What about trying universal healthcare on a state level?

lol, sure, the fact is, the more people inured means it spreads the risk, some are gonna cost more then they put in, others will have little or no cost, thus more profits - statistically anyways

 

This is a logical fallacy, FreshAir. The increase in people leading to reduction in risk is not a linear relationship. When you reach a very big number, the risk starts to approach a constant. Making that number even bigger (or even a lot bigger) doesn't change that very much.

While what you say is true, it is mostly only true over a certain range of numbers. It starts becoming essentially not true when getting to the range of numbers we are discussing.

 

Depends, like I said, the more that eat the Standard American Diet, the more healthcare issues society will have

in that scenario, neither for-profit or public options do well - as too many sick

historically, more the better

 

It's not impossible, but CA toyed with the idea but rejected it.

The power of UHC is that it can lower costs by spreading the risk across all states and peoples. Relegating it to the states fragments the risk pool and undermines it's viability. That is the why of the "U" in "UHC".

There there is the problem with interstate mobility. People moving between states with different health care systems could face disruptions in coverage. This mobility issue could create complexity in terms of eligibility, continuity of care, and insurance coverage. Actually, this is already a problem for those who do not have medicare, they have employee sponsored health care which falls under state regulation, and states vary from one state to the other.

Not to mention the problem of states would have to navigate and comply with existing federal health care laws and regulations, which could limit their ability to fully implement a universal system.

Let's not forget it's impact on the private insurance market: Introducing a state-level universal health care system would significantly impact the existing private health insurance market, potentially leading to job losses and disruption in the health insurance industry.

But the big one is it would effectively create double taxation for health care. A state would be forced to create a state tax, or some kind of tax, to fund it, and this means the taxes being used at the federal level to pay for the ACA or UHC the individual winds up paying twice for health care. If the Fed gives a tax credit for states that have their own version of UHC, then that undermines UHC at the federal level.

And there is the issue of variability among states -- the issue of economic and demographic differences between states. Wealthier states with smaller populations might find it easier to implement such systems compared to larger, less affluent states.

I'm not saying a state level version of health care isn't doable, but it does create a lot of problems for a state. Massachusetts is one such state that has it's own version of UHC (Romneycare was the model for the ACA). But, thing is, the USA can accommodate one or two states having it, but if the vast majority of states had it, that would be far more problematic and is probably why your idea isn't being implemented--which is to say that the only group pushing for UHC are Democrats, and we are rather monolithic on the UHC, not the SHC idea, for the above reasons.

On the other hand, The ACA allows states to set up their own health insurance exchanges and expand Medicaid, aligning with federal guidelines. In California, this state exchange is known as 'Covered California.' States that choose to establish their own exchanges and expand Medicaid receive federal funding and support under the ACA framework. The state exchanges facilitate the offering of insurance plans and assistance, like premium tax credits, to eligible residents. Medicaid expansion, which is different from Medicare, extends Medicaid eligibility to cover more low-income individuals and families. While each state exchange operates under the broader rules of the ACA, they can tailor certain aspects to better suit the needs of their respective populations. Therefore, states embracing the ACA have the opportunity to create their version of a state exchange and receive federal funds for Medicaid expansion, all within the structure and regulatory guidelines of the ACA.

 

I answered your question in post #29, and I was going add the following to it but the 15 minute timer kicked in and prevented it.

continuing on what what I wrote in #29, the problems associated with state level UHC (which I will call SHC state level universal health care) are given in 29, but the only way it can be done is for there to be a federalized framework for states to follow, tailored to the needs of each state that participate, so as to prevent or diminish the complexity of state to state regulatory mobility and funding --- but this is already done with the ACA.

So, in essence, your proposition is already reality.

Thing is, Democrats want the same but in line with UHC thinking, but the ACA is all we have now, and it is all that the right will barely tolerate. The right wants to replace the ACA with I have no idea what, nor do they have any idea, either.

 

They did the calculations in California, and it turned out to be too expensive. It didn't help that around that time, California also found itself in a debt crisis and needed to deal with that.

They later, or so I've been told, gave illegal immigrants free healthcare. It's their hometown citizens who aren't getting any!

From being classified into vastly different healthcare situations over the years, I've come to learn that the highest medical costs go to the employed middle class. Their private healthcare plans in the USA, in general, and in New York State, in particular, are the most expensive plans on the market.

A platinum-tiered plan, and let's not kid ourselves, everyone is getting a platinum plan if we go full-on universal healthcare, goes for about $1,200 a month in New York State. But that's for an individual plan for someone in the middle-income segment.

Elsewhere in the country, you might find a gold-tiered healthcare plan for about $200 a month. And they are the ones who are going to complain the most about costs. Talk about crocodile tears! The hypocrites!

When I went from Medicaid to Medicare Advantage, after the third year of disability, I paid a few hundred dollars a month. Thank goodness I'm not an able-bodied adult in New York State. I would be paying the above $1,200 a month for healthcare!

So, yeah, a universal healthcare system will cost the top rate of $1,200 per person. Unless universal healthcare is cheaper...

 

The middle sections of the middle class in California and New York have been getting hollowed out. Only the upper middle and the very lowest section of the middle class is left.
I would imagine this is just part of that. There are some other economic factors going on, to be sure, but policies such as this are probably contributing to it.

 

The main point of this thread is that it wouldn't really be any more affordable if the federal government funded it, rather than the local state government.

Lots of those on the Left will try to argue that the federal government has lots more money. But I think that's a very near-sighted argument, if we bother to give it some honest thought.
Money doesn't come from nowhere, and a tax increase from the state would not really be any different from a tax increase from the federal government.

I also think claims that the federal government could reorganize spending to be able to allocate money to a new big universal health program are disingenuous and totally unrealistic. Not going to happen without tax increases.
Spending on defense is already way down this year, but most of that money is now being diverted to pay huge interest payments on the national debt.

 

Prolly cuz everyone knows the only way it will really work is if we print assloads more money to pay for it. States cant print money.