California's single-payer bill dies(politico.com)
politico.com
California's single-payer bill dies
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/31/californias-single-payer-bill-dies-00003924
60 comments
Population wide benefits without population wide taxing power will never work. Net benefit recipients will move in and net benefit payers will move out.
Which is why healthcare (including mental healthcare), and homelessness/housing require a federal solution.
I assume any non federal politician campaigning on taxpayer funded healthcare is just posturing for votes, because the math is never going to work out on a state or smaller level.
Which is why healthcare (including mental healthcare), and homelessness/housing require a federal solution.
I assume any non federal politician campaigning on taxpayer funded healthcare is just posturing for votes, because the math is never going to work out on a state or smaller level.
>Population wide benefits without population wide taxing power will never work. Net benefit recipients will move in and net benefit payers will move out.
Taxing some or all of the middle/upper class to pay for healthcare of those who aren't paying taxes, is exactly this.
Also California's tax burden is nearly double that of the least burdensome states. Clearly there's something more at play here than merely the fear people will move out of California; California has demonstrated clearly they aren't terribly worried about the effects of higher taxation on emigration.
Taxing some or all of the middle/upper class to pay for healthcare of those who aren't paying taxes, is exactly this.
Also California's tax burden is nearly double that of the least burdensome states. Clearly there's something more at play here than merely the fear people will move out of California; California has demonstrated clearly they aren't terribly worried about the effects of higher taxation on emigration.
The US federal government spends $766B for Medicare + $571B for Medicaid, a sum of $1.337T out of a total $6.011T that will be spent in 2022. This does not even include the healthcare spending of Tricare and other federal government employees' healthcare, and it does not account for things like deductibles and copays and insurance premiums.
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305...
And that is only for old people, (very) poor people, and employees of the federal government.
Paying for every person's healthcare within a given jurisdiction would blow a massive hole in governments' budgets that I would bet even people willing to pay extra CA taxes would notice, which are currently probably only 10% to 15% extra compared to other locales. Granted this increase would be offset by not needing to pay insurance premiums or Medicare tax, but in turn, that would be offset by the additional deductible/copay expenses, plus people simply getting more healthcare because they no longer have to worry about the cost.
Note that Vermont tried and called it quits after a couple years for the same reasons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_health_care_reform
For one more data point, I recall how much consternation the Affordable Care Act caused, and that one merely allowed poor people to access SOME part of healthcare. The outcry over increased health insurance premiums (a proxy for taxes) because people would now be paying to subsidize old people and sick people was and is massive.
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305...
And that is only for old people, (very) poor people, and employees of the federal government.
Paying for every person's healthcare within a given jurisdiction would blow a massive hole in governments' budgets that I would bet even people willing to pay extra CA taxes would notice, which are currently probably only 10% to 15% extra compared to other locales. Granted this increase would be offset by not needing to pay insurance premiums or Medicare tax, but in turn, that would be offset by the additional deductible/copay expenses, plus people simply getting more healthcare because they no longer have to worry about the cost.
Note that Vermont tried and called it quits after a couple years for the same reasons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_health_care_reform
For one more data point, I recall how much consternation the Affordable Care Act caused, and that one merely allowed poor people to access SOME part of healthcare. The outcry over increased health insurance premiums (a proxy for taxes) because people would now be paying to subsidize old people and sick people was and is massive.
It's untrue to say that lower classes are not paying taxes. They can't access the array of techniques the wealthy use to avoid paying their fair share. Undocumented people in particular pay into the system by having social security and other taxes deducted from their wages even though they will never be able to access the services because of their status.
> Net benefit recipients will move in and net benefit payers will move out.
The numbers don't bear this out. What we see is a bunch of anti-welfare state conservatives taking credit for poor people being gentrified out of desirable high-tax areas.
The numbers don't bear this out. What we see is a bunch of anti-welfare state conservatives taking credit for poor people being gentrified out of desirable high-tax areas.
Current internal migration numbers are not representative of what would happen if a locale were to take on taxpayer funded healthcare.
The magnitude of comprehensive healthcare expenses would make other state and local level expenses pale in comparison. Even Vermont called it quits after a couple years due to inability to sufficiently increase taxes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_health_care_reform
California is in a better spot than Vermont, of course, but I would not gamble on it being that much more desirable than elsewhere that people with the ability to move would be willing to pay an easily double digit percentage increase in taxes.
The magnitude of comprehensive healthcare expenses would make other state and local level expenses pale in comparison. Even Vermont called it quits after a couple years due to inability to sufficiently increase taxes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_health_care_reform
California is in a better spot than Vermont, of course, but I would not gamble on it being that much more desirable than elsewhere that people with the ability to move would be willing to pay an easily double digit percentage increase in taxes.
bitwize(2)
> The stakes were especially high given that Gov. Gavin Newsom, who campaigned for governor on the promise of single-payer, has been notably uninterested in the bill
Just watched this seemingly highly relevant video yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDgcjVGHIw