CA should lead the way in health insurance (Bill for Single Payer in CA Assembly)

RedlandsDaily Facts ^ | Aug. 18, 2006 | Linda Rhoades

[KevinDavis]

Naw, the Arnold bashers won't believe you...

[ArmstedFragg]

calling it a tax increase

They keep falling back on this phrase. I suppose it's more succinct than saying "calling it an asinine way to provide medical care". I haven't looked at the bill since the amendments, but as originally drafted it contained a provision outlawing competition from any other insurance provider. And... of course... the numbers were wildly unrealistic.

[Nathan Zachary]

"This state should be a vanguard for the rest of the nation"

Yes, then the state can be just like CAnada- where you do indeed get to see a doctor of your choice-if you can find one, and don't mind waiting 6 months for an appointment, only to then be refered to a "specialist' which takes another 6-12 months of waiting. Then if you are not dead yet, you many be booked for surgery, in another 4-6 months. Then if you still aren't dead, you can have sub-standard surgery, then be booted out in the hallway for Canada's patended hallway medicine care. Then you are sent home to wait 6 or so months to wait for a spot to open in the rehab clinic.

[greccogirl]

Well, California will finish being killed.

[Amerigomag]

Just shaking my head.

Insurance premiums v taxes will be the least of our worries.

California will become a Mecca for Mexico's poor, the aged and infirmed underclass from across the US and those peddling medical supplies. We'll be wall to wall Mexicans, Grey Ghosts and wheelchair salesman.

Productive Californians will form commuter pools to travel to Oregon, Nevada and Arizona for their medical care. Surrounding states will add tax surcharges to the cost of medical treatment for out-of-state patients.

Yes sir, Mr. GoldStateGOP, redistricting is sorely needed in California.

[FairOpinion]

The Arnold bashers keep pretending that there is no difference between Arnold and Angelides. Then ask me to give them examples, I give them some very specific huge differences, such as in this case, which has a tremendous effect on the rest of our lives in CA, they ignore it, and ask me not to ping them.

They don't want to hear the truth, so they can continue their campaigning for Angelides right here on FR. I would say it's pathetic, but it's worse, it's malicious against Republicans.

[FairOpinion]

It IS a tax increase, the Dems just don't like it, when someone calls a spade a spade.

[goldstategop]

My premium is $3,000 a year. With a $25,000 a year income - that's around 3% of the gross. This for one person. For a family of four, that triples to $9,600 a year and assuming a $50,000 a year income, just calculating the math, it works out to nearly 10% of the gross. So private health care is a major expense in most people's lives and with HMOs, where everything used to be covered out of pocket, the costs are now bumped up to 5% for individuals and 12% for families - as a result of co-payments and supplemental charges for room and board, drugs and extra services. A single payer system would convert that sum to taxes to finance the health care system.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)

[Nathan Zachary]

In Canada your single rate system costs a person earning $60,000 about $20,000 a year for "health care" alone. That doesn't include prescriptions, dental care. Total taxes on that wage are over 60%.

What do you pay?

[goldstategop]

Yes and a ban on private health care can't be sustained if the government-run system can't provide immediate and timely access to health care. The courts would look on that aspect no differently than the courts in Canada.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)

[DuncanWaring]

Its probably the last time any of us would see a hospital bill again.

Sure you'll see them again - they just won't be printed on hospital letterhead.

[goldstategop]

No, it can't be comprehensive even with the heavy taxes required to finance the the scheme. Even Medicare Canada excludes prescription, vision and dental care so people still have to pay out of pocket. The biggest drawback to a Canada style health care system even in a Blue State like this is people would balk at adding more to their tax load.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)

[goldstategop]

Oh joy! I can't wait for my next tax bill. Can you? Nothing in life is "free." Even medical care. If it was truly free, every one would sign up for it - including conservatives. But in the world in which we live, goods and services are finite in nature and have to be allocated accordingly. And there are going to be problems no matter who makes the decision to distribute those resources. Yes, the market has problems but the government usually makes it worse.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)

[Nathan Zachary]

All you will see is an exodus of doctors out of California (Like you see in Canada) because the state will have to cap Dr. fees to maintain affordable premiums.
As I mentioned, try find a doctor in canada. Most Canadians don't even have a personal physycian anymore. The doctors you do see in Canadian ER's are from a third world country and barely speak english. An average wait is 6 hrs in the ER.

My wife got sick last week in Canada, so I took her to a hospital. I should have drove home back across the border (it only takes 2 hrs) and took her to our regular doc.

[Petronski]

...the law of "High Quality, Fast Service, Low Price - Pick any two."

In slightly different language, that is also the rule for buying cars: "fast, cheap, reliable: pick two."

[Nathan Zachary]

You got it. it's more costly than people realize. my Canadian
employee get hosed badly with taxation. You don't see hospital bills in Canada, you see tax bills, even if you never get sick. The people in Canada that get "free" healthcare, (low income and welfare bums) abuse the system badly.
Imagine what California would be like in that regard.

[Amerigomag]

And I bet you dollars to donuts, that if Angelides gets elected, he will sign it.

You'd loose. While the weasel has voiced support for the basic concept underpinning SB 840, his proposed flavor of UHC is more gradual.

Democrats will not enact SB 840, but the CADEM has delighted in sending election year legislation to the Austrian that they hope will isolate him from the poor and unwashed in the electorate.

[goldstategop]

Medical professionals do not want to work for a loss. They have expenses to meet too like every one else. And if they have to take a pay cut, two things are going to happen: fewer people will want to become doctors and nurses and those now in field face a crimped lifestyle and will leave the state. Nevertheless, I think we should adopt a single payer system. Theoretical arguments will never discredit socialism. Only the reality of living under it will get people to turn against it.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)

[FairOpinion]

See my post 10, where I posted an excerpt from an article, which specifically says that Angelides said he will sign it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1686523/posts?page=10#10

The campaign is scheduled to end next August when the Legislature is set to vote on SB 840. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger does not support a single-payer system, calling it a tax increase. Gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides has said he would sign the bill if he wins the November election.

[ordinaryguy]

Those earning more than you would suddenly find themselves paying substantially more for their insurance under the proposed plan. From each according to their abilities, apparently. I'm not interested in the cost of my insurance being linked to how much I earn.

And I can guarantee that, if implemented, the cost will wind up being higher than advertised.