California single-payer healthcare bill passes first committee test

This is how it should be, states choosing their own path, even if it is the wrong path. Unfortunately, I'm sure the rest of us will have to bail them out down the line.

California must be suffering some big ACA failures.

They are trying to get a SP system in place so taxes can go sky high(er).

There must be a hidden agenda.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy
And you hit the nail on the head.

a reply to: xuenchen

Sure is, full employment for bureaucrats

originally posted by: xuenchen
California must be suffering some big ACA failures.

They are trying to get a SP system in place so taxes can go sky high(er).

There must be a hidden agenda.

Page 3 of this recent (2016) Canadian Study shows that the average family of four pays a 40% income-tax rate, with 28% of that 40% paying for their "Single-Payer" coverage.

REF: www.fraserinstitute.org...

According to www.tax-rates.org... , a California family of 4 @ $100k income, pays 21% of that income in Fed/State taxes now.

Do you add an additional 28% for California Single-Payer? If so, that's insane!

-cwm

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
California must be suffering some big ACA failures.

They are trying to get a SP system in place so taxes can go sky high(er).

There must be a hidden agenda.

Page 3 of this recent (2016) Canadian Study shows that the average family of four pays a 40% income-tax rate, with 28% of that 40% paying for their "Single-Payer" coverage.
REF: www.fraserinstitute.org...
According to www.tax-rates.org... , a California family of 4 @ $100k income, pays 21% of that income in Fed/State taxes now.
Do you add an additional 28% for California Single-Payer? If so, that's insane!
-cwm

a) Fraser Institute is a right-wing generator of enabling factoids.
b) No matter what the 'tax rate', the final arbiter is the standard of living that comes out of it. I would venture to say that ours, at very least, equals yours. And that's with a universal health care system which is not perfect, but pretty damn good!

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I agree with that as well. But many seem to want to watch this whole thing go off a cliff. There is a solution, but the major players are going to get less $$$$. This is not an exceptable solution, for the few.

The US's system is literally in free fall (cost increases), no one is doing anything to solve the problem. In a few years the cost of high deductible crap insurance will be un-affordable.

no, it`s already unaffordable.

$300 a month with a $10,000 deductible is $13,600 a year, 15 years ago if you had $13,600 a year in disposable income you would easily qualify for a mortgage. if you`re a renter and being forced to buy insurance through the obamacare law you are being cheated out of owning a home.
make no mistake about it the money you pay now for health insurance is disposable income because if you weren`t forced by law to give that money to an insurance company that would be money in your pocket, money that a mortgage lender would consider when approving or denying a mortgage loan.

This is nonsense....

Here is an economic analysis of the plan...

www.healthycaliforniaact.org...

And the relevant part from the abstract showing how revenue will be generated to cover the costs AND HOW EVERYONE WILL BE PAYING LESS (families and businesses) in total:

The study thus finds that the proposed single-payer system could provide decent health care for
all California residents while still reducing net overall costs by about 8 percent relative to the
existing system. We propose two new taxes to generate the revenue required to offset the loss
of private insurance spending: a gross receipts tax of 2.3 percent and a sales tax of 2.3 percent,
along with exemptions and tax credits for small business owners and low-income families to
promote tax-burden equity. Within this proposed tax framework, Healthy California can
achieve both lower costs and greater equity in the provision of health care in California for both
families and businesses of all sizes. Thus, net health care spending for middle-income families
will fall by between 2.6 – 9.1 percent of income. Small firms that have been providing private
health care coverage for their workers will experience a 22 percent decline in their health-care
costs as a share of payroll. The small firms that have not provided coverage will still make zero
payments for health care under Healthy California through their gross receipts tax exemption.
Medium-sized firms will see their health care costs fall by between 6.8 and 13.4 percent as a
share of payroll relative to the existing system. Firms with up to 500 employees will experience
a 5.7 percent fall, and the largest firms, with over 500 employees, will experience a 0.6 percent
fall as a share of payroll relative to the existing system.

I am NOT going to pay for it.

I get my health care from the VA and medicare and i pay $150 a month for medicare and have never used it..

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
California must be suffering some big ACA failures.

They are trying to get a SP system in place so taxes can go sky high(er).

There must be a hidden agenda.

Page 3 of this recent (2016) Canadian Study shows that the average family of four pays a 40% income-tax rate, with 28% of that 40% paying for their "Single-Payer" coverage.
REF: www.fraserinstitute.org...
According to www.tax-rates.org... , a California family of 4 @ $100k income, pays 21% of that income in Fed/State taxes now.
Do you add an additional 28% for California Single-Payer? If so, that's insane!
-cwm

a) Fraser Institute is a right-wing generator of enabling factoids.
b) No matter what the 'tax rate', the final arbiter is the standard of living that comes out of it. I would venture to say that ours, at very least, equals yours. And that's with a universal health care system which is not perfect, but pretty damn good!

Me and mine get all our care at the number two hospital in the world. I have seen princes and kings from far away lands being treated on the same floor as me. I get covered through work. I always get treatment at my earliest convenience. doubt you can beat that. See what you don't understand is that freedom allows for both success and failure. i would rather get world class care whenever I want than to pay 30% my income for the ghetto thugs and unemployed to share my second rate plan with me like Canada. I lknow people from Sarnia who when faced with cancer were waitlisted for treatment and instead came to the states to get treated. Let's just be real with each other. Canada system is better for the poor and unemployed but the level of care is not even close to the top level of care of the states. The USA has the best care in the world for those who can afford it but it is not the best system for the poor. In the end I am glad I am not poor or Canadian.

originally posted by: ANNED
I am NOT going to pay for it.

I get my health care from the VA and medicare and i pay $150 a month for medicare and have never used it..

Aren't you special? What a selfish attitude. You have yours and screw everybody else.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

originally posted by: BestOf

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
California must be suffering some big ACA failures.

They are trying to get a SP system in place so taxes can go sky high(er).

There must be a hidden agenda.

Page 3 of this recent (2016) Canadian Study shows that the average family of four pays a 40% income-tax rate, with 28% of that 40% paying for their "Single-Payer" coverage.
REF: www.fraserinstitute.org...
According to www.tax-rates.org... , a California family of 4 @ $100k income, pays 21% of that income in Fed/State taxes now.
Do you add an additional 28% for California Single-Payer? If so, that's insane!
-cwm

a) Fraser Institute is a right-wing generator of enabling factoids.
b) No matter what the 'tax rate', the final arbiter is the standard of living that comes out of it. I would venture to say that ours, at very least, equals yours. And that's with a universal health care system which is not perfect, but pretty damn good!

Me and mine get all our care at the number two hospital in the world. I have seen princes and kings from far away lands being treated on the same floor as me. I get covered through work. I always get treatment at my earliest convenience. doubt you can beat that. See what you don't understand is that freedom allows for both success and failure. i would rather get world class care whenever I want than to pay 30% my income for the ghetto thugs and unemployed to share my second rate plan with me like Canada. I lknow people from Sarnia who when faced with cancer were waitlisted for treatment and instead came to the states to get treated. Let's just be real with each other. Canada system is better for the poor and unemployed but the level of care is not even close to the top level of care of the states. The USA has the best care in the world for those who can afford it but it is not the best system for the poor. In the end I am glad I am not poor or Canadian.

Aren't you special? What a selfish attitude. You have yours and screw everybody else.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

a reply to: FyreByrd

When a California resident has an accident or sickness when out of state, those doctors bill California and get paid?

a reply to: seasonal

How nice, and where they are getting the money they need for it.

Oh, I guess they expect the rest of the nation to pay for it, with federal funding.

Yeah, good luck with that one.

a reply to: xuenchen

Ha, ha, I wonder if they are planning to allow their state to go into implosion when the money to finance their Health care can not support it.

Federal funding again?

originally posted by: BestOf
In the end I am glad I am not poor or Canadian.

We're glad you're not Canadian, too. As to your economic status...meh.
Those Canadians coming from Sarnia, were they payin' the freight? It is common in border areas to keep wait times down by using free spots in the US with the provincial health care covering it. Seems fiscally sound to me. It's not important where they're treated, it's who pays. Seeing as I'm not poor, and my cancer was cured for $32 out of pocket (parking, eh?), I'll just keep our system. Not too many Canadians willing to swap.

a reply to: FyreByrd

What a shock, the people supporting the California initiative say it will work and save money even..........Now where have I heard that before?

Proof is in the actual results.

a reply to: FyreByrd

You realize the plan is illegal under Obamacare, right? The Federal government took healthcare out of the states' hands.

If I were you, I'd be getting on the "repeal and replace" bandwagon... California could legally try this plan if that passes as-is.

TheRedneck