MD-Gov: Don't be Jealous!

[Virginiá]

While I'm open to the idea of single-payer, I don't think a state-level system would work, especially in Maryland where the resulting shock to the market would force health care companies to lay-off their workers. It doesn't inspire much confidence in me that Jealous said that people "would just have to get another job."

I agree. I think pro-single payer people are getting too impatient and trying to do this at a level that probably isn't sustainable. At the very least, it's not individually sustainable in every state, and I doubt MD is one of them. I'd rather just wait however long it takes for it to happen federally instead of trying a system that might fail big time and discredit the idea. There is already hesitation with it because of the potential costs, and if progressives force a big state-level experiment that implodes, it'll be hard to get support for it at the federal level where it might actually work.

[Virginiá]

I don’t think it’s sustainable at any state level of government since most state governments have balance budget amendments and no state has a printing press. California would’ve had to either raise 400 billion a year to fund single payer for example or risk another debt crisis.

The federal government can absorb the short term costs a single payer system would have to accrue as the markets adjust accordingly. The federal government has a printing press and the ability to run deficits. It’s always better to do healthcare at the highest level possible.

It is, but people are clearly tired of waiting and are trying to do it any way they can. They would probably do it on the city level if that was the only option available.

I just can't help but feel like if/when that happens, they are going to fail and its going to ruin the idea for a whole generation or more.

[Virginiá]

The point here being that whether or not a universal health care system fails in MD is irrelevant in the bigger picture of things. Just keep trying at the state level until it reaches the federal level.

But all those instances you gave were either repealed outright, rejected by voters or ruled unconstitutional. I'm talking about a system that goes live, stays operational and then proceeds to implode spectacularly, and maybe even leaving the state's finances in a catastrophic situation. If there is a plan out there that can avoid all that by more than just luck without raising taxes so much that voters themselves prevent it from going live, then I'd like to see it, but as it stands now the idea if expensive and it would require repurposing Medicaid dollars I think.  And it's not just about keeping it viable in the eyes of conservative voters on the fence with it, it's about keeping i viable in the eyes of Democratic politicians, who are easily spooked as it is. Another issue that state-level plans make me wonder about is people migrating to that state just for free healthcare, which could be a long-term issue if no other states do it. I don't think it's constitutional to ban interlopers from taking advantage of that system.

Also pre-1930s judicial rejection of Social Security seems like a nice preview of a conservative future: conservative judges reject everything big / notable the left wants to do, making up legalese to justify it as they go.

[Virginiá]

Saskatchewan and Alberta implemented systems with far more on the line, y'know what, the system was successful enough that now Canada has it.

And exactly how many Americans have seriously moved that way just for the free healthcare?

Moving to another country is not quite the same as moving to another state. Can you even just move to Canada willy-nilly? Don't you need to get a job lined up there first and everything?

[Virginiá]

I watched the interview where Jealous cussed. My verdict: he shouldn't have even apologized.

Me too. Who even cares. Anyone who thinks pols don't swear, often perfusely, behind closed doors is deluding themselves. To see someone have a human moment at a rally and/or press conference is actually kind of refreshing.

[Virginiá]

This literally sounds like when the Republicans make excuses when Trump craps his diaper in speeches.

I don't get why people care if politicians swear. Sure, if they profusely swear and a constant basis, ok, there is a justifiable reason to not want that, but occasional swearing, even habitual so long as it's not in every other sentence, I don't see the problem. People swear, it's what we do. Pretending like all pols shouldn't is just a fake reality.

I don't really have any opinion on Jealous one way or the other, and no overriding desire to see him win since the legislature has a supermajority of Democrats, so if you think this is some sort of partisan reaction, you're wrong.