4 ms·

The anti-healthcare governments that have been recently elected at the state level have managed to outright criminalize reproductive healthcare, making health p

The anti-healthcare governments that have been recently elected at the state level have managed to outright criminalize reproductive healthcare, making health plan coverage moot. So this would be seemingly less of its own concern than it was say five years ago.

int_19h 4y ago
But those anti-health state governments are, at least, limited to their respective states. Which also makes it possible for people to seek abortion and other related procedures across state borders (I know there were some attempts to ban it, too, but none of them became law so far, and in any case this is very difficult to enforce), where the infrastructure remains. In a scenario where the anti-abortion party takes control of the executive that is running Canada-style single-payer healthcare on the federal level, I could see them 1) defining abortion as "core service" rather than supplemental so that private providers can't offer it outside the system, and then 2) setting harsh term limits and other barriers like doctor approval to make it effectively banned in practice. (Fetal personhood is another backdoor that can take this even further.)
- mindslight 4y ago
  My general point was that an administrative backdoor isn't really needed since the regressives have seemingly found a legal basis to criminalize reasonable and prudent medical care on its own. But I do see your point that if the regressives take the presidency but not congress, then the more the government is involved in the more damage they will do. I'm not a huge fan of single payer healthcare, but I guess I accept it as a compromise as it's the only plan that's been put forth to reform the deeply corrupt healthcare system. I personally want less government involvement in individuals' lives in general (and it's necessary to include de facto corporate government in that scope as well). But I've also paused focusing on this line of argument because the regressive movement has used up so much of the air for it, in bad faith. But really regardless, we're kind of screwed if the regressives take the executive any time before their social-media-fueled nonsense is run out of the mainstream by actual conservatives - that is people who believe in questioning change, not trying to drag us back in time 70 years to some imagined idyllic past.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    FWIW I don't think that single-payer healthcare on the federal level is actually a realistic pathway to reform healthcare. There's too much gridlock for anything major like that to pass, and I don't think this will change for at least another decade. State level feels much more doable. Not only that, but Canada did it that way - IIRC Saskatchewan did it first, it worked well for them, and those results entered political discourse in other provinces causing a domino effect of sorts. Then finally the feds jumped in to regulate the baseline and assist with money to help the poorer provinces keep up. But to this day, it's actually a voluntary arrangement that any province could leave at any point; it's just that even in Alberta ditching public healthcare is such a fringe extreme right position that no politician hoping to have a successful career would seriously contemplate it. And ofc if you do it state by state, then it doesn't have to be single-payer everywhere, either. We could try that in states with a more socialized political culture, and e.g. the Swiss model in more conservative states, and maybe something like Germany's private non-profit healthcare coops elsewhere. I would probably prefer the latter for myself for the sake of decentralization.

int_19h 4y ago

But those anti-health state governments are, at least, limited to their respective states. Which also makes it possible for people to seek abortion and other related procedures across state borders (I know there were some attempts to ban it, too, but none of them became law so far, and in any case this is very difficult to enforce), where the infrastructure remains. In a scenario where the anti-abortion party takes control of the executive that is running Canada-style single-payer healthcare on the federal level, I could see them 1) defining abortion as "core service" rather than supplemental so that private providers can't offer it outside the system, and then 2) setting harsh term limits and other barriers like doctor approval to make it effectively banned in practice. (Fetal personhood is another backdoor that can take this even further.)

mindslight 4y ago
My general point was that an administrative backdoor isn't really needed since the regressives have seemingly found a legal basis to criminalize reasonable and prudent medical care on its own. But I do see your point that if the regressives take the presidency but not congress, then the more the government is involved in the more damage they will do. I'm not a huge fan of single payer healthcare, but I guess I accept it as a compromise as it's the only plan that's been put forth to reform the deeply corrupt healthcare system. I personally want less government involvement in individuals' lives in general (and it's necessary to include de facto corporate government in that scope as well). But I've also paused focusing on this line of argument because the regressive movement has used up so much of the air for it, in bad faith. But really regardless, we're kind of screwed if the regressives take the executive any time before their social-media-fueled nonsense is run out of the mainstream by actual conservatives - that is people who believe in questioning change, not trying to drag us back in time 70 years to some imagined idyllic past.
- int_19h 4y ago
  FWIW I don't think that single-payer healthcare on the federal level is actually a realistic pathway to reform healthcare. There's too much gridlock for anything major like that to pass, and I don't think this will change for at least another decade. State level feels much more doable. Not only that, but Canada did it that way - IIRC Saskatchewan did it first, it worked well for them, and those results entered political discourse in other provinces causing a domino effect of sorts. Then finally the feds jumped in to regulate the baseline and assist with money to help the poorer provinces keep up. But to this day, it's actually a voluntary arrangement that any province could leave at any point; it's just that even in Alberta ditching public healthcare is such a fringe extreme right position that no politician hoping to have a successful career would seriously contemplate it. And ofc if you do it state by state, then it doesn't have to be single-payer everywhere, either. We could try that in states with a more socialized political culture, and e.g. the Swiss model in more conservative states, and maybe something like Germany's private non-profit healthcare coops elsewhere. I would probably prefer the latter for myself for the sake of decentralization.