Since when does TN have single payer and free college? And no, it shouldn't be mandatory at all.
That's not a plan, it's just an analyst's estimate. The bill does not really say how they'll pay for it. That will have to be addressed. I think the 2.3% sales tax is severely underestimating the cost of such a thing.
I wonder if we are witnessing a new neo-norther block of states forming to drown out the stupid south? Destroy them with northern progress?
There's a tax credit for families currently on MediCal to offset that:One of the plans have a 2.3% sales tax increase, seems like that would hurt poorer families
so legal weed, great and varied terrain, beaches, weather, great food, great health care, gets all the good concerts and early movie screenings and stuff. Cali OP
so legal weed, great and varied terrain, beaches, weather, great food, great health care, gets all the good concerts and early movie screenings and stuff. Cali OP
Drop the free dental care.(we don't have it unless your under 16) It's not uber essential. Save that money to keep the cost down.
.
"Fuck you, got mine"I get healthcare thru my work, so nothing.
I get healthcare thru my work, so nothing.
I'm guessing you have great health coverage?
I work for the City of San Francisco. I have GREAT health coverage, but man I'd rather have my relatives and friends and strangers who need it, have health care....if it means I have to give. (even my "Great" coverage)
People being forced to stay in jobs they don't like because they don't want to lose their healthcare is terrible for the economy and strongly disincentives entrepreneurship. It's also a much more expensive system in general than universal single-payer healthcare would be.
It's also very short-sighted for most people. You could always be fired, your employer could go under, your employer-provided plan could worsen.
Are there weed stores open to the public?so legal weed...
NYC is heavily segregated and has a good amount of Blacks and Latinos. It would be too easy for the Right and insurance companies to spin this as the government stealing from hard working Americans, and giving a handout to the lazy.What would stop NY from following suit?
Are there weed stores open to the public?
But there is still a large cost that is part of your benefits. That's still real money being paid. And it's probably at least 20% of your monthly salary. Is just your employer paying it.
What would stop NY from following suit?
Great post. If it comes to the people voting on it, they will see that tax increase and shut it down. I would love to vote for it but I don't think my fellow Californians would feel the same.First, the state cannot require companies to take their existing healthcare payments and give it to the state. Thats not how taxes or healthcare works. They would have to implement a new tax and hope their number crunching was right on how much things costs and how much the taxes bring in and everything lines up. It would work similar to a state unemployment or disability tax, just another line item that taxes an amount based on the employees salary. I don't know what would be going on with part time or contract workers.
Second, the governor has already said he is against this whole thing and plans on vetoing any plan put forward that isn't realistic in its funding.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...ealthcare-gov-jerry-1490226321-htmlstory.html
Third, there is literally zero chance of Trump ever approving the transfer of medicaid allocated funds (which he wants to CUT by the way, so the numbers get even worse) into any sort of single payer system, so it would have to wait until a new President.
Fourth, it would have to be approved by voters. Colorado already rejected it, 80% AGAINST and 20% FOR, once voters found out it would be implemented via a 10% payroll tax. Healthcare lobbies spent millions with scare ads about how businesses would flee Colorado, California would face the same marketing/messaging problem.
Even Bernie Sanders home state of Vermont abandoned a single payer system in 2014 after the sponsor said the tax hikes would probably hurt the state economy.
Its a good set of baby steps for California to start this but realistically it would take 10+ years for this to move along to the point where it could be put before voters.
Jan 1st 2018?Not until the first of the year.
If this passes the state assembly, are people with individual plans in California going to be forced to lose their plans to change to this one, or is there an option to stay on existing plans?
Cause this stuff makes me nervous since I'm in California and my meds are like $100,000+ per year to stay alive, but I have an old grandfathered pre-obamacare private plan that keeps my maximum out of pocket at about $6,000 per year which I can afford (it's a pay a huge deductible at the start of each year, and monthly premiums, but then once the deductible is met all meds/doctors cost $0 for the rest of the year). I'm definitely concerned if I ever have to change plans because even a plan that had me paying 20% co-pay or something would be $20,000+ a year for me to stay alive.
And if the state can offer a better deal for employers over what they pay currently to private insurers?First, the state cannot require companies to take their existing healthcare payments and give it to the state. Thats not how taxes or healthcare works. They would have to implement a new tax and hope their number crunching was right on how much things costs and how much the taxes bring in and everything lines up. It would work similar to a state unemployment or disability tax, just another line item that taxes an amount based on the employees salary. I don't know what would be going on with part time or contract workers. Its not a given that all companies would be for this, some view healthcare as a core employee retention tool (our healthcare is better than what you'll get elsewhere) plus there are issues around what happens if contract jobs don't require the tax paid, in which case every employee would suddenly get turned into a contractor.
Second, the governor has already said he is against this whole thing and plans on vetoing any plan put forward that isn't realistic in its funding.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...ealthcare-gov-jerry-1490226321-htmlstory.html
Third, there is literally zero chance of Trump ever approving the transfer of medicaid allocated funds (which he wants to CUT by the way, so the numbers get even worse) into any sort of single payer system, so it would have to wait until a new President.
Fourth, it would have to be approved by voters. Colorado already rejected it, 80% AGAINST and 20% FOR, once voters found out it would be implemented via a 10% payroll tax. Healthcare lobbies spent millions with scare ads about how businesses would flee Colorado, California would face the same marketing/messaging problem.
Even Bernie Sanders home state of Vermont abandoned a single payer system in 2014 after the sponsor said the tax hikes would probably hurt the state economy.
Its a good set of baby steps for California to start this but realistically it would take 10+ years for this to move along to the point where it could be put before voters.
If they pocket most of the money, then I can't imagine why republicans would be against it 😂.
Still I think Cali should definitely take baby steps. Setting up the ground work to make it work in the future.
Will fail for mutiple reasons and the mess of implementing people from employer plans will be choas and will hit major pushback from people not wanting to lose there current coverages. If it ever passed I could see an option for not opting into the state plan being available if you have a way to obtain insurance outside of it. Also any government plans (Medicare, VA, TriCare..etc) I dont think the state can technically remove and have everyone within there plan since these are federal plans.
Health care options for everyone is great. Forcing people into one plan not so much. You think current insurance plans limit you just wait for what a state plan tells you to do before you get covered for treatments and therapies. Just the limitations on the drug plans will put you at a disadvantage.
So do you even know how the mechanics of health insurance work?
Employers can get kicked out by their insurer because a spouse of an employee has cancer and costs them money.
You're trying to say choice would remain, but who would choose to pay 3 to 4 digit percentage more over their tax bill for the year on health insurance? Smaller businesses would benefit as they no longer have to carry health insurance and risk getting kicked off if an employee gets sick.
When the government becomes the insurer, their client base is large enough to start pushing prices down. It's not possible to get them as cheap as single payer, no private insurer has the customer base to influence prices to that degree singlehandedly.
Of course I do and I don't think you have a great understanding on how things work in healthcare.
Will fail for mutiple reasons and the mess of implementing people from employer plans will be choas and will hit major pushback from people not wanting to lose there current coverages. If it ever passed I could see an option for not opting into the state plan being available if you have a way to obtain insurance outside of it. Also any government plans (Medicare, VA, TriCare..etc) I dont think the state can technically remove and have everyone within there plan since these are federal plans.
Health care options for everyone is great. Forcing people into one plan not so much. You think current insurance plans limit you just wait for what a state plan tells you to do before you get covered for treatments and therapies. Just the limitations on the drug plans will put you at a disadvantage.
People being forced to stay in jobs they don't like because they don't want to lose their healthcare is terrible for the economy and strongly disincentives entrepreneurship. It's also a much more expensive system in general than universal single-payer healthcare would be.
Health care options for everyone is great. Forcing people into one plan not so much. You think current insurance plans limit you just wait for what a state plan tells you to do before you get covered for treatments and therapies. Just the limitations on the drug plans will put you at a disadvantage.
Bookmarking this for when it succeeds and you're proven wrong, because you will be.