California's Fight For Single-Payer Healthcare Fails

Its interesting but i dont think it can properly be implemented in a single state.

I mean what happens when people from other states move to California when they get sick? Is there a provision to lower costs? How are people going to chip in?

Yeah, its a really bad idea, single payer must be a national effort not a state one.
 
I actually support public health care for illegals in some instances.

Contagious diseases, for example. You think it's smart to make that person fear to go to a hospital? You think it's smart to leave that person untreated?


This is why we needed the Amnesty for the people who have children, longtime gainful employment, and no criminal records. It would just solve so many damn problems in one fell swoop: seven giants in one blow.

I have yet to meet an intelligent capitalist that doesn't support both single-payer healthcare and naturalization of (at the very least gainfully employed) immigrants as the most effective and cost-effective way to both manage healthcare and maximize the national economy. Both are such fiscal no-brainers that it's maddening that each is being held back exclusively by ideologues and baseless rhetoric (whether toward general xenophobia or misguided principles of self-reliance).
 
The price tag on universal health care is in, and it’s bigger than California’s budget
By Angela Hart | May 22, 2017

thinkstockphotos-178536332.jpg


The price tag is in: It would cost $400 billion to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.

California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.

The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to creating a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.

It remains a long-shot bid. Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish such a health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.

Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement the system would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year.

“Health care spending is growing faster than the overall economy ... yet we do not have better health outcomes and we cover fewer people,” Lara said at Monday’s appropriations hearing. “Given this picture of increasing costs, health care inefficiencies and the uncertainty created by Congress, it is critical that California chart our own path.”

The idea behind Senate Bill 562 is to overhaul California’s insurance marketplace, reduce overall health care costs and expand coverage to everyone in the state regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. Instead of private insurers, state government would be the “single payer” for everyone’s health care through a new payroll taxing structure, similar to the way Medicare operates.

Lara and Atkins say they are driven by the belief that health care is a human right and should be guaranteed to everyone, similar to public services like safe roads and clean drinking water. They seek to rein in rising health care costs by lowering administrative expenses, reducing expensive emergency room visits, and eliminating insurance company profits and executive salaries.

In addition to covering undocumented people, Lara said the goal is to expand health access to people who, even with insurance, may skip doctor visits or stretch out medications due to high copays and deductibles.

“Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to negotiate rates and deal with insurance companies to seek reimbursement,” Lara said.

Insurance groups, health plans and Kaiser Permanente are against the bill. Industry representatives say California should focus on improving the Affordable Care Act. Business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, have deemed the bill a “job-killer.”

“A single-payer system is massively, if not prohibitively expensive,” said Nick Louizos, vice president of legislative affairs for the California Association of Health Plans.

“It will cost employers and taxpayers billions of dollars and result in significant loss of jobs in the state,” the Chamber of Commerce said in its opposition letter.

The bill has to get approval on the Senate floor by June 2 to advance to the Assembly. A financing plan is underway, which could suggest diverting money employers pay for workers’ compensation insurance to a state-run coverage system.

Lara said he believes California can and should play a prominent role in improving people’s lives.

“We can do better,” he said.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.html
 
Its interesting but i dont think it can properly be implemented in a single state.

I mean what happens when people from other states move to California when they get sick? Is there a provision to lower costs? How are people going to chip in?

Yeah, its a really bad idea, single payer must be a national effort not a state one.


WHAT????

You were the #1 cheerleader of "Well it's works in Germany" but now you're saying that single payer doesn't work unless the entire country is forced into it? Can't work in California or Vermont with much small populations but it work perfect with 320 million and trillions of dollars.

Progressivism ideas so good, they are mandatory


I saw $230 billion for 2009. That's the most recent I found. How could this cost so much more?

Because the government is running it, also 400 billion is a conservative number because this doesn't account for illegals who are eligible who will flood the country from Mexico to get 'free healthcare'


I have yet to meet an intelligent capitalist that doesn't support both single-payer healthcare and naturalization of (at the very least gainfully employed) immigrants as the most effective and cost-effective way to both manage healthcare and maximize the national economy. Both are such fiscal no-brainers that it's maddening that each is being held back exclusively by ideologues and baseless rhetoric (whether toward general xenophobia or misguided principles of self-reliance).


Well you never met a capitalist....
 
I actually support public health care for illegals in some instances.

Contagious diseases, for example. You think it's smart to make that person fear to go to a hospital? You think it's smart to leave that person untreated?


This is why we needed the Amnesty for the people who have children, longtime gainful employment, and no criminal records. It would just solve so many damn problems in one fell swoop: seven giants in one blow.
Or we could just amend the constitution and just literally kick all of them out, children and all, regardless of situation. I mean, money and manpower be damned
 
Or we could just amend the constitution and just literally kick all of them out, children and all, regardless of situation. I mean, money and manpower be damned


We already did Amnesty in the 80s with the hope that we would improve border security, guess which one we didn't do.
 
Well you never met a capitalist....

In fact the vast majority of persons I've met through school and work have been capitalists. Western academic and legal doctrine is heavily, inextricably linked with capitalist ideology. Even the socially conservative ones generally support single-payer. Not all persons who appreciate the utility of capitalism are indoctrinated by it. There is no logical basis to support the private healthcare model, other than for easily-remediable concerns about current modes of R&D.
 
WHAT????

You were the #1 cheerleader of "Well it's works in Germany" but now you're saying that single payer doesn't work unless the entire country is forced into it? Can't work in California or Vermont with much small populations but it work perfect with 320 million and trillions of dollars.

Progressivism ideas so good, they are mandatory

Because the government is running it, also 400 billion is a conservative number because this doesn't account for illegals who are eligible who will flood the country from Mexico to get 'free healthcare'

Again, what does population has absolutely anything to do with viability?

The point is that California doesnt has borders with America, so all the sick people will make a beeline towards California, not to mention the States that will want to drop their crazy and sick in there too.

Isnt that one of the problems of the NHS? that sick EU citizens go there for free healthcare?

It can be done but it must be well thought out.
 
I'm sure Leonardo DiCaprio and Jeff Bezos will cover the tab since they are always the first ones to tell us how tolerant we need to be
Theoretically, they could all get together and try to foot the bill and still not have enough.

Atleast Bill gates is doing something with his money. These guys just circle jerk themselves into a "we're important" gangbang.
 
In fact the vast majority of persons I've met through school and work have been capitalists. Western academic and legal doctrine is heavily, inextricably linked with capitalist ideology. Even the socially conservative ones generally support single-payer. Not all persons who appreciate the utility of capitalism are indoctrinated by it. There is no logical basis to support the private healthcare model, other than for easily-remediable concerns about current modes of R&D.


Again, you aren't talk to capitalists, you are talking to socialist sympathizers from university. No real capitalist or conservative believe national single payer is a good idea.
 
I'm all for a single payer system and helping Californians who need help with healthcare but fuck this. The working and middle class will just get fucked even more paying for over a million illegals who don't even belong here.
 
Again, what does population has absolutely anything to do with viability?

The point is that California doesnt has borders with America, so all the sick people will make a beeline towards California, not to mention the States that will want to drop their crazy and sick in there too.

Isnt that one of the problems of the NHS? that sick EU citizens go there for free healthcare?

It can be done but it must be well thought out.


Free Shit and Open Borders doesn't work whether USA or California, as long as you want a open border with Mexico and the 3rd world, it will never work.
 
Or we could just amend the constitution and just literally kick all of them out, children and all, regardless of situation. I mean, money and manpower be damned

That would literally bankrupt the country for decades. Even suspending all constitutional concerns of search and seizure and due process, which would alone generate tens of billions of dollars in legal fees, you have to accommodate for the huge public expenditure towards expanding the state, the economic displacement and reemployment of agents thereafter, the huge administrative costs, and replacing the displaced economic and tax contributions of tens of millions of persons whose age demographics skew young relative to the rest of the population.

I'm afraid you don't understand the scope, even of your own hypothetical, friend.
 
Theoretically, they could all get together and try to foot the bill and still not have enough.

Atleast Bill gates is doing something with his money. These guys just circle jerk themselves into a "we're important" gangbang.


If California made Hollywood and Silicon Valley foot the bill for this, those limousine liberals would leave California before sunrise.
 
Back
Top