3 ms·
Right, it adds an insane cost. You then need to raise that same amount of money. However, when you consider that people are no longer paying for health insuran
by ncallaway 9y ago
Right, it adds an insane cost. You then need to raise that same amount of money.
However, when you consider that people are no longer paying for health insurance there's a large pool of money available.
CA needs somewhere between $50-100B to fund this project. The population of CA is around 39M (https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=state:06000:48000&hl=en&dl=en https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&...). That means, you need about $2,564/person/year. Or about $214/person/month.
If you compare that figure to the average health insurance cost for people in CA everything starts to look possible or reasonable.
Of course, there's still some massive political hurdles to get over. But the money is out there.
- csuwldcat 9y agoYou forgot to account for two significant factors: that 40% of Californians pay no state income tax, and that California dramatically skews toward higher brackets paying for the state's expenditures - the top 1% already pay an absurdly massive 48% of state income tax. Per person numbers like the ones you included are basically meaningless, given they bear almost no reflection of the actual fiscal implementation and unique issues it would create. Alexander Tyler nailed the broader issue of 'democracy' long ago: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."