• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California to weigh single-payer, universal health care plan

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
[FONT=&quot]SACRAMENTO — In a surprise move made in response to President Donald Trump’s push to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, two California lawmakers Friday introduced legislation to replace private medical insurance with a government health care system covering all 38 million Californians — including its undocumented residents.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“We’ve reached this pivotal moment and I thought to myself: ‘Look, now more than ever is the time to talk about universal health care,’” one of Senate Bill 562’s authors, Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, said in an interview Friday.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Healthy California Act, co-authored by Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, was submitted just before the deadline for new legislation. It doesn’t yet offer many specifics other than the lawmakers’ intent: to create a so-called single-payer system that would pay for coverage for everyone.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Proponents argue that single-payer systems make health care more affordable and efficient because they eliminate the need for reams of paperwork, but opponents say they raise taxpayer costs and give government too much power.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Medicare, the federally funded health coverage for the elderly, is often held up as a model of what a single-payer system might look like.[/FONT]
Click to expand...
California lawmakers introduce single-payer health care plan today

Cali roads are collapsing, your dams and water infrastructure is in jeopardy... PLEASE show us the "wonderfulness" that is single payer, I really really hope they do this. Seriously, I do.

The economic implosion of California will be a great lesson for the rest of the country.
 
Renae said:
California lawmakers introduce single-payer health care plan today

Cali roads are collapsing, your dams and water infrastructure is in jeopardy... PLEASE show us the "wonderfulness" that is single payer, I really really hope they do this. Seriously, I do.

The economic implosion of California will be a great lesson for the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

If it is constitutional to force people into a single payer system it seems fine, if Californians legitimize it. The experiment will be interesting. But one must remember that it will take at least thirty and probably more like fifty years to judge it. This type of program takes a very long time to work itself through society. And it is good for States to experiment with different social structures and systems.
 
joG said:
If it is constitutional to force people into a single payer system it seems fine, if Californians legitimize it. The experiment will be interesting. But one must remember that it will take at least thirty and probably more like fifty years to judge it. This type of program takes a very long time to work itself through society. And it is good for States to experiment with different social structures and systems.
Click to expand...

actually it is given the obamacare ruling. the government can force any citizen to buy any product that it deems as long as they tax it.
it was a horrible loss of freedom for the people in the US where the government can now force a private citizen to buy a product they do not want.

in this case though I see CA economic collapse coming. VT tried this and I think there was another state MN looked into it as well.

I think in MN the cost would be 500b more than the state had ever brought in. in order to pay for it the state would have to double it's income tax
and almost double it's sales tax. it dropped the idea shortly after the numbers came in.

then there was the VT debacle. it would cost VT 4.3 billion dollars to implement single payer.
in 2015 their entire budget was 4.5 billion dollars.

now that is just VT. VT has a population of 626562 people give or take.
that means that government would spend about 7200 per person on healthcare.

to stay at that 4.5b mark. we know that is not possible.

so CA has ~39m people. they have 2.4m illegals living as estimated that would receive benefits as well. so lets round up and make it 43m people.

it would cost CA at just 7,200 per person 309.6 billion dollars for single payer.

the CA budget in 2016 was 171b dollars. so single payer at a paltry 7,200 per person is almost double their current budget.
medicare and Medicaid would not cover this.
 
Renae said:
California lawmakers introduce single-payer health care plan today

Cali roads are collapsing, your dams and water infrastructure is in jeopardy... PLEASE show us the "wonderfulness" that is single payer, I really really hope they do this. Seriously, I do.

The economic implosion of California will be a great lesson for the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

It was on the last ballot in Colorado, and failed badly. I hope they pass it. It will be a good example for our country. It cuts out the insurance middle-man, the extravagant salaries of insurance CEOs, and all that unnecessary paperwork.
 
Renae said:
California lawmakers introduce single-payer health care plan today

Cali roads are collapsing, your dams and water infrastructure is in jeopardy... PLEASE show us the "wonderfulness" that is single payer, I really really hope they do this. Seriously, I do.

The economic implosion of California will be a great lesson for the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

How is it that just about every other modern country has been able to provide universal healthcare through public and private options at half the cost yet it is absolutely impossible socialist fantasy land for us to do it?
 
Renae said:
California lawmakers introduce single-payer health care plan today

Cali roads are collapsing, your dams and water infrastructure is in jeopardy... PLEASE show us the "wonderfulness" that is single payer, I really really hope they do this. Seriously, I do.

The economic implosion of California will be a great lesson for the rest of the country.
Click to expand...
California's in a sorry state, I agree, but single-payer is the only way to fix healthcare. Obama won that battle.

victus qui se victus
 
ludin said:
actually it is given the obamacare ruling. the government can force any citizen to buy any product that it deems as long as they tax it.
it was a horrible loss of freedom for the people in the US where the government can now force a private citizen to buy a product they do not want.

in this case though I see CA economic collapse coming. VT tried this and I think there was another state MN looked into it as well.

I think in MN the cost would be 500b more than the state had ever brought in. in order to pay for it the state would have to double it's income tax
and almost double it's sales tax. it dropped the idea shortly after the numbers came in.

then there was the VT debacle. it would cost VT 4.3 billion dollars to implement single payer.
in 2015 their entire budget was 4.5 billion dollars.

now that is just VT. VT has a population of 626562 people give or take.
that means that government would spend about 7200 per person on healthcare.

to stay at that 4.5b mark. we know that is not possible.

so CA has ~39m people. they have 2.4m illegals living as estimated that would receive benefits as well. so lets round up and make it 43m people.

it would cost CA at just 7,200 per person 309.6 billion dollars for single payer.

the CA budget in 2016 was 171b dollars. so single payer at a paltry 7,200 per person is almost double their current budget.
medicare and Medicaid would not cover this.
Click to expand...

I suspect it would end up before the USSC, which may or may not find in the same way as presently stands.

The size of financial shifts required will certainly strain the fiscal situation and economy.
 
BlackBook said:
California's in a sorry state, I agree, but single-payer is the only way to fix healthcare. Obama won that battle.

victus qui se victus
Click to expand...


Where Bernie got tripped up with single payer will be the same problem in California. Who pays? Currently most working people get their insurance from their employer. So moving to single payer is a big profit boost to corporations. Employees would have to pay somehow. Probably with a regressive payroll tax.

You can only tax the Silicon valley billionaires so much before they leave.
 
Well California could most likely do it, they have size to greatly reduce costs, don't underestimate their size. People and corporations would no longer have to pay for healthcare basically giving them extra spending money and more profits to tax as well as reducing costs to those enrolled in Medicaid.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
actually it is given the obamacare ruling. the government can force any citizen to buy any product that it deems as long as they tax it.
it was a horrible loss of freedom for the people in the US where the government can now force a private citizen to buy a product they do not want.

in this case though I see CA economic collapse coming. VT tried this and I think there was another state MN looked into it as well.

I think in MN the cost would be 500b more than the state had ever brought in. in order to pay for it the state would have to double it's income tax
and almost double it's sales tax. it dropped the idea shortly after the numbers came in.

then there was the VT debacle. it would cost VT 4.3 billion dollars to implement single payer.
in 2015 their entire budget was 4.5 billion dollars.

now that is just VT. VT has a population of 626562 people give or take.
that means that government would spend about 7200 per person on healthcare.

to stay at that 4.5b mark. we know that is not possible.

so CA has ~39m people. they have 2.4m illegals living as estimated that would receive benefits as well. so lets round up and make it 43m people.

it would cost CA at just 7,200 per person 309.6 billion dollars for single payer.

the CA budget in 2016 was 171b dollars. so single payer at a paltry 7,200 per person is almost double their current budget.
medicare and Medicaid would not cover this.
Click to expand...

A state which according to one study is the 7th worst so far as public sector financial soundness, a state which is even now when we are not in a recession is talking about tapping into its 27 days worth of spending rainy day fund because they cant pay their bills, is maybe not ready to start a new several billion dollars a year project.

MAYBE



https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings/california


Should California's Rainy Day Fund Be Used Even When There's No Recession? - capradio.org
 
there should be no bailout for california no matter how bad it gets there
 
washunut said:
Where Bernie got tripped up with single payer will be the same problem in California. Who pays? Currently most working people get their insurance from their employer. So moving to single payer is a big profit boost to corporations. Employees would have to pay somehow. Probably with a regressive payroll tax.

You can only tax the Silicon valley billionaires so much before they leave.
Click to expand...

Big profits that are then taxed and where do you think that individual portion would go? It means those that did not have employer provided insurance would have more money to spend on things, again more things that are taxed. It would also greatly reduce costs to those already receiving publicly funded healthcare as costs would be reduced. Not to mention that single-payer would allow more people to work for themselves and start their own company, also creating more tax income for the state. I also would not underestimate the cost reductions California could get, they are a ****ing massive state.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
How is it that just about every other modern country has been able to provide universal healthcare through public and private options at half the cost yet it is absolutely impossible socialist fantasy land for us to do it?
Click to expand...

Because they don't have a military to speak of and they have a homogeneous population, thus being more able to see themselves as "one". Plus, they don't have the poverty and violence the US does. They don't pay under market wages to illegals to keep the price of a head of lettuce down, they eat less lettuce. Maybe when illegals are gone, violent criminals are dead or in jail, and everyone is employed again, maybe it can be made to work. You can't keep giving the government money to shovel into the furnace.

The biggest problem California faces is poverty and wealth. The economic prosperity is in a thin thread along the coast and certain enclaves in the LA area, plus certain internet related businesses. California's economics have always been a "boom or bust" economy because the rich float the bills. When business slows California's finances collapse. Probably the underlying reason for this is to siphon off money to put off the day or reckoning when retirees have to take a haircut and the **** hits the fan at the ballot box.

View attachment 67214231

So if you are going to subsidize the poor by taxing the rich, you are really pushing your luck. The rich are taxed enough as it is.
 
washunut said:
Where Bernie got tripped up with single payer will be the same problem in California. Who pays? Currently most working people get their insurance from their employer. So moving to single payer is a big profit boost to corporations. Employees would have to pay somehow. Probably with a regressive payroll tax.

You can only tax the Silicon valley billionaires so much before they leave.
Click to expand...

Who's paying for it now? We pay twice as much per capita for healthcare that other developed nations pay and we still let the poor die and the middle class go bankrupt from medical expenses. A public option is cheaper than the corporate cleptocracy we have today. Lack of funds is not the problem.

chuckiechan said:
Because they don't have a military to speak of and they have a homogeneous population, thus being more able to see themselves as "one". Plus, they don't have the poverty and violence the US does. They don't pay under market wages to illegals to keep the price of a head of lettuce down, they eat less lettuce. Maybe when illegals are gone, violent criminals are dead or in jail, and everyone is employed again, maybe it can be made to work. You can't keep giving the government money to shovel into the furnace.

The biggest problem California faces is poverty and wealth. The economic prosperity is in a thin thread along the coast and certain enclaves in the LA area, plus certain internet related businesses. California's economics have always been a "boom or bust" economy because the rich float the bills. When business slows California's finances collapse. Probably the underlying reason for this is to siphon off money to put off the day or reckoning when retirees have to take a haircut and the **** hits the fan at the ballot box.

View attachment 67214231

So if you are going to subsidize the poor by taxing the rich, you are really pushing your luck. The rich are taxed enough as it is.
Click to expand...

This is incredibly incorrect. Homogenous population? Military spending? Wtf does that have to do with the costs of healthcare? Just stop with the nonsensical "the rich are being assaulted" bull**** because we pay more than everyone else to get less.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
Who's paying for it now? We pay twice as much per capita for healthcare that other developed nations pay and we still let the poor die and the middle class go bankrupt from medical expenses. A public option is cheaper than the corporate cleptocracy we have today. Lack of funds is not the problem.
Click to expand...

should people with higher income pay more for socialized medical care?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Who's paying for it now? We pay twice as much per capita for healthcare that other developed nations pay and we still let the poor die and the middle class go bankrupt from medical expenses. A public option is cheaper than the corporate cleptocracy we have today. Lack of funds is not the problem.
Click to expand...

They don't understand the concept of cost reductions, they have no idea what purpose single-payer serves other than socialism apparently.
 
Renae said:
California lawmakers introduce single-payer health care plan today

Cali roads are collapsing, your dams and water infrastructure is in jeopardy... PLEASE show us the "wonderfulness" that is single payer, I really really hope they do this. Seriously, I do.

The economic implosion of California will be a great lesson for the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

Given that every single payer system in the world costs the taxpayer less than the current US private system, I think this benefit the people of California financially as well as benefitting their health.
 
chuckiechan said:
Because they don't have a military to speak of and they have a homogeneous population, thus being more able to see themselves as "one". Plus, they don't have the poverty and violence the US does. They don't pay under market wages to illegals to keep the price of a head of lettuce down, they eat less lettuce. Maybe when illegals are gone, violent criminals are dead or in jail, and everyone is employed again, maybe it can be made to work. You can't keep giving the government money to shovel into the furnace.

The biggest problem California faces is poverty and wealth. The economic prosperity is in a thin thread along the coast and certain enclaves in the LA area, plus certain internet related businesses. California's economics have always been a "boom or bust" economy because the rich float the bills. When business slows California's finances collapse. Probably the underlying reason for this is to siphon off money to put off the day or reckoning when retirees have to take a haircut and the **** hits the fan at the ballot box.

View attachment 67214231

So if you are going to subsidize the poor by taxing the rich, you are really pushing your luck. The rich are taxed enough as it is.
Click to expand...

Plus the rich know how to move.
 
washunut said:
Where Bernie got tripped up with single payer will be the same problem in California. Who pays? Currently most working people get their insurance from their employer. So moving to single payer is a big profit boost to corporations. Employees would have to pay somehow. Probably with a regressive payroll tax.

You can only tax the Silicon valley billionaires so much before they leave.
Click to expand...
Single-payer is not a system of plans with enrolled members and employer contributions.

Single-payer is nationalized healthcare. It gets paid for the same way all government programs get paid for. Taxes. There are no premiums. There are no co-pays. There are no deductibles. There is only one hefty tax; in Germany I think it's something like 20% just for single-payer.

California can do it if they shed their Leftist fiscal policies.

victus qui se victus
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
They don't understand the concept of cost reductions, they have no idea what purpose single-payer serves other than socialism apparently.
Click to expand...

should high income people pay more into single payer than the poor?
 
Mac77 said:
should high income people pay more into single payer than the poor?
Click to expand...

Well the funding is going to come from general taxation and generally people who make more money pay more taxes. The bill is already being paid by those people, cost reductions will be good.
 
Mac77 said:
should high income people pay more into single payer than the poor?
Click to expand...
They will because the tax is a percentage, not a fixed value.

victus qui se victus
 
RabidAlpaca said:
How is it that just about every other modern country has been able to provide universal healthcare through public and private options at half the cost yet it is absolutely impossible socialist fantasy land for us to do it?
Click to expand...

Because we aren't subjects, we are citizens and have a say.
 
California had better start recruiting more low cost physicians to replace the ones who will likely leave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom