Slaying California's Health-Care Hydra

Wall Street Journal ^ | August 21, 2007 | 2 "letters to the editor"

[CutePuppy]

Two "letters to the editor" of the WSJ :

------------------------------------------------------------------

More than 70% of Californians want health-care reform, and the budget stalemate does not change that. More than 70% of Californians support Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan, which addresses the rising cost of care with policies that will improve access, affordability and quality for everyone.

.....

That is why more than 50 of our nation's employers have joined together to form the Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform. We believe that the health-care crisis is a business issue just as much as it is a social issue.

.....

Steve Burd
CEO, Safeway Inc.
Chairman of the Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform

------------------------------------------------------------------

Gov. Schwarzenegger's health-care proposals in California inadvertently redefined his new concept of "post-partisanship" as something that not a single member of either party in the California Legislature was willing to put forward. The hodge-podge of proposals was not just awful, but unnecessarily complex and difficult to understand.

A few isolated good ideas, such as exempting contributions to Health Savings Accounts from California taxes as most states do, were lost in the Rube Goldberg machine. Most proposals would have substantially increased the cost of health care directly -- such as the "fee" on the gross revenue of physicians and hospitals -- or indirectly through even more insurance coverage mandates and regulations than exist today -- such as paying for gym memberships.

.....

One has the uncomfortable feeling that this may have been a case of good intentions trying to circumvent reality.

.....

People who cannot afford insurance surely cannot afford to pay taxes on the income they use for premiums. The reason affordable health insurance is not available in California is because it is forbidden by law.

Richard E. Ralston
Executive Director
Americans for Free Choice in Medicine
Newport Beach, Calif.

[CutePuppy]

The reason affordable health insurance is not available in California is because it is forbidden by law. Priceless!

[xuberalles]

I’m all for helping those who truly need it, but how much of this crisis is caused by illegal immigrants who shouldn’t be here in the first place. Plus, let’s not forget, a good number of people can afford some sort of insurance, yet choose not to.

[CutePuppy]

Yes, but this is not really just a California or states with large illegal aliens issue. The interesting thing here is that CEOs of large companies are all for state-mandated / taxpayer-funded insurance because it either relieves them from paying and administering insurance and/or forces smaller companies that cannot afford it to incur the burden as well.

While, on the other hand, removing government mandates and/or making insurance individual responsibility with programs like HSA and catastrophic-only insurance could actually lower the insurance prices, save money and help insure more people... but then government would not have much control and couldn’t get its hands on all that insurance money.

And you are right about a number of people who choose not to spend money on insurance - that’s one segment the government wants to force to insure to bring more money into the system to cover their constituents.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats and Red Arnold are pushing for government mandated health care at a time when California is literally living off borrowed money. Mindless!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[cherry]

I guess I get more peeved by those milking the system....I have a SIL who is going to physical therapy for her THUMB...of course, she’s on dissability and gets everything free....

[pieceofthepuzzle]

I have a suggestion. Why don’t we do an experiment and put all of the CEOs and top management (and their extended families) of each of the companies that back Arnold’s plan into a socialized government run health care system for the next four years so that they can tell the rest of us about their experiences.

Also, people take jobs calculating their compensation in wages and fringe. If these companies no longer provide health insurance as part of the fringe will they then balance their employees loss of fringe by increasing their wages commensurately?

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Of course these major employers in California want health care "reform." "Reform" will consist of the government paying for health care to eliminate a major expense of employers.

[raybbr]

Of course these major employers in California want health care "reform." "Reform" will consist of the government paying for health care to eliminate a major expense of employers.

Just another example of the mindset of today's businessman. "Make money today and let the next generation worry about paying for it."

The corps that are for it today know that they will be gone before the bill comes due. When it does they'll simply close shop and move somewhere else while the taxpayer is left footing the bill for generations. It's happening all throughout big business. Make the stocks go up today for their bonuses but don't worry about what all their 'cost cutting' is doing to the viability of the company.

It's the same with politicians. Spend as much tax money as you can on votes but don't worry about what it's doing to the future taxpayer.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

I like the theory behind your ideas. My idea is to let government buildings (including schools) operate ONLY on 100% wind and solar power. Let the socialists work under the conditions they want to dicate to the rest of us, for a few years, before they impose their blue sky schemes on the taxpayers.

[CutePuppy]

Unfortunately, too many people don't understand the difference between "free" and "paid by the government", or what Milton Friedman meant by "There is no free lunch".

One is far more likely to get a really free ("no strings attached") lunch or goodies from private groups or companies than they ever will from the "government" (the bureaucrats who administer and waste taxpayers funds).