Why is this slop? They do have a point. Why not implement social services at the local level?
California democrats vetoed this lol. The dems are the party of capital. They will give nothing to the people except diet fascism.
if Democrats want universal healthcare
Well you’ve figured out why they haven’t done it.
Why isn’t the top comment see California, CalCare, Gavin Newsom
Rando Redditor: “Wait a minute. Why can’t we have good things?”
A dem consultant swoops in. He makes high seven figures a year. He pats him on the head and says “You do have good things.”
“We do?”
“You do.”
“But why don’t we have universal healthcare?”
“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”
“What?”
“You live in the greatest country in the history of the world.”
“I live in the greatest country in the history of the world. Why am I repeating you?”
“You’re not. You live in the greatest country in the history of the world.”
“I live in the greatest country in the history of the world. That’s right! I live in the greatest country in the history of the world. What was I talking about?”
“Star Wars.”
Chillingly accurate.
“Not right.”
“Not right?”
“That’s right!”
If we didn’t get universal healthcare during an unprecedented global pandemic, we’re not gonna fucking get it ever
To those in this thread: if you’re at all curious about how a socialized healthcare system could be developed without waiting for federal-level dems to wave a magic wand, here’s a book for you: Radical Medicine: The International Origins of Socialized Health Care in Canada. Kill the
inside your head that says state-level healthcare is impossible and it needs to be solved at the national level. Canada’s healthcare system started as provincial-level healthcare in Saskatchewan. Every reason you’ve been fed about why it couldn’t work here is contradicted by the actual historical record.Liberal/progressive Americans have never fought for anything and expect the magic wand to show up. If they were to step up for the first time in their lives in Oregon and get crushes by the feds or Democrats or whoever, that will be valuable experience for them.
Same goes for the Mamdani campaign. Let them go full socdem, since for many of us it was radicalizing to watch the Bernie campaign get crushed (except me, I was reading Stalin and Mao in the womb and was born the one true leftist).
Thomas Frank, The Inequality Sweepstakes
When you press Democrats on their uninspiring deeds — their lousy free trade deals, for example, or their flaccid response to Wall Street misbehavior — when you press them on any of these things, they automatically reply that this is the best anyone could have done. After all, they had to deal with those awful Republicans, and those awful Republicans wouldn’t let the really good stuff get through. They filibustered in the Senate. They gerrymandered the congressional districts. And besides, change takes a long time. Surely you don’t think the tepid-to-lukewarm things Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have done in Washington really represent the fiery Democratic soul.
So let’s go to a place that does. Let’s choose a locale where Democratic rule is virtually unopposed, a place where Republican obstruction and sabotage can’t taint the experiment.
It really is the proof that they’re controlled opposition. “We had to deal with those dastardly Republicans!” Well, not really. The things you claim to want are overwhelmingly popular. If you actually worked towards them, the Republicans would be finished in pretty short order. Not overnight, sure, but you would have an overwhelming electoral advantage. Democrats don’t compromise with Republicans because they need to in order to get what they want, they compromise with Republicans because they need to in order to be democrats.
Thomas Frank is a
, but he has more than earned my respect. That book and “What’s the Matter with Kansas” should be must-reads for anyone to the left of the GOP.
Oregon is exploring this?
News to me!
BTW Oregon’s legislature has a Dem supermajority in both houses and they could not even pass a bill to keep the state DoT funded. And the governor has attacked Portland’s attempt at implementing universal preschool because she says the tax on high earners is driving people away!
The Democrats!
Democrats have created a committee to do a two year project to create a universal health plan which will then need to be legislated/amended and will almost certainly go to a statewide vote.
Would be cool to see it go live, but there are a ton of hurdles in the way. Portland DSA and some other orgs are starting to use it as a flag to rally around.
One would imagine that WA and CA could join their single program if it exists.
Democrats have created a committee to do a two year project to create a universal health plan which will then need to be legislated/amended and will almost certainly go to a statewide vote.
Amazing self-satirization they’re doing
I thought it was a bit at first until I finished reading and realized they were serious
Next they’re going to restrict it to pelgrant recipients that have a high interest small business loan taken out between 2023-2024 who have paid off more than 50% of principal and who have 3-5 children ages 2-15 with at least one enrolled in junior ROTC…
…and it’s only going get you Anthem Bronze
universal healthcare was proposed by like one guy in California years ago. Despite democrats having absolute control of the state it has no support
https://www.newsweek.com/california-dream-universal-healthcare-crushed-democrats-1674828
80% of california democrats would be republicans in any other state
could say that for any state. once the libs are scratched their voting ballots become little paper hitlers.
California Democrats had supermajorities in both houses and a democrat governor. They couldn’t pass universal healthcare even though they had talked about doing it. What regular people don’t understand is how powerful those dastardly republicans are to make them do this.
There’s two straightforward reasons a universal healthcare program doesn’t work on a state level and needs to be federal.
One, it’s not really universal if it only extends to the border of the state. Anyone visiting from out of state is still going to have their insurance which means doctors are still going to have deals with private insurance companies. Single payer requires a single payer to keep costs in line.
Second, the federal government has the advantage of being able to deficit spend to keep universal healthcare solvent that states don’t. MMT keeps the lights on.
Second, the federal government has the advantage of being able to deficit spend to keep universal healthcare solvent that states don’t. MMT keeps the lights on.
That’s actually a valid concern but IMHO it just shows how utterly broken our financial system it is if it relies on money being printed anew continuously, instead of creating functioning tax systems for the state to raise money to feed itself.
The tax system is broken in the US. However, I don’t think printing money in and of itself is a problem. Rather, it’s shifted the burden from the wealthy to the lower classes, which has a snowball effect of increasing the ultra wealthy’s largesse which increases their political power which they leverage to further decrease their tax burden, rinse and repeat.
So the advantage of upping their tax burden isn’t really about “paying for nice things,” it’s neutering the bourgeoisie.
Nah this is a paralyzing dem talking point for why good things can’t happen. In reality Canada’s healthcare system started out as a provincial-level program in Saskatchewan. This is the entire thesis of federalism, that different levels of government can experiment with programs. Except dems can actually win at some levels of government, so they need to invent a reason why they can’t implement any of the good things they lie about wanting to do.
For hospital coverage, yes, although there was federal assistance prior to it becoming a national program. We are also talking about 10 provinces vs 50 states, and those provinces are rather large and thus the cross-provincial issue was much less of a problem there. Threading that needle in the states would be trickier.
As far as being a dem talking point, I got this analysis originally from Naked Capitalism, not exactly a den of Democrat apologia.
💯 they don’t do it bc they don’t want to
In the US, there are constitutional restrictions preventing a state from denying state benefits to new “residents.” The issue this raises for a state-specific healthcare program is apparent.
Does Canada have similar prohibitions, or are provinces generally more free to deny benefits to new residents? I’m curious how Saskatchewan dealt with this or if the underlying law was just different.
You’re talking about people moving to a state en masse for the socialized healthcare and thus becoming a financial burden on the state?
Well, it wouldn’t really be moving. It would be an extremely temporary relocation for a procedure (which is increasingly common in the US as our costs get absurd. Except here it would be to CA for free care instead of Mexico or Thailand or Turkey for cheaper care). Under Saenz vs Roe, it would be quite difficult for a state to stop this.
Edit: though I suppose for something longer term, like cancer treatment, it could be properly characterized as moving.
Establishing residency can be pretty onerous. When I first moved to California, I had to keep literal receipts without very long gaps (3 days or so?) between consecutive ones for several months. I was advised against voting absentee in my old state, as that could be considered an indication that I was going to move back. If it works the same for healthcare, it really would only make sense for more involved conditions.
For which purpose were you trying to establish residency? There are various federal cases about different purposes (welfare, in state tuition, healthcare benefits, voting), and the requirements are not the same.
Tuition
they have no problem stopping it for college tuition. why can’t they just do the same for healthcare?
I would think the ruling of Memorial hospital (and more recently Saenz) rather than Vlandis would apply to this sort of benefit. But it’s a good point that it could always be tested, and who knows how a court would rule (although memorial hospital and Saenz do seem very on point)
Canada’s healthcare system was a province by province rollout. Your points are concerns, but they are not impossible to address.
States don’t have monetary sovereignty, it’s not the same as federal universal healthcare.
my company also doesn’t have monetary sovereignty yet they offer all employees healthcare
and I’m sure you’d agree employee healthcare isn’t really anything like single payer universal healthcare. A state might technically be able to give healthcare to every resident, but it’s still a pale imitation of national federal universal healthcare. And I’m not sure that state healthcare would lead to that true single payer universal healthcare.
Either healthcare in the state needs to still worry about other peoples private healthcare, somewhat defeating much of the benefits, or they give it to everyone, destroying the state financially. A lot of employers also have a lot of money in the bank, and profits, a state would require people actually paying money to the state to fund that healthcare, directly or through taxes, which is very unpopular. I just don’t think state universal healthcare is a very good idea, and if it fails would delay true universal healthcare even further.
Ofc universal healthcare seems fairly unlikely in the nearterm future, and if we have a revolution it’ll be a bit of a non-issue.
