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:

  1. Doing Obama care half assed, when something like 80% people wanted a public option.

  2. 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.

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The political will within those states isn’t there. The two states have very large socially liberal rich populations which are a large part of Democrat support in the states. A lot of poor districts in those states are Republican, which will fight a state based Medicaid for all program tooth and nail.

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I don’t know about New York, but California calculated that they can’t afford it on their own and need federal funding. Problem is, the politicians at federal level is beholden to for-profit medical sector.

  • mac@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Lol, California unemployment is capped at 450/week. No chance we can afford universal medicare

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I mean cali is about double NY but add in a few other blue states like illinois, washington, new jersey, massachusetts, and colorado and you will have more than doubled cali. and even though other blue states may not be as big any additions help make for a more robust pool. The big problem is people going to red states while young and healthy and then going to blue states if they get ill.

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    California had a bill like that pass the legislature in 2022, and Governor Newsom vetoed somehow stopped it from making anything happen. I don’t remember the details but he basically didn’t want to upset the insurance industry, which I would have thought was the whole point of such a bill. He later backed some kind of watered-down bill which as far as I know did nothing.

    https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/10/newsom-resurrect-single-payer-health-care/

    solri

  • Donald Musk@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Because for all the big talk and anti-rich/anti-corporate talk that many Dem politicians preach–they aren’t really willing to do anything other than talk about it in order to get votes.

    Republicans aren’t out to help you. Democrats aren’t either. And most of Lemmy is too busy playing PokemonGO, to actually do anything close to a revolution that would change anything. They’ll talk about it, upvote it, but they won’t actually do it. lol

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    They can. The issue is people want everything to be federal and ignore their own state. Most Americans can’t even tell you what the first article of their own state’s constitution is about. Or their own state house rep.

  • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    ITT: people who don’t understand that Medicaid is not Medicare, and that means-testing means a service isn’t “for all.”

    Editing to add: Medicaid is funded mostly by the federal government, 69% vs 31% funding from the state. So even if it wasn’t means-tested (one has to have an income below a certain amount, or be disabled to a certain degree before qualifying) it would not meet OP’s definition, a single payer health insurance system funded by the state.

    To answer OP’s question, a state funded single payer health insurance program would likely run afoul of the Commerce Clause of the constitution which states the federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. UHC, Aetna, and other nation-wide insurance companies would absolutely sue over the state programs interfering with their right to conduct interstate commerce, and they would almost certainly win, even without a hard right SCOTUS like the current one.

    • Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Also, people who are just going, “eh, fuck the commerce clause, the states should just do their own thing!” totally forgetting the absolute shitshow this would unleash, both from private companies and conservative states.

      • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Yeah, look at any number of things (including Medicaid implementation) that have been left up to the states and what a complete dumpster fire they are.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The conservatives justices (if you buy into the whole conservative/liberal justices thing) would 100% be eager to up hold a state healthcare law if it meant getting to strike down Wickard v. Filburn and allocating more power to the states.

      But thanks for being at least one person in this thread who appreciates that Medicare and Medicaid are not synonyms.

    • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      that’s crazy, it in no way affects interstate commerce to provide a service for free…
      affecting interstate commerce would be something like having racially segregated restaurants

    • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      That was then, this is now. The Nazis don’t respect the law, nor court decisions, and do whatever the fuck they want. The law no longer exists, and states can do anything they want. If the serial killing insurance companies want to sue over interstate commerce, then the states can simply prohibit them from doing business in the state - problem solved.

      Besides, who cares if they sue? Ignore them, ignore the decisions (unless its a win), and do what serves the PEOPLE, not the corporations. Then raise the state corprate taxes to 100% of revenues.

      Fuck the corporations, fuck the Sociopathic Oligarchs who own them, and any MAGA Nazi traitor that supports them. They are the enemy, and we have no obligation to do anything that serves their interests in the slightest way.

  • floo@retrolemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    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.

    • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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”)

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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?

      • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        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.

      • los_chill@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Washington’s Apple Health is great. Easy and accessible. The state could definitely expand that to everyone.

        • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          19 hours ago

          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.

    • blaggle42@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      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.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        19 hours ago

        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.

        • blaggle42@lemmy.todayOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          19 hours ago

          But Democrats have majorities in California and NYC and other blue states. The republicans aren’t necessary for this to happen. I think?

          • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            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.

            • Donald Musk@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 hours ago

              Yep. And even tho Lemmy gets mad at people who point this out, you are 100 percent right.

          • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            19 hours ago

            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.

    • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    If you mean just rely on state-level taxation, it’d create a incentive to work in (low tax) states that didn’t provide state-subsidized health care, then retire in a state that does.

    You want any kind of intergenerational wealth transfer to happen at the federal level, else you will tend to get those misincentives.

    • brewery@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      You need healthcare for all your life, not just when retiring. Why wouldn’t you want to live and work in the state with healthcare if it actually works out cheaper for you and less risky? It’s a completely false economy to live in the other state with no healthcare but have to pay high insurance rates and have high deductibles?

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        The elderly population has greater healthcare spending per cap than the 20-30 year old population. Getting old sucks.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        The elderly have much higher per-capita healthcare consumption than do people during other points in their life.

        One element of the ACA was capping insurance premiums for seniors at an 3:1 ratio, where seniors couldn’t be charged more than 3 times the premiums of people at other ages in life.

    • blaggle42@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Maybe that could be a plus. Make a large death tax. People die off in your state, and fund the next set of people coming and and more?

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    California and New York have GDP’s above most other countries in the world.

    But Cali and New York do not reap the tax revenue of a country with the GDP of their size; they can only reap part of it, both because Federal taxes remove a portion of that taxable income, and because states are necessarily more limited in their options for taxation than national governments.

    It’s possible, don’t get me wrong, but significantly more difficult.

    Tell me why I shouldn’t blame the democrats for:

    Doing Obama care half assed, when something like 80% people wanted a public option.

    Bruh, do you not remember how Obamacare was passed?

    • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      But Cali and New York do not reap the tax revenue of a country with the GDP of their size; they can only reap part of it, both because Federal taxes remove a portion of that taxable income

      I’d love to see people like Newsome, Kotek, Ferguson, and Hochul grow some balls and start co-opting Trumps rhetoric on these trade deficits but with federal taxes instead. Currently most blue states pay more to the federal government than they receive and those dollars that they do receive are just returning the very tax revenue they sent out but with Trump’s ridiculous conditions tacked on. He currently has his base of useful idiots talking about how uninhibited islands like the Mcdonald Islands are “ripping us off” so they should strike while the iron is hot and threaten to seize federal tax revenue generated from the workers and industries in their respective states just the same. If Trump is going to gut every federal office and program that actually impacts people’s lives, what are we even sending them money for?

    • blaggle42@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      19 hours ago

      As far as the first part of your response: Hmm, that’s interesting.

      As far as the, “Bruh, do you not remember…”

      Yes, I remember how Obamacare was passed.

      Do you you remember how it seemed like a public option should pass- it had a ton of support- people were rallying behind it.

      And then DroopyDog Senator Lieberman had that touted “meeting with Obama” and the public option was scuttled.

      From the moment that happened, I thought, “Lieberman’s the fall guy. The democrats don’t want the public option, and Obama isn’t any different from everyone else before him.” (think Flint, think Guantanamo, think Bank bailouts, think Bank Bailouts again). If Obama had wanted it, he could have done it. I mean, look at Trump. He didn’t.

      At the time I was furious with Lieberman and Obama- now, just Obama.

      https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-15-la-naw-health-senate16-2009dec16-story.html

        • blaggle42@lemmy.todayOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          Yeah.

          I also think he could have closed Guantanamo.

          And I even think he could have bailed out the people that lost their houses and not the people that owned (banks, through predatory loans) the houses.

          I still think he should have nationalized the banks that failed and renamed them to “Bank A” and “Bank B.” But no, no consequences for the rich under Obama just like everyone else.

          Crazy huh.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            19 hours ago

            I also think he could have closed Guantanamo.

            Apparently you don’t remember how that went either.

            And I even think he could have bailed out the people that lost their houses and not the people that owned the houses.

            Oh, sure, just pass an executive order for it, right?

            I still think he should have nationalized the banks that failed and renamed them to “Bank A” and “Bank B.”

            Jesus Christ man.

            Crazy huh.

            In desire, no; in perceptions of what the president has the power to do, yes.

            • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              13 hours ago

              I see a lot of refutation, but if the year has taught us anything it’s that the rules of the game are about as rigidly enforced as the rules of monopoly. Every single politician in my life could have chosen to just ignore the rules for the benefit of the people, instead the first one that does is the one that’s out to hurt us.

            • blaggle42@lemmy.todayOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              18 hours ago

              Obama won in a landslide. The democrats owned both houses.

              People at the time really thought Obama would be on the the side of the people- not the rich. I mean, come on, he was our first black president; you would have thought he would at least be on the side of the blacks.

              If he had been, then Bernie wouldn’t have been such a sensation. If he had been, and Hillary was like, “Obama and the DNC has anointed me his successor, and I will continue to do all the great things he has done,” Bernie wouldn’t have existed. Bernie was the message that Obama had actually failed. Flint was real.

              Anyway. If Trump has one Lieberman senator stopping him from getting some signature item, you can bet that their meeting isn’t going to end with that signature item being scuttled, it’s going to be that Lieberman would be afraid he’ll lose everything.

              Trump is extreme, but Obama could have made the final push. Same with our black torture rendition site.

              For me, seeing Obama is cringe. I wonder if that viewpoint is radical. I mean, Obama is a saint when compared to Trump, but…

              Perhaps I am unjustified.

    • Zorque@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Medicaid, which services those with disabilities or who are below an income threshold. At least that’s what I get from the wikipedia page.

      If there’s limited criteria for getting it, it’s not “medicare for all”, yeah?

      • fishpen0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        If this thread has taught me anything it’s that reading comprehension and or critical thinking is at an all time low. It’s all contrarians posting how the op is wrong and that Medicare for all or a public option exists and then using examples of programs that are literally neither of those things. This is why these bills never go anywhere, people fundamentally don’t know what it is they want, what is proposed, and what they have and can’t even reason about it in a thread where the definitions are right in front of them.

        • Zorque@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I wonder how many make fun of those people who want to get rid of Obamacare because they have the ACA to take care of them.

  • mesa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    They can. Cali at least has a partial plan.

    Hell even a city could.

    Hawaii already does.