Senate panel OKs universal health care bill [California]

SACRAMENTO -- California inched toward Canadian-style universal health care Wednesday when a key committee approved a bill that would gather every Californian into a government-financed health system.

Under the plan, which the author acknowledges faces an uncertain future, even those who have health care now would stop paying premiums and start paying taxes toward a single-payer system.

The government would not provide health services but would handle the payment of all medical bills.

Backers say the hefty buying power of the nation's most populace state would force significant discounts in premiums and prescription medication, resulting in savings for all. Moreover, by granting preventive and routine medical care, it would improve overall health in the state and reduce the burden on California's strained emergency rooms.

"In the end, it's going to look even better than people think," said state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, the author of Senate Bill 921.

Opponents say big savings probably won't materialize and that most Californians will end up waiting in long lines for compromised care. They say the tax-reliant nature of the plan could cripple the economy.

"The cost is going to far exceed anything that's been estimated," said Willie Washington of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, warning of "uncontrollable costs."

Others warned of "$66 billion in new taxes," a figure that Kuehl called "bogus" and insisted, "They pulled it out of the air."

Several Democratic senators said they want universal health care, whether it comes from Kuehl's bill or not.

"I not sure how far this bill will go, but I think the message will resonate," said Sen. Richard Alarcon, D-Van Nuys. "But if I'm going to err, it's going to be on the side of affirmative action for universal health care for all. I support this bill and anything like it."

Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, said he was determined to provide universal care in California, a personal goal before he leaves office next year because of term limits.

But Richard Costigan of the California Chamber of Commerce warned of such sweeping reform if financed largely by business payroll taxes.

"You're not going to swell the ranks of the insured," he said. "You're going to swell the ranks of the unemployed."

Kuehl removed the tax component from her bill until state tax experts can determine what rate would be required to pay for the program. She has estimated about 2 percent of an employee's pay and 5 percent to 6 percent of an employer's payroll will be needed, along with surcharges on cigarettes and alcohol.

Removing the tax element reduces the number of votes required to pass it out of the Senate. She said she expects the going to get tough in the Assembly when she reinserts the taxing portion and it becomes a bill that requires at least some Republican votes.

The Senate health committee Wednesday also passed a less ambitious measure that would force employers to either provide health coverage to their workers or pay into a state fund that would do so on their behalf.

The bill received similar support from union and health-care advocacy groups and drew similar opposition from the business community.

Though it would not provide health care to unemployed Californians, as is the case with the universal plan, backers say it could reduce by one-third the number of uninsured Californians.

There are an estimated 7 million people without health insurance in California. About 150,000 of them live in San Joaquin County. Nearly 80 percent of the nation's uninsured have jobs.

Four things that aren't mentioned in this article.

1) The bill passed the committe on a straight party line vote.

2) The California Senate is populated by a group of ultraliberal ideologs that survive because of the 1998 redistricting plan. These ideologs do not respresent the median values of even democrats and are insulated from election pressure by the tortured, gerrymandered districts created in 1998 in allow just such nonsense.

3) The "unisured" in California have a full range of health care available to them through the well developed and politically perverted clinic and emergency room concepts.

4) Last but not least. This "universal" healthcare is simply a ploy to shift the escalating cost of the health care system from the taxpayer to the employer. This plan will remove these skyrocking costs form the budget but these costs won't go away. They simply will not be treated as a budget item.

I can tell you with 100% confidence, that the people that pay the least for healthcare, utilize it the most.

Medical Assistance patients will come to the clinic that I worked at, with sniffles, when asked how long they have had the ailment, to a person they would answer "less than 24 hours".

A large company in my town has the best health insurance plan in the world (non-union shop by the way). Employees and family pay no premiums, no-copays, and no deductibles. For prescription drugs they pay $5.00 generic, $10.00 name brand. Those patients were also part of the "less than 24 hour" club.

There have been statistics that prove that the biggest utilizers of health care, are health care employees. That is generally because of their health care benefits, not because they get sick more often. Statistics also prove that when companies institute co-pays of even nominal amounts such as $25.00, utilization goes way down.

For anyone looking for a panacea of "free health-care" these plans are not the way to do it. We have to first change peoples preception of Dr's healing everything. We have to understand that when governments mandates more and more coverage in policies (ie. sex change operations, birth control, weight control, viagra etc.) policies are going to become more expensive.

When did Health insurance forget that it its INSURANCE. Ask yourself how much your car insurance would be if it had to cover oil changes.

And when did insurance become an employers mandate, as opposed to a benefit?

Kuehl removed the tax component from her bill until state tax experts can determine what rate would be required to pay for the program. She has estimated about 2 percent of an employee's pay and 5 percent to 6 percent of an employer's payroll will be needed, along with surcharges on cigarettes and alcohol.

The State is bankrupt. So they mandate universal healthcare with nothing to pay for it. They have no idea what it will cost and would lie even if they knew. So they pass the expense without funding it so that they won't need a supermajority! I bet that means they think they can get it through conference committee with funding provisions and then pass it with the same majority as if it was the same bill! Whaddya bet?

I see.

Does this woman have a credit card?

I've never heard fiscal suicide referred to as "less ambitious."

The bill received similar support from union and health-care advocacy groups and drew similar opposition from the business community.

Oh for a veto now. Perhaps businesses are reconsidering their support for Davis? Do you think maybe yet?

Though it would not provide health care to unemployed Californians, as is the case with the universal plan, backers say it could reduce by one-third the number of uninsured Californians.

The unemployed already have MediCal. So I guess this is a way to ding those businesses that don't insure their workers by making them pony up payroll taxes. Um, aren't those employees the ones who don't pay taxes? Ohhhhh... This a tax on the POOR!

The Slave Party strikes again.

There are an estimated 7 million people without health insurance in California. About 150,000 of them live in San Joaquin County. Nearly 80 percent of the nation's uninsured have jobs.

The laws of economics state that when you penalize something you get less of it. And what's this mixing of State, county, and National data all in one paragraph?

Yup, I remember well how so many around here are willing to let the State implode thinking they'll be around to pick up the pieces. Are they going to stick around for State-mandated healthcare?

What pieces? There won't be any left!

Yup, I remember well how so many around here were willing to sit out the last election because Simon wasn't good enough for them. I wonder if they're still thinking that, or perhaps wish he was there to have a veto pen ready for this kind of stupidity? Is anybody dumb enough to think that, even if the state collapsed financially, it would be easy to undo a bill like this?

The Stupid Party really underestimated how bad things could get in only two more years because we've had Republican governors in place for so long who would veto crap like this and Davis needed to get re-elected. They didn't have a clue how far the leftists would go once there was no restraint. There's even sincere talk in the media of California seceding so that they can print money to finance the debt!

To be taken over by... whom?

So, how many people are laughing about Simon now? We'll see if they're still laughing when they're sitting in a waiting room to see a doctor with other patients coughing chunks from SARS.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.