Basically, then, you would prefer expanded government services, coupled with Big Government. I would prefer exactly the opposite.
The great majority of your post, I agree with. (I would consider myself center-right: My favorite magazines, for instance, are National Review and the Weekly Standard. And I much prefer Fox News to the alternatives.) My only point was this: Why are many on the left attempting to prop up ObamaCare? It would make much more sense for them to call for UHC--even though I do not want either.
That of course is the Republican myth. Silly, but they do keep repeating it with no evidence to support the claim.
When you get your pain pill instead of the hip you'd get now, pat yourself on the back and enjoy your free ****
Why not? I do not want socialized medicine where the doctors and hospitals are under the government, but I want the government to be the insurer - as it is, the for-profit insurance companies have every incentive to deny payments to boost profit. The Palin "death panels" exist in insurance companies. I have read that Medicare does process claims cheaper than private insurers - you may feel you have "proven" otherwise, but there is so much propaganda out there under the guise of fact that the insurance companies spread in the interest of self-preservation. What we ARE No 1 at is COST, not results.
Irrelevant. The per-capita cost of medical care is lower by a large percentage. The high tax rates are used to pay for education, retirement, daycare, etc, etc.
You know what? Too bad. UHC is coming. Bet on it. And like it or not, you will be forced to pay less than you are now.
Well if the bill was put together with these issues you mentioned in mind, it could be done. For example, you could exclude everyone from the UHC program who is over 65 because they already have Medicare, thus making the UHC for everyone under 65. And that way, the FICA taxes would not be additional taxes. They would pay for the over 65 population, and the UHC taxes would pay for the under 65 population. The law could outlaw employer health programs for residents of the State of California. So a big national company could continue to provide health insurance for its non-California employees, but not its California employees. All companies currently providing health insurance as an employment benefit would cease doing so, but they could give pay raises to their California employees equivalent to the cost of the insurance the company used to be paying for if the company wanted to. The employee would still be receiving a health care benefit from their employer, but it would be in the form of cash rather than the actual insurance. The cash would offset, or partially offset, the cost of the new taxes that would be imposed to pay for the UHC. California is a large market, and I would think that California could negotiate with drug companies on pricing. And then there would have to be taxation to pay for the UHC. There are multiple ways to impose taxes, as you know. Income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes are all possibilities. I think it would be extremely interesting to see how California liberals would choose to pay for UHC. "Paying for it" is where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. "Paying for it" is where people put their money where their mouth is. And those taxes would have to be enough to pay for the travelers you mentioned as well. In just a few short paragraphs I proposed ways of implementing UHC in California that addressed the issues you raised. I would think that smart people in California could also find solutions just as easily. As always, when it comes down to it - where the rubber hits the road - the question is, are they willing to pay for it? I have no choice at this point but to answer "no", they aren't. They chose to stick to the status quo ... the most liberal state in the union said "no" to UHC. To be honest, I'd like to see them try it. We keep being told that California is like a nation because of its large population and its very large GDP. So if any state could pull it off, it would seem that California could ... if they truly wanted to.... and if the liberal elites of California were willing to give up their present health plans .... and if the people of California were willing to pay for it. The bottom line is that most things we want, we can have ... if we're willing to pay for them. If we aren't willing to pay for them, we can't have them. Frankly, in California's case, I don't think this is a case of "can't". It's a case of "won't". Seth
But you have another choice. We could just recognize that we are speculating and we don't actually know what happened to the idea. So we can't even actually conclude that they chose to stick to the status quo. Maybe they reluctantly did because of some unknown (by us) complications and disadvantages under our current situation. But again, it's speculation. It would be nice to actually know. (5 minutes later) UPDATE I looked it up and found this: "SACRAMENTO — As a legislative deadline loomed, California senators Thursday — in some cases, reluctantly — voted to pass a $400 billion plan to create a government-run health care system without a way to pay for it. "Senate Bill 562, by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, passed 23-14 and will now advance to the Assembly, where it will likely be amended to include taxes. And that would mean the measure would require two-thirds votes in both chambers. "The California Nurses Association, the bill’s lead sponsor, has pushed the proposal hard, organizing demonstrations at the California Democratic Convention last month and promising to “primary” incumbent Democrats who don’t jump on board. On Wednesday, a study commissioned by the nurses concluded that Californians could save tens of billions of dollars annually under such a system through lowering of drug prices and elimination of administrative overhead. "Most California families and businesses, the University of Massachusetts study said, would pay less for health care than they do now, even with the new taxes, because they would no longer pay premiums, deductibles or co-pays. "A Senate committee analysis released last week, however, estimated that the state would have to raise $200 billion in revenue each year, which it said could be done through a 15 percent payroll tax. "Republicans argued forcefully against the bill, questioning its cost and the very idea of a government-run program. "It’s also possible that voters might need to approve such a change because of a rule called the “Gann Limit,” a 1979 statewide measure approved by voters that limits the growth in spending of the state and local governments. "The vote put Democrats in an awkward position, and a number of lawmakers made that clear on the floor. "Sen. Ben Hueso, D-Chula Vista, said he could not support the proposal because it lacked so much detail that if it passed, the Senate would be “kicking the can down the road” to the Assembly, where, he predicted, it would die. “The people of our state deserve a more substantive discussion,” he said. “I don’t know what I’m voting on.” http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/01/california-senate-passes-single-payer-health-care-plan/ Then we have.... "Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon put the brakes on a sweeping plan to overhaul the health care market in California Friday, calling the bill “woefully incomplete.” "Rendon announced plans to park the bill to create a government-run universal health care system in Assembly Rules Committee 'until further notice' and give senators time to fill in holes that the bill does not currently address." http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article157974029.html So it stalled due to political wrangling and partisan opposition. The public's sentiment had nothing to do with the stalling. But it stalled for this year and will be revisited apparently.
I will be paying more, as will everyone else, because no one has brought up a single method to actually reduce costs.
Yes, it's speculation because the California politicians really didn't want to talk about it much. But Kode, ... .... Experience tells me it's about money. The bottom line is always money. Any good left wing California liberal will go on record as being for UHC. So, if they're for it, the reason they didn't pass it boils down to money. "Leave my pot of coins alone. I don't deserve to pay for it. Someone else should pay for it. Etc, etc, etc". You see, the rich in California don't want to pay more for health insurance than they already do. The middle class is struggling in California, so they don't want to give up income to pay for it either. And the lower class? They don't want to pay for it because they can't afford it, and they believe that the rich should pay for it. And so, in the end, no one wants to pay for it, and everyone has reasons why they shouldn't have to pay for it. And it begs the question ... If Californians aren't willing to pay for it, what makes us think the rest of the nation would be willing to pay for it?
I agree. Which is why I say Medicare administration is more expensive than private health insurance administration. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...e-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/
Seth, stop the speculating please. After I posted that I went back and researched it and added to that post to which you are replying here. Go back and look at my post again now that I've added information. And here's more.... "A full 70 percent of Californians favor establishing a public, Medicare for all type system providing universal single-payer health coverage, with lower costs for all Californians, as proposed in the Healthy California Act, SB 562. "Moreover, even after hearing the main opposition arguments to SB 562, a strong majority, by up to 58 percent say they still support the goals of SB 562. Less than a third oppose it." https://www.commondreams.org/newswi...-70-californians-support-ca-medicare-all-bill
Let 'em spin it however they want. Fact is that every other OECD country pays less and their healthcare administrative costs are less too. Don't tell me that while they can do it, we can't.
