4 ms·
> There are clear reasons why individual US states haven't been able to provide universal health care. It's not because the idea is unworkable at a national lev
by bhupy 6y ago
> There are clear reasons why individual US states haven't been able to provide universal health care. It's not because the idea is unworkable at a national level; it's because you can't do it state-by-state.
How do you figure? This is exactly how Canada's single payer system came about: province-by-province. Saskatchewan was the first Province to offer single payer in 1947, followed by Alberta in 1951, etc. By 1961, all Provinces had some form of a single payer healthcare system. To this day, Canada's single-payer system is Provincial, not Federal.
- tptacek 6y agoIs there a state in Canada that doesn't provide single-payer health care? Because every state surrounding California would not be.
- bhupy 6y agoNot now, but between 1947 and 1961 there absolutely was. That’s the point: it didn’t happen from the top-down at the Federal level, it happened province-by-province and there was a period of time when it was patchwork. It was fine for the Canadians, and it can be fine for Americans as well. Also, if I’m understanding your argument correctly, it’s that States can’t do this because borders are open, but there’s nothing stopping a State from applying its public insurance only for established residents of the State. This is how State university systems operate; you don’t get in-state tuition at UC Berkeley unless you can establish residence. In theory, someone at the borders could move across State lines in order to do that, but that’s probably a rounding error in the UC budget.