3 ms·

> but not enough to afford the health insurance offered by their employer. This is what is wrong with health care in the US. How can this not be considered a s

> but not enough to afford the health insurance offered by their employer. This is what is wrong with health care in the US. How can this not be considered a serious flaw in the way the system is currently structured?

dopamean 9y ago
Plenty of people consider it a serious flaw. It's just that very few of them are in government.
- astrange 9y ago
  Single-payer in California is currently blocked by just one guy (CA speaker of the house) because the people haven't bribed him as well as the health insurance lobby has.
  - khuey 9y ago
    No single payer in California is blocked by 40 years worth of voter approved laws and constitutional amendments that tie the state's hands in ways that make it impossible for the state to raise the revenue necessary and direct it solely to healthcare. https://theintercept.com/2017/06/30/california-single-payer-organizers-are-deceiving-their-supporters-its-time-to-stop/ https://theintercept.com/2017/06/30/california-single-payer-...
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Nothing stops a single-payer plan at the legislature from including the submission to voters of a ballot measure clearing funding allocation barriers away. Proposals that exempt something from those barriers are not uncommon. Single payer in California is actually blocked by the absence of an actual concrete proposal (covering, among many other things, a funding mechanism) rather than merely a vague descriptive goal.
      - khuey 9y ago
        Right, and the authors of SB 562 chose not to include such a submission.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        The authors of SB 562 chose not to include a concrete proposal at all. (It was pretty clearly a placeholder that was intended to be amended into concrete form that was passed by the Senate to keep it alive for timeline related reasons; the real work would have had to occur in the Assembly version and then gone back to the Senate.)
gnopgnip 9y ago
Because wages are not tied to family size but the means test for state provided benefits are. They should also apply even if they are married and talk to a social worker.
howard941 9y ago
It's a feature, not a bug
dragonwriter 9y ago
> How can this not be considered a serious flaw in the way the system is currently structured? It is, quite widely. The problem is that the two main camps on what should be done instead each think the other proposal is even worse than the currently broken state.

dopamean 9y ago

Plenty of people consider it a serious flaw. It's just that very few of them are in government.

astrange 9y ago
Single-payer in California is currently blocked by just one guy (CA speaker of the house) because the people haven't bribed him as well as the health insurance lobby has.
- khuey 9y ago
  No single payer in California is blocked by 40 years worth of voter approved laws and constitutional amendments that tie the state's hands in ways that make it impossible for the state to raise the revenue necessary and direct it solely to healthcare. https://theintercept.com/2017/06/30/california-single-payer-organizers-are-deceiving-their-supporters-its-time-to-stop/ https://theintercept.com/2017/06/30/california-single-payer-...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Nothing stops a single-payer plan at the legislature from including the submission to voters of a ballot measure clearing funding allocation barriers away. Proposals that exempt something from those barriers are not uncommon. Single payer in California is actually blocked by the absence of an actual concrete proposal (covering, among many other things, a funding mechanism) rather than merely a vague descriptive goal.
    - khuey 9y ago
      Right, and the authors of SB 562 chose not to include such a submission.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        The authors of SB 562 chose not to include a concrete proposal at all. (It was pretty clearly a placeholder that was intended to be amended into concrete form that was passed by the Senate to keep it alive for timeline related reasons; the real work would have had to occur in the Assembly version and then gone back to the Senate.)

gnopgnip 9y ago

Because wages are not tied to family size but the means test for state provided benefits are. They should also apply even if they are married and talk to a social worker.

howard941 9y ago

It's a feature, not a bug

dragonwriter 9y ago

> How can this not be considered a serious flaw in the way the system is currently structured? It is, quite widely. The problem is that the two main camps on what should be done instead each think the other proposal is even worse than the currently broken state.