Please help me understand one thing, while having in mind that I'm not particularly for or against single payer. My problem is that I don't buy the top argument for single payer I'm seeing here.
Many people here are arguing that healthcare is expensive, is a basic human need and it's really hard to get it in the US if you don't have a job paying for it. Even when jobs help out with the premiums, it's still hard to pay for it in California. All true.
Do you know another basic human need? A place to live. Without a place to live, you are homeless - which is normally seen as even worse as not having access to healthcare.
A place to live in the bay area is really expensive, more so than healthcare. I don't live in the bay area, but it appears that a reasonable rent for a place for 3 people is around $3500/mo or 42K/year. This is more than out of pocket (no subsidies) Kaiser + average healthcare expenses.
If the government is supposed to pay for healthcare in California, why isn't it supposed to pay for rent? Both are basic needs and quite expensive. Serious question.
Many people here are arguing that healthcare is expensive, is a basic human need and it's really hard to get it in the US if you don't have a job paying for it. Even when jobs help out with the premiums, it's still hard to pay for it in California. All true.
Do you know another basic human need? A place to live. Without a place to live, you are homeless - which is normally seen as even worse as not having access to healthcare.
A place to live in the bay area is really expensive, more so than healthcare. I don't live in the bay area, but it appears that a reasonable rent for a place for 3 people is around $3500/mo or 42K/year. This is more than out of pocket (no subsidies) Kaiser + average healthcare expenses.
If the government is supposed to pay for healthcare in California, why isn't it supposed to pay for rent? Both are basic needs and quite expensive. Serious question.