Dems now control California and Vermont. Is it time for state level single payer?

How is California going to afford a single-payer anything considering how completely broke and debt ridden it is? Of course, they'll probably try it, fail miserably, and then run to the government for a hand-out.

Single payer is cheaper, you know. By a LOT.
 
California is the place to do it. The Democrats have a heavy majority in the state legislature and Jerry Brown is going to become governor once again. No more Ahnold to veto the bill. It is of a big enough size to show the rest of the country that it is inevitable that a single-payer system will work while being fiscally responsible.
 
California is the place to do it. The Democrats have a heavy majority in the state legislature and Jerry Brown is going to become governor once again. No more Ahnold to veto the bill. It is of a big enough size to show the rest of the country that it is inevitable that a single-payer system will work while being fiscally responsible.

Uh if California could get the balls to raise taxes to make a single payer system then they would have the balls to get themselves out of the red.
 
Uh if California could get the balls to raise taxes to make a single payer system then they would have the balls to get themselves out of the red.

Two Single Payer bills were sent to Ahnold and he vetoed them, so it isn't like it can't be done, and as recently as 2010 a single payer bill passed in the state senate.

... oh, and California has one of the worst state constitutions. Two thirds to pass an "economic" bill? Insane. Constitutional amendments only able to be passed via ballot initiative? Stupid.
 
Two Single Payer bills were sent to Ahnold and he vetoed them, so it isn't like it can't be done, and as recently as 2010 a single payer bill passed in the state senate.

I am not sure that you read my post. Let me repeat it.

In order to fund a single payer system, California would most likely need to raise taxes.

If California's government was politically capable of raising taxes, they would not be in their dire fiscal situation.

Thus, California cannot afford a single player system for as long as it is incapable of raising taxes.
 
I am not sure that you read my post. Let me repeat it.

In order to fund a single payer system, California would most likely need to raise taxes.

If California's government was politically capable of raising taxes, they would not be in their dire fiscal situation.

Thus, California cannot afford a single player system for as long as it is incapable of raising taxes.

Have you heard of a little thing called Prop 25? :)
 
I am not sure that you read my post. Let me repeat it.

In order to fund a single payer system, California would most likely need to raise taxes.

If California's government was politically capable of raising taxes, they would not be in their dire fiscal situation.

Thus, California cannot afford a single player system for as long as it is incapable of raising taxes.

Single-payer would save money.
 
Have you heard of a little thing called Prop 25? :)

Prop 25 is only for the budget, not to raise taxes... though it would allow for unfettered borrowing...


(Sorry for the double post, if a mod would be so kind as to merge the two posts)
 
Single-payer would save money.

...with respect to the total cost of healthcare, not with respect to government's budget. You'd still need to raise taxes to obtain the necessary revenue. The point of single paying is that the people have to pay, after all - they're paying to the government - a single insurance pool, thus single player - instead of private insurance companies.

(as an fyi, just remove your second post, call it double post, and merge it in your first - would save the mods time, anyway)
 
How is California going to afford a single-payer anything considering how completely broke and debt ridden it is? Of course, they'll probably try it, fail miserably, and then run to the government for a hand-out.

And whatever happens, fail or succeed, it can serve as an example for the rest of the country and put the whole debate to rest, one way or another.
 
Yeah, damn tenth amendment! :mad:

The tenth amendment is a truism, not a restriction. Besides, Cheezy is a socialist who wants to dramatically alter the political and economic systems of America - why would pointing to a constitution which he would most likely want to change matter? He can just say "then the constitution should be amended to give the federal government more powers" - thus making your point moot.
 
Top Bottom