Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care

Calif. Senate approves single-payer health care

hosted.ap.org

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- The California Senate approved creating a government-run health care system for the nation's most populous state on Thursday, ignoring a veto threat from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Supporters said it is time for state legislatures to take up the debate as the Obama Administration's national health care proposal falters in Congress.

"If it's not to be done at the national level, let us take the lead," said state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego.

The move in California comes after Massachusetts voters changed the calculus in Congress by electing a Repu

(visit the link for the full news article)

It seems that the health care debate is moving to the states. Perhaps this is the way that the US will have a single payer system eventually.

It worked this way in Canada with each province basically implementing its own single payer system (which is the way it is still structured) and then having those systems integrated at a federal level.

I suspect that this is the only way the US will get healthcare reform -- bottom up and state by state.

hosted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by metamagic


Well anything, to put some competition in the health insurance Companies, this might be what we need to bring those high premiums down. Let’s see where this goes.



[edit on 28-1-2010 by impressme]

Not that I don't think this is a good idea for the states to look into, but... How's Cali. going to pay for something like this? The state is busted...

California is already bankrupt, the fact that those in the CA senate actually think this will work should be brought up on criminal negligence charges.

Yep... And the other states/federal will have to bail them out real soon...

I wonder if Arnold is gonna put his veto in...

I have an idea, why don't all the socialists/eco-nazis move to California and we kick them out of the union? Wouldn't that be great? They can have their kommie wonderland if they want, so far it has failed and it will fail even more if they were on their own.

(yeah i know they give more than they receive from the federal)

This is the final nail in the coffin for this state. CA is done! Stick a fork in her. The legislature is completely out of control and has gone insane.

So what state do you recommend I move to? I like the mountains and don't want to live somewhere with humidity. Oh wait! I couldn't afford to move even if I wanted too. Moving takes money and I can barely make ends meet in this jobless place as it is. Good going Ca. Keeps us trapped here while you burn us alive.

This might be a good thing if they can get the illegals to buy the insurance.

Or if they can force them to.

Then at least part of the money would come from the illegals and not the state.

Even better if they can force the companies that employer of these illegal to buy insurance for them.

reply to post by calstorm


I don't know. My wife and I were contemplating moving back to Oregon but the economy is terrible and their legislature is out of control like CA's. They just raised taxes.

I think Washington would be a nice move. But I don't know much about that state. Some of the best places to live as far as being a business owner and taxes are ND, NV, ID, etc.

reply to post by Zosynspiracy
OR = highest income tax rate and highest (or in the top 2) unemployment rate, at present.

Woot!

reply to post by LadySkadi



Yeah I know and their industry has been decimated. At least Washington is pretty heavy in technology sector and CA still has some manufacturing, agriculture, tech, real estate etc. OR is a really sad situation right now. I'm an RN so I could probaby move anywhere right now and find a job. There are some beautiful places in OR and my wife's family owns 80 acres in the Willamette Valley. We love the Sherwood area.

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


Well its been over 10 years since i lived there but jobs were pretty easy to find when I was there, but coming from california you may have to get used to wearing sweaters in the summer. Also they are very prejudice against californians. Unless the economy has changed a great deal in the last 10 years, it might be worth a shot. I am thinking Idaho, if the the job rate is good.

From my point of view, this is a good thing and a bad thing. It is good, as healthcare for the people of the country should be done at the state level, not the federal level. But providing an alternative means for health care to the populace in each state, beyond the insurance companies, are a good idea, that way it keeps health care away from the Federal Government and every state and person has different health concerns and needs. The bad side is that California can not afford this, however, before it goes into law, it would have to be voted on by the public. According to the Article, Gov. Swartzager has stated that he would veto the bill if it is put onto his desk, the reason is that California can not afford it, and he is correct, as California is having trouble to make ends meet, to include that the state legslature is taking more money from the city and counties state wide, as well as, having to cut services across the state.
So there you have it in a nut shell, the state senate will pass it, he will veto it, and then they will put it on the ballot for November to get the public to pass. If it passes then this is truely the state of nuts, but somehow I don't think it will pass, cause there are a lot of people out of work, and even if it is a single payer health care system, there really is no guarantee that the public out here would be able to afford it, combined with the problems with the major hospitals out here.

reply to post by LadySkadi

How's Cali. going to pay for something like this? The state is busted...

Same way they seem to be paying for everything else

IOU

California is a mess.

Wonder how long before the Lakers leave Cali.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

How's Cali. going to pay for something like this? The state is busted...

Same way they seem to be paying for everything else

IOU

California is a mess.

Wonder how long before the Lakers leave Cali.

The Lakers can leave only if they take the Chargers with them, cause the Chargers want a new stadium, and have the public pay for it, though everytime it comes to a vote it gets turned down. Last new Stadium in San Diego that was built is losing money.

reply to post by jam321

Wonder how long before the Lakers leave Cali.

No, they can't leave - for (2) very good reasons... Jack Nicholson wouldn't be able to do c0ke in public (and) who would all the Blazers fans hate on?

BTW - who/what does Cali. owe IOU's to? The Fed? The people? Either way, neither one is getting paid back anytime soon...




[edit on 29-1-2010 by LadySkadi]

reply to post by metamagic


California is already broke from its previous "nanny state" experiments.

How are they going to pay for this one?

And they owe IOUs to their own people for tax refunds, etc. and to many businesses ythat have done business with the state.



[edit on 1/29/2010 by centurion1211]

Man my move to NV couldn't have come at a better time. Cali is bankrupt and going down the tubes. They make insane amounts of laws a year in Sacramento and having nothing to show for it.....

Shows that government does not create prosperity, wealth or happiness.

Possibly the first false assumption is that California will increase it's debt by having universal health care. I think this is far from the truth. May I demonstrate my point of view? Stop that laughing. I hear you...

When my son went to intensive care, the hospital produced a paper to sign that said the fee would average about $11,500 per day --- in 1988! I read in the paper how a man went to the emergency room because he had a toothache, and the bill was $1200. Why is this? Uninsured people using the hospitals are always given emergency care, and if they can't pay, it's free. The upper lower class and lower middle class can't afford health insurance, unless they are young. People over 30 in business for themselves are lucky to have health insurance. Another person I met owed over $1.3 million to the hospital. Most of these contact a bankruptcy attorney and clear the books, leaving the hospital a loss.

If the same people have health insurance, the hospital can reduce costs for services on a general level because they aren't taking it out on individuals that can pay, to make them pay for those who can't pay.

For another example, relative to the point, California made motorcycle helmets mandatory. Why? Because of the great expense involved in head injuries. Same thing with bike helmets. I knew a kid that slipped on a skate board and hit his head on a curb, making him retarded for life and using State assets for care. Prevention can save dollars, as can insurance.

Along with universal health care comes a ceiling on lawsuits. One of the high costs of medical care is paying for the insurance on doctors. That is factored into the cost of your health care. You are paying a premium for your insurance, and lots of your medical care is paying for the lawsuits put forth by "accident attorneys" and other ambulance chasers. They get rich on your premiums. If there is universal health care, people who are injured will have the care and won't need to create huge lawsuits to insure they are taken care of.

If your cost of medical care drops, your insurance drops. For example, if everyone is paying for their health care, those who have insurance will not be paying so much. This will lower their premiums. The State wins, because they don't have to carry the burden of making up for the debts of those who are unable to afford health insurance. The individuals win because their premiums drop. The hospitals win because they will have uniformity to billing practices, and can be assured that they will be paid. The citizens will also win because their resentment will lessen when they see that foreigners, like Mexicans crossing the border for healthcare, are not getting better treatment than the hard working citizens and taxpayers of California.

Productivity is another factor. Too many intelligent working taxpayers are getting disabled or sick because they cannot obtain timely health care. They put it off until it is a big expense. It's better to nip it in the bud. There's a saying: "You don't have cancer until the doctor says you do." Well, would it be less expensive to find it at Stage 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4? Of course, Stage 0 is best, and requires minimum treatment. If you wait to stage 4, it will be lifetime expenses. If you don't have insurance, the State pays. People without health insurance put off checkups until it is too late for an economical solution. Since the solution is so expensive, they can't pay. Isn't this obvious yet?

There is a lot of savings in having State health insurance. I hear a lot of criticism of the idea, but those critics aren't standing in line to fight against State programs such as public schools, firemen, police, etc. Frankly, I think health care for all is long overdue. I know of so many people who are receiving Medicaid in California that are poor and disabled, yet they did not work long enough to earn the right to the care. It is an entitlement given to them, so why not give it to the working class in California? If they are kept in a good state of health, they will produce more tax revenues for the State.


[edit on 1/29/2010 by Jim Scott]

[edit on 1/29/2010 by Jim Scott]