Reply With Quote
I'll just bet it is.
While Repugs screw up health care with their MURDEROUS tax-plan for the oligarchy, the CA Dems, yet again take the lead, and show USA how it's done, and yet again, demonstrate that CA is vastly superior to ing, backward TX.
===========================
The California Senate recently voted to pass a bill that would establish a single-payer healthcare system for the entire state. The proposal, called the Healthy California Act, will now be taken up by the state Assembly.
The plan enjoys widespread support — a recent poll commissioned by the California Nurses Assn. found that
70% of all Californians are in favor of a single-payer plan
— and with good reason. Under Healthy California, all residents would be en led to
decent healthcare without having to pay premiums, deductibles or copays.
But as critics of the bill have pointed out, a crucial question remains: Is Healthy California economically viable? According to research I conducted with three colleagues at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the answer is yes.
Enacting Healthy California would entail an overhaul of the state’s existing healthcare system, which now cons utes about 14% of California’s GDP.
In particular, it would mean replacing the state’s private health insurance industry with government-managed insurance.
Our study — which was also commissioned by the California Nurses Assn. — concludes not only that the proposal is financially sound, but that it will produce greater equity in the healthcare sector for families and businesses of all sizes.
California will spend about $370 billion on healthcare in 2017.
Assuming the state’s existing system stayed intact, the cost of extending coverage to all California residents, including the nearly 15 million people who are currently uninsured or underinsured, would increase healthcare spending by about 10%, to roughly $400 billion.
That’s not the full story, though.
Enacting a single-payer system would yield considerable savings overall by lowering administrative costs, controlling the prices of pharmaceuticals and fees for physicians and hospitals, reducing unnecessary treatments and expanding preventive care.
We found that Healthy California could ultimately result in savings of about 18%, bringing healthcare spending to about $331 billion, or 8% less than the current $370 billion.
How would California cover this $331-billion bill?
For the most part, much the same way it covers healthcare spending right now.
Roughly 70% of the state’s current spending is paid for through public programs, including Medicare and MediCal.
This funding — totaling about $225 billion — would continue, as is required by law. It would simply flow through Healthy California rather than existing programs.
The state would still need to raise about $106 billion a year to cover the cost of replacing private insurance.
This could be done with two new taxes.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ct-very-doable
I'll just bet it is.
I wonder if California Nurses Assn. is willing to have their salaries controlled too to make this doable. Be careful what you wish for. I see people with major health problems flooding into CA and a mass exodus of physicians, therapists, pharmacists, PAs, etc. if this bill passes.
Move to California and post your bull in a Laker forum then got. I hope that state sinks to the bottom of the ocean with everyone in Hollywood climbing on top of each other to save themselves. It could be a modern day tower of Babel made out of Liberal flesh. Take that to your safe space and smoke it got.
Do it Cali!
Single payer at the state level makes little sense. States have to tax in order to spend, while the federal government does not.
I don't see how this will work. Anyone who gets sick can just go establish residence in CA?
how do the nurses react when you go to the hospital and lol "negotiate"?
hmmm...so you won't be visiting anytime soon?
dont post stuff i dont agree with here
Yay more sales tax in California
He's the biggest poster on Spurstalk and he/she interjects said posting into every thread in the political forum with a bevy of new threads daily. No debate - just Trash this and Repug that. He can go his mother some more for all I care.
Other people's posting does not justify yours.
Fuzzy admitting he has no idea what posting is
The whole find another country, state, or whatever because someone has different views from you in a democracy is posting.Fuzzy admitting he has no idea what posting is
The whole take on a safe space after being triggered into desiring your own was just gold.
Never said such.
Someone does not understand what the conjunction "or" means.
We live in a representative Republic. Someone does not understand what government means. You can keep the conjunctions.
A democratic republic where all citizens vote democratically for their representatives in the republic.
Yours was still posting.
establishing CA residency will of course be fundamental, but for decades colleges have known how to charge different tuition for in-state/out-of-state students.
and how does MA do it?
California’s single-payer blues
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KCRA) —
At a legislative reception in Sacramento this week, a well-known health care advocate quipped that single-payer health care is “the system of the future … and always will be.”
The line got some laughs, but it carries an uncomfortable truth. It’s difficult to see how the California Legislature can be poised to pass a universal health care plan without knowing how to pay for it.
And yet, Democrats in the Senate put up the votes earlier this month to pass SB 562, a wide-ranging reform plan that would boot private insurance companies and replace them with a government-run program that would pay health care providers. According to a staff analysis, this ambitious plan would cost roughly $400 billion a year. That is more than twice the size of the entire state budget.
The California Nurses Association, which is sponsoring the bill, believes the answer is to increase our taxes. Hike the state sales tax and business receipts tax by 2.3 percent, the labor union says. It also commissioned its own study from the University of Massachusetts, which concluded that turning health care management over to the government would save money.
The nurses union has long nurtured the idea of a single payer system, and its leaders are now pursuing a scorched-earth approach by threatening to bankroll campaigns intended to defeat elected Democratic officeholders next year if they don’t fall in line. They are as disdainful of the state’s Democratic Party leadership in Sacramento on the left as the House Freedom Caucus is of Republican leadership in Washington on the right.
What happens next? David Townsend, one of the smartest Democratic political operatives I know and a key advisor to a bloc of moderate Assembly Democrats, stepped into the fray this week in an opinion piece published by the Sacramento Bee.
Calling the Senate health care vote “outrageous” and “hypocritical,” Townsend warned that Democrats are courting political disaster next year.
“If California Democrats want to hold on to their majorities in the state legislature, and provide leadership nationally for a party that appears intent on squandering any opportunity to retake the House in 2018, they must get in sync with the state’s electorate by choosing pragmatic policymaking over ideology,” Townsend wrote.
Gov. Jerry Brown, who’s had his share of clashes with labor, is also no fan of the single-payer plan. At a meeting with reporters in Washington in March, he expressed distress with the unknown cost.
“This is called ‘the unknown by means of the more unknown,’" Brown said. “In other words, you take a problem, and say ‘I am going to solve it by something that’s a bigger problem’, which makes no sense.”
It’s clear that Brown has no intention of signing the bill if it reaches his desk. In the meantime, the Senate has punted this hot potato to the Assembly, where it awaits a vote. Despite threats from the left, it should be a straightforward decision by the Democrats: without a clear funding plan, passing this kind of far-reaching reform would be reckless for patient and politician alike.
Do it Cali!
Appears that two GOPo s did not read the OP.
25% of healthcare spending is spent on administrative overhead. I don't think that salaries for nurses would have to be directly affected.
22% of all for profit health insurance, on average, goes to company profits.
There is more than enough room to accomplish single payor, and a vast amount of waste (administrative overhead and insurance company profits) that would go a long way towards making health insurance cheaper.
The State of California would then also have a huge amount of leverage when it comes to confronting pharmaceutical companies that charge $600 for an epipen.
It may even be in the state's interest to fund new drug development, so you have the further potential for an R & D boom. Dunno.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
