Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on August 30, 2006, 08:24:11 PM
-
assuming I'm missing somthing in this article....
08-29) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- The Democratic-controlled Legislature is on the verge of sending Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill that would create a state-run universal health care system, testing him on an issue that voters rate as one of their top concerns in this election year.
On a largely party-line 43-30 vote, the Assembly approved a bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would eliminate private medical insurance plans and establish a statewide health insurance system that would provide coverage to all Californians. The state Senate has already approved the plan once and is expected this week to approve changes that the Assembly made to the bill.
Schwarzenegger has said he opposes a single-payer plan like the one Kuehl's bill would create, but the governor has not offered his own alternatives for fixing the state's health care system. As many as 7 million people are uninsured in the state, and spiraling costs have put pressure on business and consumers.
"We know the health care in place today is teetering on collapse," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles. "We need to do something to improve it, to reform it, and this is what we are bringing to the table."
Schwarzenegger's office said it had no official position on the bill. The governor has said he would propose solutions to the state's health care crisis in his State of the State address next January if he is re-elected.
"I don't believe that government should be getting in there and should start running a health care system that is kind of done and worked on by government," Schwarzenegger said in July at a speech at the Commonwealth Club. "I think that what we should do is be a facilitator, to make the health care costs come down. The sad story in America is that our health care costs are too high, that everyone cannot afford health care."
The governor hosted a health care summit earlier this year, but no concrete proposals came from the meeting.
If he vetoes SB840, the governor will be reminded of his decision come election day in November, Kuehl said.
"I hope that the people of California will hang the albatross of bad health care around the governor's neck," she said.
Núñez said that while the governor has worked with Democrats on many issues this year, he is on the wrong side of this one.
"The biggest issue facing California today is health care," Núñez said. "This legislation represents yet another and the most important opportunity we have to say to the governor that he needs to embrace the Democratic agenda, just as he has done on prescription drugs and minimum wage."
Labor unions and Democrats will take part in a rally on Wednesday to urge Schwarzenegger to sign the bill.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides is not supporting the Kuehl bill.
"He supports moving toward universal health care by first covering all children and then requiring businesses to cover their employees," said Angelides spokesman Nick Pappas.
Kuehl called the passage of the bill historic because it was the first time both houses of the Legislature have passed a universal health care bill. SB840 must return to the Senate, which approved it once, 25-13, for concurrence before going to Schwarzenegger's desk.
"Every advance you can make for any cause is important," Kuehl said. "Most important, it gives hope for the people of California that this can be done."
SB840 would provide comprehensive medical, dental, vision, hospitalization and prescription drug coverage to every California resident. Anyone could see any doctor or go to any hospital.
"SB840 creates a system of comprehensive health insurance benefits for all Californians that guarantees free choice of doctors and hospitals," Kuehl said. "It creates access for all Californians by steeply reducing administrative overhead and emphasizing preventative and primary care instead of endlessly cutting coverage and access to care or increasing consumer spending."
Republicans and insurance groups oppose the bill, saying it will create an inefficient government bureaucracy.
"This takes us in the wrong direction," said Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian, R-Stockton. "This creates a government-run system akin to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Do we want health care taken care of by another bloated bureaucracy?"
The bill does not account for the costs of the program since it would take several years before any plan was up and running. The plan would create a commissioner and a blue-ribbon commission to examine how the structure would work. An analysis by the Lewin Group, an independent health care consulting firm, said the plan could be paid for with all of the money now being spent on health care.
That would mean combining all state and federal funds, along with business contributions and participant payments and co-payments. The report suggests that funding could come through an 8 percent payroll tax and a 3 percent individual income tax.
SB840 allows California to use its purchasing power to negotiate bulk rates for prescription drugs and durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs, thus realizing an additional $2 billion in savings, Kuehl's office said.
But eliminating health care insurance plans would eradicate the groups that have the most experience with getting people insured and to doctors, said Chris Ohman, president and CEO of the California Association of Health Plans.
Ohman said other places that are trying universal health care -- such as Massachusetts and San Francisco -- are using health care plans to help facilitate the implementation. He said the insurance companies are in the best position to manage costs.
"If there isn't the focus and drive for advancing preventative programs, the sky's the limit in terms of what the costs will be," he said. "That's what health plans do."
A Public Policy Institute poll from September 2004 showed that 71 percent of likely voters said they are at least somewhat concerned about being able to afford health care. A slim majority of Californians, 53 percent, said they would be willing to pay more -- either through higher health insurance premiums or higher taxes -- to increase the number of people who have health insurance
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/29/MNGBSKR3RA1.DTL
How can they afford this.....other than raising taxes as stated. Taxes are high enough in Kalifornia....
Last I checked the budget in California isn't all that great and painfull cuts in spending as well as a few tax hikes has helped ease their economy back into recovery. The bill doesn't even say how they are going to pay for this.
-
health care is broken.. it needs fixing.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
health care is broken.. it needs fixing.
Do you think having the state pay for running it (and the eventual bail it out) will fix it?
-
How will they pay for that? State income tax? Sales Tax? Sure as heck won't be federal taxes. You guys are about to start paying through the nose. Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon may have to close their border with Kalifornia to prevent a mass exodus. ;)
-
The health-care system is broken alright. Part of the problem is greed.
When many doctors and health-care specialists live like Croesus, and think that charging their patients with budget-busting medical bills, then the system is, indeed, broken.
My oldest son went into the hospital last summer and stayed one night while tests were run to determine why he was running a high fever. Another out-patient trip was made when he developed a kidney stone. The combined bills, after our medical insurance paid their share, left us with a debt that will take us three years to pay off.
A second problem is the lack of any effective system for regulating rates and prices. Medicare and Medicaid payment practices exacerbate the problem. There is a doctor in Pine Bluff who will take only Medicare and Medicaid patients, because the government pays its bills promptly with little muss, fuss, or oversight. The man lives like a king.
Any health-care program implemented in California that does not take cost oversight seriously is ultimately headed for bankruptcy.
-
It'll be fixed when people (read socialists) come to understand that the government isn't there to give everything to you at the expense of others.
In other words, it'll never be fixed.
-
I spent six hours in the hospital two weeks ago and it cost damn near $3,000. o.O
-
Thing that really pissed me off is that this socialized medical bill , it
covers "everyone living in California " .....everyone , all etl...
Illegals , too .....
The bill sucks , and so do the people who wrote it ....
Taxes going up ? more like thru the roof paying for this kinda crap .
-
Well, illegals are already getting free health care so why not the rest of ya? You're gonna need a hefty tax to cover it though. Don't tie it to income and make those illegals anty up more.
-
What makes you think the government can't do a better job of managing healthcare than the private sector? The military has an excellent medical system.
-
Arnie better veto the **** out of that crap. One of the stupidest assembly bills ever, and that's really saying something considering the idiocy those clowns have come up with in the past.
-
Medical care is already socialized. It goes hand in hand with welfare.
-
The problem is that (according to the article) they are trying to abolish private insurance for those of us who aren't on welfare.
-
if (and that is a big if) Arnie passes this, then on june 15th i will be packing my bags and getting out of this state. How good is college in colorado and/or utah?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
health care is broken.. it needs fixing.
When I want something fixed, I can't think of any group worse for the job than the Assembly.
-
One of the things the guy who is sponsoring the bill said was that it was for "everybody"
In other words... you did not have to be a citizen of kalifornia or even of the U.S.
What it amounts to is that we will cover not just kalifornia but the world. It is a health care plan for all of mexico as well as kalifornia.
No one will be turned away.
It really "fixes" nothing. We simply pay more. Those who work pay for everyone. They say that it will "only" cost about 10% of everyones salary to implement.... figure more like 30% if there are no restraints on it. Those who work and get health care now will lose their benifits and take a big hit on their wages to boot.
The way it is supposed to work is that it will cut down on the cost of paperwork to a few cents on the dollar instead of the 20 cents that HMO's and private plans do... medicare is currently running 30 cents on the dollar for paperwork tho in kalifornia so.....
lazs
-
Originally posted by rpm
What makes you think the government can't do a better job of managing healthcare than the private sector?
Why is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." a funny statement?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
The problem is that (according to the article) they are trying to abolish private insurance for those of us who aren't on welfare.
That would absolutely piss me off if it happened in Florida.
I love my health insurance. I had outpatient surgery in 2001. My copay was $30 total, including the initial visit with the surgeon, the pre-op stuff, the actual surgery, the visit to get the staples out, and the medication.
A visit to the doctor costs me $5 out of pocket.
My insurance costs me under 2% of my gross paycheck every two weeks, but that's because I'm single. It'd be 3 to 4 times as much if I had dependents.
-
Originally posted by rpm
What makes you think the government can't do a better job of managing healthcare than the private sector? The military has an excellent medical system.
Some would disagree with you on that statement but I think it's pretty good care. However, the military produces no product and is completely dependent on those who do. Complete socialization of health care will result either in much lower standards than what you currently have or much higher costs. Lazs' 30% of everyone's income sounds right to me. It will go higher unless you limit it to legal residents.
-
Wow - had no idea this was on the cards.
I've some very real experience of this kind of thing, having lived in the UK with its National Health Service (NHS) prior to moving to California.
Let me tell you about the UK's NHS. Firstly the good - if you need to see a doctor, you will - free of charge. If you have an accident, an Ambulance will pick you up and take you to an emergancy room where you will be treated free-of charge. If you need a prescription, it will cost you no more than approximately $25. Sound great huh?
However, there's a few downsides:
Firstly, if you need to see a specialist or have in-patient care, be prepared to wait. Years.
Secondly, free-of-charge is, of course, no such thing. Direct taxation (what get's taken out of my sallary each month) is almost exactly equivalent between the UK and California. However, that's only because raising income tax is political suicide in the UK. Instead, 'Stealth' taxes are the preffered method of revenue generation. How does 17.5% sales tax grab you? Or $6 a gallon of gas?
Thirdly, there is a whole underclass of people in Britain working the benefits system who are costing the NHS uncounted millions and contributing nothing.
Healthcare in the US may seem expensive, but I'm willing to bet if I did the math my insurance costs are less than I was contributing through taxes in the UK. At least here I'm only paying for myself and my dependants. Back home I was also paying for all the leaching scum with no interest in ever working for a living.
Finally, DMV has nothing on the NHS in terms of wasteful, arrogant, useless beurocracy.
Ultimately, universal access to healthcare sounds great, but in my experince, it'll come at the expense of quality of service and huge costs to those of us who'll be paying for it.
-
Originally posted by wooley
At least here I'm only paying for myself and my dependants. Back home I was also paying for all the leaching scum with no interest in ever working for a living.
If only that were true but it ain't. There are a lot of people using our health care system that can't or won't pay. Those who can and do pay are also paying for those who aren't through higher health care costs and resultant higher insurance premiums. We're already half way there in socializing medicine.
-
Healthcare in the US may seem expensive, but I'm willing to bet if I did the math my insurance costs are less than I was contributing through taxes in the UK.
I wouldn't be so sure on that, and don't forget what you pay in taxes for healthcare in the US. This year, Medicare and Medicaid will cost about $680 billion. The NHS in Britain will cost about $150 billion. As the US has just under 5 times the population, just the medicare and medicaid budgets will cost almost as much per capita as the NHS in Britain. When you add in all government (federal and state and local) funded health care, the US spends the same or slightly more on state funded healthcare than the UK.
And then you have your insurance premiums on top. Don't forget that these also go to subsidise healthcare for others, as doctors and hospitals provide a certain level of treatment to those who can't or won't pay.
The US currently spends about 15% of it's GDP on healthcare, the UK about 7.5%
Thirdly, there is a whole underclass of people in Britain working the benefits system who are costing the NHS uncounted millions and contributing nothing.
That is nothing to do with healthcare, of course, more to do with social security, and it's where such a large proportion of British taxes go.
EDIT: According to the CDC, as of 2002 health spending per capita in the US was $5,317, in the UK it was $2,160. 44% of spending in the US came from federal and state government, 36% from health insurance, 20% from out of pocket payments and other private funds.
So government paid $2,233 per capita for medical costs in the US, slightly more than total health spending in the UK. When you add in the subsidy built in to insurance premiums to cover costs of those who can't or won't pay, in the US you are spending considerably more subsidising healthcare than taxpayers in the UK.
-
so nashwan... you are saying that the U.S. government does a much worse job at providing healthcare than the UK? I would agree... imagine if we allowed them to not just run medicare but the entire system.
Besides.... anyone want the brit waits for real healthcare or...
How bout them british dentists? that what you want?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How bout them british dentists?
lazs [/B]
There's nothing wrong with British dentists - its just convincing British people to go see one every now and then that's the problem. :D
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Arnie better veto the **** out of that crap. One of the stupidest assembly bills ever, and that's really saying something considering the idiocy those clowns have come up with in the past.
Only reason morons in Sac sent it to him is because they know he will veto it. No way is it a serious piece of leg. that they hope to get signed in.