- Joined
- Apr 17, 2019
- Messages
- 21,630
- Reaction score
- 8,577
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
....why doesn't California, the world's 5th largest economy, have it already?
....why doesn't California, the world's 5th largest economy, have it already?
If California were allowed to run its own economy they would have more than enough money....why doesn't California, the world's 5th largest economy, have it already?
It can't work at the state level because states can't print new money. Thanks to the political left ruining the healthcare market, the only way any sort of universal healthcare will work is to pass it at the federal level and crank up the money printer to 11.
Economies of scale.....why doesn't California, the world's 5th largest economy, have it already?
....why doesn't California, the world's 5th largest economy, have it already?
....why doesn't California, the world's 5th largest economy, have it already?
Every industrialized country in the world has it, so we know its a good idea. Good grief, how ****ing dumb do you have to be to make such a moronic statement? It works better on national scale
Because, contrary to right wing rhetoric, California is not a radical leftist state.....why doesn't California, the world's 5th largest economy, have it already?
It works better on a national scale for reasons beyond the literal number of people. Do..do I need to explain why?Good grief, how ****ing dumb do you have to be not to realize that the "scale" of CA is much larger than the national scale of many countries that have single-payor.
You think single-payor healthcare is a radical leftist idea?Because, contrary to right wing rhetoric, California is not a radical leftist state.
If you want your claim to be taken seriously, sure.It works better on a national scale for reasons beyond the literal number of people. Do..do I need to explain why?
No, you've got it backwards. Universal healthcare is moderate at most, it's the norm throughout the world. It's not a leftist position. It's barely a liberal position. Conservatives think California is a "radical leftist" or "socialist" state, but how can a state be described as radically left when it hasn't implemented even the most basic of liberal positions? It's particularly hilarious when they point at things like the homeless population. They point at the results of capitalism as evidence that socialism is bad.You think single-payor healthcare is a radical leftist idea?
For one, people travel. Does a CaliforniaCare system get recognized by a hospital in Texas? Do they need a whole ass second insurance plan to cover anything that happens out of state? Does California need to negotiate with every single insurance company in every single state? Talk about administrative redundancy. A national system solves this issue.If you want your claim to be taken seriously, sure.
Simple.. because a good portion of California gets its healthcare from the federal government.....why doesn't California, the world's 5th largest economy, have it already?
For one, people travel. Does a CaliforniaCare system get recognized by a hospital in Texas? Do they need a whole ass second insurance plan to cover anything that happens out of state? Does California need to negotiate with every single insurance company in every single state? Talk about administrative redundancy. A national system solves this issue.
Businesses would find a harder time in setting up out of state operations, having to have an additional redundant insurance system for those employees. It gets even more complex when you start talking about remote work. (A bit of a thing in Silicon Valley!)
....why doesn't California, the world's 5th largest economy, have it already?
I said these are barriers, not "key barriers," nor are they the real reason California doesn't have single-payer. The real reason is found in the part of my post you inexplicably edited out.California (and many insurers, for that matter) already deals with this in Medi-Cal, in that emergency services are covered if you're out of the state. This isn't a common circumstance, so holding this up as some key barrier to a state-level health program is odd.
What would be harder about it? Employees who are residents of California no longer enroll in any employer-based plans. Employees who are residents of some other state get access to some private plan(s) that are available wherever they happen to live, same as now.
There are genuine, but not insurmountable, barriers to state-level single-payer, but I don't think these are them.