Universal Health Care ! CA (2014, purchaser, pharmacy)

[Western Urbanite]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

exactly. Tax burden isn't actually going to effect the people using the benefits , it's going to effect those that don't need the benefits. And we aren't exactly talking about robbing the rich to pay the poor because the people that will be hurt the most are the middle class who are already struggling to survive in CA. Which is why no ballot measure will pass even in CA

Not entirely true. Employers no longer covering healthcare will mean higher salaries for workers and corporations. Some of that goes away in the form of higher taxes, so there isn't much of a difference either way.

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by western urbanite

employers no longer covering healthcare will mean higher salaries for workers and corporations.

lol.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Western Urbanite

Not entirely true. Employers no longer covering healthcare will mean higher salaries for workers and corporations. Some of that goes away in the form of higher taxes, so there isn't much of a difference either way.

Yes my employees would get their pay raised as we pay 100% of their health care, but the actual amount would drop by the added taxes a business pays on payroll, so a bit of an overall loss to the employee and who knows what the State would charge. Plus many companies would just keep the money.

[Vision67]

Originally Posted by JustMike77

Fortunately, I begin Medicare next month so my health insurance cost goes from $ 1,082 per month to $ 134 per month. So I will have plenty of extra money that the State can steal in order to provide "free" health care for the layabouts and illegals.

That's a common story I've heard from many of my retired friends, i.e.

My socialized medicine (Medicare) is fine for me. I earned it.

But your socialized medicine is just socialism.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Vision67

My socialized medicine (Medicare) is fine for me. I earned it.

But your socialized medicine is just socialism.

It's strange the way we get so upset about "socialized" health care, when we have socialized education, socialized fire and police departments, and socialized military, and no one complains about those.

Obviously, for profit health care is not working.

[DriveNotCommute]

My train of thought went something like this:

The traditionalist side of me thought:
- There are problems but we have made the most of the current system for some 70 years.
- Introducing something new always causes problems.
- As a consumer, I am naturally disinclined to deal with any rough periods of service.

The engineering side thought:
- There are problems? We can solve it and this is one potential tool in the toolbox to try.
- Could we execute it affordably? How effectively can we do this at different levels of resource expenditure?

The pragmatic side thought:
- There are no doubt problems but I am game if this works in the end.
- I am willing to give about 2 years for serious problems to be ironed out
- 3-5 total years for all problems to be ironed out.
- How do I know that any rough periods of adjustment will be worth the outcome?
- Show me some numbers to demonstrate that the project is worth starting.
- Now show me plans addressing issues with numbers connected to each of those plans.

For example, if we could *make* the low income uninsured show up for relatively cheap preventative care, how much money does that save the system in the long run? Then on a potential cost problem issue, how will the government choose to balance medical staff pay with cost control efforts?

Also keep in mind that the private insurance industry has been jacking up premiums far above the rate of inflation since the 1990s. Sure there is greed in the mix but let's be real: Not all of it is just from that. So even if we perfectly excise the middleman, we will still eventually see health costs increase again. Granted, it feels better knowing the increase won't go to someone's tens-of-millions of dollar bonus, but a bureaucratic black hole is just barely any better.

I see a 3-way balancing act between the price patients pay, a fair cost of modern health worker practice and services, and the cost of modern equipment and medicine. Medical school costs PLUS other COL have increased so no doubt they are demanding increases in their pay. Modern technology costs a lot more than it did in the past, so even as costs fall from improvements to older basic items, the fancy state of the art stuff has become more expensive to develop. And of course for the last leg of the triangle, worker pay below the upper middle class has not kept up with the increases in COL, including health care costs.

A single payer system will have to contend with all that (as the current private insurance companies already do) and will take the blame for increases to healthcare costs that are going to happen regardless.

[eureka1]

100% in favor.

[Vision67]

A real transition to single payer would take many years.

You'll have to deal with the cost structure and knock it down. Expect huge push back.

For example, to develop enough doctors, copy Australia and have students go directly from high school to Medical School. There, Medical school lasts 6 years.

Provide tuition free schooling in return for lower average wages.

Get it?

I can already hear the howls...

[Western Urbanite]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

It's strange the way we get so upset about "socialized" health care, when we have socialized education, socialized fire and police departments, and socialized military, and no one complains about those.

Especially when 1/3 of healthcare in the USA is already publicly funded.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

It won't be different. It never is. Anyone who follows politics knows that politicians will get - what they believe is - a great idea, push it through and then figure out how to pay for it. Heaping more taxes onto already disgruntled taxpayers isn't going to go over well.

While I don't support the current proposal at the state level, the benefits of a truly universal healthcare system are pretty clear. The U.S. spends more on healthcare as a percent of GDP than any other developed country and gets worse outcomes. So the status quo ain't exactly anything to brag about.

In a nutshell, the primary benefit of universal healthcare is that it improves the quality of life for everyone. Our employer based system where a large swath of society (including me) get their coverage through their employer is a joke/relic from the WW II era.

Some of the benefits of a universal healthcare system where everyone is covered and gets care:

• No one remains in a job they absolutely hate because they are afraid of losing healthcare insurance for themselves or a family member.

• Employers don't have the burden of providing coverage to employees.

• No one stays in a job because they have a “pre-existing” condition and know they will never be covered again.

• No one has to worry about having to mortgage their house to pay the hospital, doctor, or pharmacy while they are waiting for repayment from the insurance company, which may never come.

• No one has to worry because they have a significant illness and their insurance company has told them they have reached the maximum payout under their policy.

• No one has to become frantic when an uninsured relative gets into an accident, and assets saved for a well-planned retirement are put at risk in order to assure care for the injured individual.