In the US, the cost of an aspirin in a hospital is like $50 a pill.
Private insurers that have contracts with a health system don't pay anything like that. It's much more in line with what a gov't pays hospitals under UHC.
In the US, the cost of an aspirin in a hospital is like $50 a pill.
yeah, all those illegal immigrants that pretty much already pay every tax minus income (and then, they can do that if they get an EIN) but can't actually use most of the services will be the dead weight in this system?
el
oh
el
Seriously, illegal immigrants pay more taxes than some extremely large corporations. Not even as a percentile, but in actual raw dollars.
Enlighten me: how will they have the healthcare-specific tax being discussed in this thread (which is what will actually fund the system) levied against them? If they can't, and won't, then yes the system will be financially unsustainable. Librul-GAF tears notwithstanding.
People talking about how they pay sales/other taxes are entirely missing the point: so does everyone else. Yet there's a reason Cali will be levying new taxes to support this program. Why would they do that, if sales and other taxes were sufficient to fund this program? Oh, wait, that's right - because they're not.
I wonder how huge the first-day lines would be if and when this ever gets implemented. Of all the people who have some sort of health problem now but can't afford care.
I also wonder if and by how much total health expenditure will go down when people can go to the doctor when their problems are just starting instead of almost too late. There's a huge cost difference between removing a small tumor and treating full blown cancer for example.
IIRC, tax increases in CA require a supermajority of the legislature to vote for it or to pass by referendum and apparently voters also have to exempt it from spending limits and budget formulas in the state constitution.Can anyone explain why this needs to get approved by a public vote? Things like these should never be put up for a vote. 9 times out of 10, people will reject any new taxes even if its better for them in the long run.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- The prospects of a government-run health care system in California dimmed Friday when the leader of the state Assembly announced he doesn't plan to take up the single-payer bill this year.
The bill, which has passed the Senate, lays out a plan for a government-run health system in California, but it doesn't include a way to pay for it. Rendon said the bill also doesn't adequately address delivery of care and cost.
The bill has an estimated price tag of $400 billion per year. Paying for it would require new taxes and cooperation from President Donald Trump's administration to redirect existing federal money.
It would guarantee health care for all California residents and eliminate out-of-pocket costs for consumers, like copays and deductibles. The legislation was championed by the California Nurses Association and the Democratic Party's more liberal wing.
Rendon suggested the Senate draft a new version of the bill that addresses how to finance the plan and more clearly details how it would work. He also suggested the plan could be taken to voters in the form of a ballot measure. In the meantime, he said he would not advance the bill through the Assembly committee process.
"This action does not mean SB 562 is dead," Rendon said. "In fact, it leaves open the exact deep discussion and debate the senators who voted for SB 562 repeatedly said is needed."
Is it normal to expect the details like how it's going to be paid, to be in a draft or is he being a dick?
What other options did he have on the table?
How do we run him out of town, if I'm not happy with the responses?
What's next?
If you live in California, call your representative in the assembly (especially if your representative is a Democrat). The nurses have also advised calling and faxing Rendon to voice your disapproval.
I also saw on twitter that people were canvassing Rendon's district. I don't know if that was only for one day or if that will happen again.
I'll do my part.
Is it normal to expect the details like how it's going to be paid, to be in a draft or is he being a dick?
What other options did he have on the table?
How do we run him out of town, if I'm not happy with the responses?
What's next?
I'm not a politician - and I am not necessarily against single payer. My knowledge is obviously very limited in politics - but my ignorant ass would vote against this bill if it was presented to me because I don't know how much it's gonna cost, how we are paying for it, and if we are raising taxes on my constituents and, if so, how much.
Is it normal to expect the details like how it's going to be paid, to be in a draft or is he being a dick?
What other options did he have on the table?
How do we run him out of town, if I'm not happy with the responses?
What's next?
I mean, that's kind of the whole thing.
Anthony Rendon. Some of his top donors for election include Abbott, AbbVie, Sanofi, McKesson, and GlaxoSmithKline. The money he takes from the healthcare industry probably has nothing to do with his decision here.
It's not perfectly written, but a lot of the details could be hashed out later, and a real effort by the state would go a long way in smoothing out the flaws.I mean sure, but according to the article the bill is still lacking a lot of important details.
Anthony Rendon. Some of his top donors for election include Abbott, AbbVie, Sanofi, McKesson, and GlaxoSmithKline. The money he takes from the healthcare industry probably has nothing to do with his decision here.
So stupid.
Isn't this a regression for every single californian currently on an employer sponsored health plan?
single payer already failed in VermontThey can't risk the first state to implement single payer failing because they didn't hash out the general payment structure ahead of time. It will reflect very poorly on Democrats and will give the GOP ammo to fight other single payer efforts for the next decade.
Please get this right California.
Whats stupid? Thinking that the entities that financed his election campaign might hold some kind of influence over his decisions?
A payroll tax can be imposed on either the employer or the employee. So basically impose the majority of it on the employer (to replace the premiums they are paying for you) and a smaller portion of it on the employer (to replace the smaller portion of the premiums that you currently pay) and that should take the burden off individuals without hurting companies too much.
Isn't this a regression for every single californian currently on an employer sponsored health plan?
I always wonder if people realize how whiny they sound when they say this.Plus, on a personal level, I despise almost all mandatory things.
single payer already failed in Vermont
I mean, this makes total sense...I don't know why people are upset. Without funding the program ceases to exist. Are they going to raise taxes? If not, are they going to pull funds from another program to cover the costs? What about the countless other state and federal health services like Medicaid? How do they fit in? Will they be consolidated and, if so, will the law need changed to reflect this? What are the potential roadblocks?
Funding might actually be the easy part. The legal aspect of this will be unbelievably complex. Legal experts/politicians will need to debate every little detail, and many might not see eye to eye. They will need to study foreign models and fine tune it to state and federal laws.
So I really don't get why people are upset. The bill that was passed is just us Liberals patting ourselves on the back for our progressive ideals, as well as a big "Fuck You." to conservatives, which is fine as long as we appreciate the many complexities of embracing an entirely different model. Relax, we're going to get this done, Its just going to take some time. We cannot be incompetent while the rest of the country is watches.
That's because they couldn't find the money for it. Outside of California and New York none of the states looking at single payer would be able to pay for it.
which is why it's so important that when both states implement it that it's flawless
You think California can pay for it? The state that has more debt than any other state, spends uncontrollably, and can't even handle its existing financial obligations?
Anthony Rendon. Some of his top donors for election include Abbott, AbbVie, Sanofi, McKesson, and GlaxoSmithKline. The money he takes from the healthcare industry probably has nothing to do with his decision here.