I suspect this will end poorly for the tribe. Or become SOP for all drug patents.
There isn’t likely any in between.
Graham-Cassidy is up for viewing, and sent to the CBO for scoring.
Already some issues.
As I understand it, Cassidy-Graham:
-
Ends Medicaid expansion
-
kills subsidies
-
Lets states decide that participation in either, and then
-
Sends states lump sum federal dollars to spend in smart and exciting ways, and I’m sure all of that would go for healthcare.
So pretty much, “burn it down, burn it all down, and if the people won’t eat bread, etc, etc.”?
Man, it’s like you’ve got no faith that state governments won’t take all that money and buy monorails.
This is kinda big.
“It should be explored,” said West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who faces re-election next year in a state President Donald Trump carried by 42 points. “I want to know what happens in all the countries that have it – how well it works or the challenges they have.”
Wasn’t he just in the news for being one of the few Dems who opposed the Trump-Dem budget extension agreement?
In May, yes. Also Trump won his state 69-26. Could be a sign of something, we’ll just have to wait and see.
I found this be a thought provoking article. I probably disagree with more than I agree, but I appreciate the author going into a more detailed survey of how other rich countries provide healthcare
Canada’s path to single payer began in the provinces, with Saskatchewan’s enactment of a universal government medical care plan in the early 1960s that later went nationwide.
This is precisely why I’d like to see some of the more progressive states like CA, or NY move to a single payer system, with significant funding from the Feds in the form of a block grant (i.e. Graham/Cassidy)…
It seems far better to start trying different things at the state level than to fight the Washington Gridlock
I don’t necessarily disagree in principle, but it’s not like you’ve seen the Naked Kleptocrat party walking back any of ALEC’s infinite well of nonsense because Kansas damn near tax-cut itself back to the Dark Ages.
Bipartisan agreement just reached to fund CHIP (health insurance to children) just reached.
Yep. Laboratories of Democracy are great in theory, but the GOP is not seeking solutions that work for anyone other than the very rich. So red states will simply be testing new ways to enrich their donors.
I think it is possible that a big state like CA or NY could make single payer work but there is a fairly significant problem with doing single payer in one state while the rest of the country sticks with our less than 100% coverage system: relocation for medical coverage reasons. There are ways to limit this with residency requirements but in the long run having a generous universal coverage system in one state surrounded by a country of 300 million with 30 million uninsured may not be viable. And although you mention federal block granting I don’t see that the feds would cough up anywhere near enough to make this viable without major state taxes. And if you have the taxpayers of one state trying to pay for the mobile uninsured of the other 49 states, that could be a problem.
Relocation is definitely an issue, but I also wonder for a state like NY if their adoption of a single payer system might not put significant pressure on Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, say, to consider doing so as well.
Well, considering that American mobility reached records lows last year this seems like a feature, not a bug.
Throughout most of the great recession coal mining and similar jobs were available in the Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho, yet unemployed people in the rust 0belt, KY, WV etc wouldn’t move to take them. Today in addition to tech job unfilled everywhere, there are medium and low skilled in many of the most prosperous states.
If jobs aren’t enough to lure folks to move maybe health care might be. Look at the bright side if million Trump voters left the Midwest for California and New York with their health care for all, that would kill Trump’s chance for re-election.
More seriously, I do think we will see competition between state and health care and benefits. If a state like KS slashes taxes but also benefits people will leave and/or replace the government. Likewise, if a state is too generous with its health care benefits it will probably need to raise taxes, and start restricting access this will also cause a lot of people and/or employers to leave, and/or the government to be replaced.
We have a broken healthcare system and once we agree that government has obligation to provide some level of health care to its citizen, it is going to take a lot of iterations to strike the right balance between benefits and costs. I want to see this process take place in 50 states in parallel, and then sometime in next decade or so maybe we can start driving to a few different nationwide approaches.
The biggest problem with healthcare in this country is people arrogantly think they know how to fix it. They don’t.
Unfilled jobs, degree inflation, housing inflation and declining mobility all have to be related. Not sure how all the pieces fit together but it seems like they must…
This presupposes that voters in Kansas will cross party lines to vote their economic interests, prioritizing those over their cultural/ tribal identities. They have a history of not doing that. I simply do not see GOP voters as rational, well-informed economic actors.
It depends on your time frame over 4 years probably not over 20 almost certainly. A decade ago if you had told me that NC or WI would be purple I’d would have told you that you were crazy, but yet they are today. KS has 43% Republican now that almost twice as many as Democrats, but still well below a majority.
Text of Sanders’ Medicare For All bill, to be introduced tomorrow. At least 15 co-sponsors.
Vox–generally very sympathetic to Sanders–makes a key point: there’s no pay-fors here.
I mean, that’s obviously a problem for passage, but this is a PR crusade anyway. Not sure if it’ll damage those goals.