kid and I watched soccer. I couldn’t understand why the players ran really fast sometimes and couldn’t just do that all the time.
That’s sort of what this argument sounds like.
It’s about as compelling as your nonsensical decision that protecting the right to abortion was pretty much the same as instituting a radically different form of healthcare.
I think this has been as productive as it’s going to be. Cheers.
The amendment passed in Ohio is determining which healthcare services it’s residents will have access to. If there’s no federal planning for healthcare then you understand this to be at the state level. This means when a party has power in a state they are able to pass bills that control healthcare in the state or introduce ballot initiatives, amendments, etc.
Recognizing those factors while simultaneously saying Democrats in California cannot impose any sort of fully public option is contradictory. I think you want to see the Democrats as favoring public healthcare because you agree it’s a necessary service for human rights, and you’re forced to view the Democrats as the only viable option for any progress. However you also know they don’t support public healthcare, so instead of resolving this conflict in your own political ideology, you have to blame me for not understanding things when simply stating the obvious. If Democrats supported public healthcare they would say they support it, what they support are tax schemes that in effect bolster the current structure of healthcare and all it’s inherent problems. If they supported any other form of healthcare they would be introducing those changes in states where they have deterministic control over the delivery of healthcare.
This is the story of the left Democrat voter, making concessions and justifications for why they aren’t a left-minded party, and why you’re forced to support them as the only viable path for progress. Sad place to be especially when they’re very actively bringing politics to the right over time. Even still people in this thread openly say, criticizing the Biden Democrats for supporting genocide is bad because it will help Trump, if Dems can’t openly oppose genocide for this reason there’s no hope. Instead of calling for Biden to step down so a better candidate can win they just roll over.
No one has said that states can’t pass laws about healthcare. Obviously states can run their healthcare, that’s within state jurisdiction.
What you are either not understanding or refusing to grasp is that there are gigantic hurdles with being the only universal healthcare provider in a country where everything else is privatized. (Just think about integrating medicare into that.) Simple hypotheticals though: I live in Oregon, don’t pay insurance and am diagnosed with a long term cancer, the bill for which would be in the millions. Why don’t I just move somewhere cheap in California and let the system handle it?
Universal healthcare works for the same reason insurance works, the healthy subsidize the sick. But, if you have a system that incentivizes the expensively sick to come, you are begging for trouble.
That’s not to say anything of the nightmare of either state-lizing the hospitals, which are currently privately owned and usually part of large networks. The doctors are also employed privately. So you either take them over or need to train an entire new crop. You also have just created an entire new system for a single state that somehow needs to integrate with the framework that serves the other 88% of the population. You also worry about your best doctors fleeing for better paying opportunities (unless you think the public sector will in this one instance, and contrary to everywhere else in the world, offer the same wages) etc.
Ahhhhh, I get it. You’re not dumb, just young. Unsure how old you were in 2008, but had you been old enough to be paying attention, the Democrats ran on this goddamn promise in 2008 and were stymied by Republicans, leading to Obamacare.
As you get older, you will learn that things are actually pretty complex. It’s worth learning about how systems work so that when you advocate change, it’s not just stupid slogans and silly examples that again, are like saying “why don’t these idiots just sprint all the time.”
You’re arguing all the same tired points that the Republicans do against public healthcare and using condescension as a crutch. The countries surrounding the US all have public or mixed healthcare as well as all the other G20 nations. You of course know that a US state can verify whether someone is a resident, as they already do, but the more wrong you are the more you have to rely on being disingenuous and condescending.
No one said they couldn’t. Again, a really basic question, what’s to stop cancer ridden folks who can’t afford treatnent from moving (and thus becoming residents) to California?
And yes, thankfully my country has public healthcare. Which is why I understand the issues with having a public system intermingled with a private one. (Hint, it doesn’t work)
It works in that you have healthcare and aren’t broke because of things beyond your control. The places where it doesn’t work are due to underfunding and inefficiencies. You don’t recommend voting for people who want to fix this though, you want to vote for people who impose tax schemes that basically soften certain people from the exploitation inherent in the system.
“What’s to stop people from the bad place moving to my good place” is a disgusting way to think about people. Obviously “cancer ridden folks” and their families contribute to society. If you believe in the tenants of socialism you would love for sick people needing care to move to and contribute to a better society that cares about them, that’s the whole point. I’m glad you revealed your way of thinking about this in such a blunt and dehumanizing way.
So, that’s an “I don’t actually have an answer to this very basic problem” then.
People should be treated for all their issues, that’s why I’m in favour of universal healthcare. But there is no way California can simply be the “come here if you need free expensive medical treatment” place for all of America.
Reality is important. While reality can be blunt, it is important to acknowledge it. It’s just a very simple example of why one state cannot on its own go ahead with universal healthcare, despite it being a lofty and nice thing to have happen. Because then universal healtchare in California turns into no healthcare in California.
There are two choices, demand nonsense that doesn’t work and never improve anything OR to be realistic and think how to actually improve things. I know which I’d prefer.
That’s why nobody is saying this, obviously being a resident implies you live and pay taxes and contribute to the pool, and are likely generating income for someone else who’s being taxed on it, and have families who will also be doing the same thing. This is how countries work and why people get upset at immigrants “taking what’s ours” and BS like that. The cost of treatment is brought down when the government can negotiate with providers in a fully public framework, that’s why care is so expensive in the US for the same things vs all the other G20 countries. The exact same drug in the US will cost many times more than in Canada for instance, because in Canada the government will negotiate with drug companies on the prices, same with NIH in UK etc. In the US you just have a tax scheme that covers the differences for certain people, but it’s incredibly wasteful and upholds the exploitative price structure. You were also wrong before about hospitals in the US operating on a for-profit basis, most of them are owned by non-profits. Insurance companies and providers want the cost of care to be as high as possible, medicade enables this as a stop-gap “solution.”
So you’re making two false assumptions: People moving to the good place to take all the good stuff will ruin the good place (completely fucked opinion on humanity, doesn’t match reality else there’d be no good places), and the cost of care in the US currently reflects the actual cost to provide that care (it doesn’t, it’s set by providers to maximize profits).
Oh and the whole condescending “we have to be adults and think about reality” bit is completely nullified by the fact that the reality I’m proposing is already the status quo in most of the world. You’re the one building the fantasy land here, all I have to do it point at any G20 country to have my reality reaffirmed. I also think the whole “we have to keep things shitty here on purpose because it will be too good” thing is hilarious.