The federal government can print its own money and therefore can pay for its debt with modest and predictable increases in inflation. The states cannot.
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
172 points (96.2% liked)
Ask Lemmy
30674 readers
1567 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Does this imply that a state funded health insurance for all will operate at a net loss?
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.
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.
Lol, California unemployment is capped at 450/week. No chance we can afford universal medicare
You should look up what benefits were set at in the '70s. California has absolutely slashed the amount they are willing to spend on community welfare.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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")
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.
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?
Same with Washington and I think Oregon too. They call it by different names.
Washington's Apple Health is great. Easy and accessible. The state could definitely expand that to everyone.
Support Whole Washington! That’s basically exactly what they are trying to do. I try to volunteer anytime I can.
Are they closer to a public option than NY? NY really isn't a public option.
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.
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.
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.
But Democrats have majorities in California and NYC and other blue states. The republicans aren't necessary for this to happen. I think?
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.
Funny thing: insurance companies donate to both parties ;).
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
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.
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?
The elderly population has greater healthcare spending per cap than the 20-30 year old population. Getting old sucks.
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.
Damn, they should do this to CEO:Employee compensation too
load more comments
(1 replies)
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?
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?
load more comments
(6 replies)
Mostly because we're stuck supporting the red states that suck at the Federal titty.
What do you consider Medi-Cal to be? 🤨
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?
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.
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.
They can. Cali at least has a partial plan.
Hell even a city could.
Hawaii already does.
load more comments
(4 replies)
NY has a bill floating around for this but it’s never gone anywhere.
Source: https://www.nysna.org/campaigns-healthcare-all/single-payer-system-new-york-state
Yeah! Something like this. But with other states involved to reduce risk, normalize costs.
I imagine the answer is the same as to why we lack all of the other good things too: Rich people only care about themselves.
view more: next ›