• 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.

WP: Calif. Universal health measure advances

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fenderputty

Banned
Apr 14, 2008
23,121
0
0
Cali
I don't think they have 66% of both houses willing and able to vote for this, nor do I think the general populace would pay 2% on sales tax, no.

27 of 40 senate seats is 68%

55 of 80 assembly seats is 69%

I also think you're wrong about the sales tax. If you spent 3K on stuff each month that get his by sales tax you would pay roughly $60 more for free healthcare.
 

LinkAndEpona

Banned
Dec 14, 2016
653
0
0
Kinda happy this passed, I'm super interested to see how it plays out as we do need real healthcare reform. The tax increase to help fund it seems fairly intense but that state has a ton of big earners so it should be ok.
 

therealist

Member
Feb 18, 2016
1,161
0
0
People always talk about the increase in taxes, but what about the decrease in health insurance costs for employees and employers?

because it's harder to quantify and predict. If you raise your taxes 10%, you know you are going to be paying 10% more. What you don't know is whether employers will increase your salary due to saving on health costs. If the government doesn't force your employer to raise wages, then you are SOL.
 

Damaniel

Banned
Mar 6, 2013
6,166
1
0
Damaniel, DM
They have more than 60% of the seats in both houses?

2% at the register for free healthcare? You really think people ain't going for that right now?

I'd be willing to accept VAT levels of taxation for universal healthcare, but if they can do it for only 2% more then that's even better.

Sadly, I think all states will need to be on board in order for the entire thing to work, which means that the plan would have to be federal. Good luck with that anytime soon.
 

megarockexe

Member
Aug 21, 2011
3,569
0
0
Is it wrong I don't want it to pass because I want to keep my job?
I feel like we're the bad guys opposing it.
 

devilhawk

Member
Jun 2, 2007
6,560
0
0
because it's harder to quantify and predict. If you raise your taxes 10%, you know you are going to be paying 10% more. What you don't know is whether employers will increase your salary due to saving on health costs. If the government doesn't force your employer to raise wages, then you are SOL.
This is certainly the flying elephant in the thread that no one is talking about.
 
Sep 19, 2015
2,991
665
520
Here is a way to track the bill:

https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/830479

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB562

It's in Assembly and already read the first time. I don't think constituents need to vote for it...but Brown has been a little wary on it and he could veto it.

27 of 40 senate seats is 68%

55 of 80 assembly seats is 69%

I also think you're wrong about the sales tax. If you spent 3K on stuff each month that get his by sales tax you would pay roughly $60 more for free healthcare.

Nevermind the fact that I think the Amherst analyst is off on their analysis, both the total cost and how much CA gets on medicare/medicaid, but even assuming they are right, I feel lots of people will be against it. Sales tax already reaches 10% in some places in CA. That's pretty damn high. That is undoubtedly something proponents will need to address and win people over.

Also, I don't think Dems will automatically vote for it. It passed with a 23-14 vote in the senate. Steve Glazer (D) voted against it and 3 didn't vote. That would be enough to not get a super majority to change the tax in the state (if 66% supermajority is true) regardless how the other 3 Ds would vote.

For those interested, Coloradocare failed while just getting 21% of the votes. They were going for a 10% income hike (3.33% for employees, 6.67% for employers) and 10% on all other income, so for most people it would be just over 3% of their income and people voted overwhelmingly against it.

I'd be willing to accept VAT levels of taxation for universal healthcare, but if they can do it for only 2% more then that's even better.

Sadly, I think all states will need to be on board in order for the entire thing to work, which means that the plan would have to be federal. Good luck with that anytime soon.

It could undoubtedly work at the state level if its citizens and businesses are willing to pay higher taxes. The only thing to keep in mind is if you're in a trip to Disney World in Orlando, FL, you won't get your single payer benefits there. Not that different than someone from ON going on a trip to NYC and needing to go to the ER there.

The main kink they would have to work out IMO, besides how to pay for it, is if I live in a neighboring state and get sick, I can just go over and get free care without contributing to the pot. This is a bit different than a tourist getting sick in Vancouver and needing medical care because in the latter case, it's already accounted for by the taxes, in the former case it could be heavily abused.

Is it wrong I don't want it to pass because I want to keep my job?
I feel like we're the bad guys opposing it.

People will say yes, I will say no. CYA is something most people do.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
This is certainly the flying elephant in the thread that no one is talking about.

Some did mention that in this thread, I am not sure how legislation would go about preventing businesses from just padding their bottom-line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.