• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

The California Senate Just Passed Single-Payer Health Care

brianjones

Member
Jan 10, 2010
23,329
0
0
WTH, it includes dental care and vision care. That's better than Canada's. 😲

But this is more or less how the single payer ball got rolling in Canada. Saskatchewan implemented it first, the other provinces saw how well it was working, and it was implemented nation wide.



haven't been to the dentist in longer than I care to admit
 

Aaron Strife

Banned
Oct 10, 2006
26,804
3
0
Between this and the news about California, New York and Washington teaming up to enforce the Paris climate accords, I wonder if some of the more liberal states would ever entertain entering into an interstate compact on single-payer until the federal government just implements it nationally.

Vermont tried their own version of single-payer that failed because they didn't have the money and too small of a population to make it work via tax increases. That wouldn't be a problem for California or New York.

Not sure what the legality of that would be though.

In any case, Massachusetts laid the groundwork for Obamacare, so hopefully single-payer will follow a similar trajectory.
 

Nekofrog

Banned
Nov 3, 2007
13,583
1
0
Literally yes please. I already have amazing insurance from work, now it's time for every one of my brothers and sisters to get it. I'll gleefully help pick up the tab.
 

KSweeley

Member
May 7, 2014
1,830
0
535
35
Baltimore, MD, USA
LA Times reports estimated cost for single-payer healthcare in CA is $400 billion, reports the proposal advanced without any firm proposal for financing: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...hcare-plan-advances-1496361965-htmlstory.html

Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate — without a way to pay its $400-billion tab

A proposal to adopt a single-payer healthcare system for California took an initial step forward Thursday when the state Senate approved a bare-bones bill that lacks a method for paying the $400-billion cost of the plan.

The proposal was made by legislators led by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) at the same time President Trump and Republican members of Congress are working to repeal and replace the federal Affordable Care Act.

“Despite the incredible progress California has made, millions still do not have access to health insurance and millions more cannot afford the high deductibles and co-pays, and they often forgo care,” Lara said during a floor debate on the bill.

The bill, which now goes to the state Assembly for consideration, will have to be further developed, Lara conceded, adding he hopes to reach a consensus on a way to pay for it.

A proposal to adopt a single-payer healthcare system for California took an initial step forward Thursday when the state Senate approved a bare-bones bill that lacks a method for paying the $400-billion cost of the plan.

The proposal was made by legislators led by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) at the same time President Trump and Republican members of Congress are working to repeal and replace the federal Affordable Care Act.

“Despite the incredible progress California has made, millions still do not have access to health insurance and millions more cannot afford the high deductibles and co-pays, and they often forgo care,” Lara said during a floor debate on the bill.

The bill, which now goes to the state Assembly for consideration, will have to be further developed, Lara conceded, adding he hopes to reach a consensus on a way to pay for it.

Lara said action is required because of what is happening in Washington.

“With President Trump’s promise to abandon the Affordable Care Act as we know it — for one that leaves millions without access to care — California is once again tasked to lead," he told his colleagues.

He said his father recently had heart bypass surgery but went through the emergency room for help after his insurance company initially turned him down.

Even if the bill is approved, it has to go to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been skeptical, and then voters would have to exempt it from spending limits and budget formulas in the state Constitution. In addition, the state would have to get federal approval to repurpose existing funds for Medicare and Medicaid.

Also from this LA Times article:

 

wedca

Member
Apr 22, 2015
404
0
270
Alot of the funding can come from Marijuana. In fact I would be surprised if marijuana sales tax doesn't end up funding single payer in some form here in CA.

I hope this ends up being the case.

The significantly large tax income from legal weed is undeniable and I think it is the single best way to convince people who would be against legalization to consider it. Showing that it is enough to pay for massively expensive social programs like single payer healthcare could further this, especially in poorer states.

Edit: Just saw the post above. $400 billion will not be made by weed tax, haha.
 

Robdraggoo

Member
Nov 20, 2013
8,610
1
0
As someone who pays a stupid amount of money for healthcare in California ($600+) this would actually stop me from moving to another state. One can only hope it gets implemented.
You dont Typically pay less in other states. Insurance companies usually use the same Irmi rating systems across the board. Might be different for medical but not sure
 

RuGalz

Member
Jun 8, 2004
5,201
0
1,440
I wonder if it will ever pass voters. At least anecdotally people cringe at any increase of tax for any reason.
 

AstroNut325

Member
Oct 15, 2011
11,558
1
0
San Gabriel Valley, SoCal
Haven't read the details yet. Is this going to the ballot as an initiative? I can easily see this being shot down by the insurance industry pumping trillions to push false propaganda to California residents.
 

SolarPowered

Member
Feb 17, 2009
25,573
0
0
Between this and the news about California, New York and Washington teaming up to enforce the Paris climate accords, I wonder if some of the more liberal states would ever entertain entering into an interstate compact on single-payer until the federal government just implements it nationally.

Vermont tried their own version of single-payer that failed because they didn't have the money and too small of a population to make it work via tax increases. That wouldn't be a problem for California or New York.

Not sure what the legality of that would be though.

In any case, Massachusetts laid the groundwork for Obamacare, so hopefully single-payer will follow a similar trajectory.
This is what I'm hoping for so badly. It'll never happen if we try to do it on a national level even if medicare for all is a popular proposal, but individual states coming together and forming giant markets should make it far easier to swallow.
 
Jun 13, 2014
7,301
3
530
I mean it sounds great in theory but the devil is going to be in the details, specifically the costs. California's entire 2016 budget was $167 billion. The estimate of the costs for a single year are $400b, and they are assuming $200-225b will come from the federal government, which isn't entirely reliably true. Its also historically accurate that cost forecasts are wildly underreporting how much something ends up actually costs, in government.

Its a great experiment though, probably woulda been better for a smaller state to do it (mass is NOT universal, single payer healthcare but more a patchwork like Obamacare) but if California can somehow make it work then it'll be a model for other states. Colorado presented a similar scenario to voters last fall and they rejected it.

The downside is that costs spiral out of control, higher taxes on big companies cause them to flee the state, higher income residents leave the state due to higher taxes, etc.
 

GoldenEye 007

Member
Jul 28, 2006
23,805
0
0
The Big D
LA Times reports estimated cost for single-payer healthcare in CA is $400 billion, reports the proposal advanced without any firm proposal for financing: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...hcare-plan-advances-1496361965-htmlstory.html



Also from this LA Times article:
Wouldn't the state be able to have employers direct the massive premiums they pay into a state healthcare fund?

Currently that $400-1000+ a month employers pay are simply going to insurance companies to pay for health insurance.
 

Hale-XF11

Member
Jul 14, 2011
8,869
20
720
I can only imagine the peace of mind that would come from never having to deal with an insurance company ever again.
 

Raging Spaniard

If they are Dutch, upright and breathing they are more racist than your favorite player
Mar 26, 2007
15,868
4
0
California
www.raging-spaniard.com
Where do you live? Depending on where you live in CA, some areas should have the very cheapest exchange plans in the nation. In LA my silver plan is 288/month at age 36.

San Fran. Mind you Im paying for my wife and I. There is cheaper private insurance but the coverage is the usual awful pre ACA deals. If you have any leads I could look into, Id be happy to look at them, please DM :)
 
Oct 6, 2015
2,512
0
0
Are you kidding? The government's now paying for it all, that means prices will go UP

Yah, that's gonna be the ugly hitch. And I don't think there is anything that California can really do about it.

Granted, they could say "Well we will only pay this much for this procedure", but then the hospital can go "Well then I guess the patient gets to foot the other half of the bill"
 

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Jun 9, 2004
24,925
1
0
This really snuck up on me. Funny that this is happening mere months after my work finally started a group plan.

Are you kidding? The government's now paying for it all, that means prices will go UP

Yep.
Less middlemen always means higher costs.
lol
 

Absinthe

Member
Apr 28, 2009
1,642
0
0
Seattle
So how are we paying for this?

Dental and vision? How much will this cost?

Good question.

I mean it sounds great in theory but the devil is going to be in the details, specifically the costs. California's entire 2016 budget was $167 billion. The estimate of the costs for a single year are $400b, and they are assuming $200-225b will come from the federal government, which isn't entirely reliably true. Its also historically accurate that cost forecasts are wildly underreporting how much something ends up actually costs, in government.

Its a great experiment though, probably woulda been better for a smaller state to do it (mass is NOT universal, single payer healthcare but more a patchwork like Obamacare) but if California can somehow make it work then it'll be a model for other states. Colorado presented a similar scenario to voters last fall and they rejected it.

The downside is that costs spiral out of control, higher taxes on big companies cause them to flee the state, higher income residents leave the state due to higher taxes, etc.

It will be interesting to see where this money comes from and if it's handled correctly.
 
Sep 16, 2006
16,156
0
0
Los Angeles
Yah, that's gonna be the ugly hitch. And I don't think there is anything that California can really do about it.

Granted, they could say "Well we will only pay this much for this procedure", but then the hospital can go "Well then I guess the patient gets to foot the other half of the bill"

When they represent every single potential customer that hospital has, CA has way more leverage in that scenario.
 

ClosingADoor

Member
Apr 6, 2009
16,923
0
0
Amsterdam
Are you kidding? The government's now paying for it all, that means prices will go UP
Depends. If they are paying for it, they can also set the purchase price or walk to another company. There is a reason we in Europe pay a ton less for medication, since apparently over here the companies don't charge as much.

They simply need to crack down on cartel forming from the hospitals and medical industry, so they can't artificially raise the prices.
 

Mr. Wonderful

Member
Dec 29, 2007
6,073
0
0
www.heretic-gamer.com
I mean it sounds great in theory but the devil is going to be in the details, specifically the costs. California's entire 2016 budget was $167 billion. The estimate of the costs for a single year are $400b, and they are assuming $200-225b will come from the federal government, which isn't entirely reliably true. Its also historically accurate that cost forecasts are wildly underreporting how much something ends up actually costs, in government.

Its a great experiment though, probably woulda been better for a smaller state to do it (mass is NOT universal, single payer healthcare but more a patchwork like Obamacare) but if California can somehow make it work then it'll be a model for other states. Colorado presented a similar scenario to voters last fall and they rejected it.

The downside is that costs spiral out of control, higher taxes on big companies cause them to flee the state, higher income residents leave the state due to higher taxes, etc.

Right. It's also worth keeping in mind that single-payer in other countries is not without issues. We may have an advantage to learn from other nations who have previously implemented this, however.

I would love for this to happen, be funded, and work well, however, so that other states make a similar effort.

Don't other countries also intervene to the point where they set the costs on procedures?
 
Sep 16, 2006
16,156
0
0
Los Angeles
Any insights on existing employer premiums being diverted?

I mean, it's going to be a payroll tax of some sort that will take the place of employer premiums. You have to imagine it will benefit some (some greatly, holy shit my premiums the company paid were 1800/mo at my last job) more than others who it may represent an increase. Given the prices of employer plans these days, though....
 

GoldenEye 007

Member
Jul 28, 2006
23,805
0
0
The Big D
I mean, it's going to be a payroll tax of some sort that will take the place of employer premiums. You have to imagine it will benefit some (some greatly, holy shit my premiums the company paid were 1800/mo at my last job) more than others who it may represent an increase. Given the prices of employer plans these days, though....
That's what I mean. Employer premiums are anywhere from $400-1000+ a month. That's a good chunk of change to help fund a state program.
 

entremet

Member
Dec 6, 2008
85,705
383
1,455
Seems Washington's incompetence is going to force Blue States to further differentiate.