Universal Health Care ! CA (Stanford, Crest: eyeglasses, home, bankrupt)

[lchoro]

California's single-payer bill relies on the costly old fee-for-service system

California

Per the LA Times, enrollees would not have to pay premiums, co-payments or deductibles.

Even the current Medicaid system has out of pocket costs.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

One the whole, the ACA helped people a lot more than it hurt them.

There is a big distinction between those who consume health care and those who pay for it.

Obamacare probably did help many who consume health care services.

Obamacare absolutely hurt those who pay for it.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

The article is largely irrelevant to the discussion. Every undergraduate student is instructed that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for citation in academic assignments.

In fact, try reading a dozen peer-reviewed scholarly articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. Just choose them at random.

You will find that none of them cite Wikipedia as a source.

And you still haven't addressed the facts presented. The article wasn't an "article" ... it was a history, with citations, offered in direct rebuttal to erroneous declarations made by bmw. If you can find errors in the lesson provided, please do cite them. Wikipedia is generally pretty good at historical summary. None of it was offered as scholarly analysis.

Nevertheless, would also note that, while Wiki is not a "source" for scholarly analysis, it can, and often does, cite the same sources that scholarly papers do. That's part of what encyclopedias do - they document scholarly works historically.

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Do you have a point to add to the discussion?

Done. You've been reading them. There are many.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

There is a big distinction between those who consume health care and those who pay for it.

Obamacare probably did help many who consume health care services.

Obamacare absolutely hurt those who pay for it.

There is a big difference, correct.

But Obamacare did not "absolutely" hurt those who pay for it. While it increased some costs for some payers, it overal reduced the rising trajectory of healthcare costs very significantly. It thus saved the payers money more often than not. It is a dismal reality of lesser evil. There have been numerous links to analysis of savings ypu are apparently overlooking, not sure why.

[CaliRestoration]

If CA single payer passed (and I predict about a 50/50 chance it will go through), I predict it would end California. Not some post-apocalyptic zombie end, but just a quicker economic end to the state as a whole. Think Detroit post 1970.

It would effectively chase out all taxpayers, small businesses, and large businesses.

Literally nothing could save the state from economic collapse if Democrats choose to triple taxes to support this socialist behemoth.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

It will never pass. Over 90% of the people in CA already have some form of health insurance. Whatever plan the government cooks up will be a downgrade for all of those people as Obamacare already proved. Do you really think those 90% are going to vote for something that raises their taxes and also foces them to pay for illegal immigrant's health care and doesn't offer a benefit to them. It will be an easy and overwhelming no vote just like in Colorado

I would normally agree with you but the California voter is a special form of lemming.

I might go to Vegas and lay down a huge bet on this passing.

Then I'll change my name to CaliDevastation because that's what will be left of California if Single Payer passes, just utter Democrat Socialist devastation.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by davidt1

Cost would be reasonable if it healthcare were non profit. Why shouldn't healthcare be non profit? Isn't healthcare about compassion and caring? I am not opposed to a national single pay plan if it's done correctly. At the state level, I have become so distrustful of this government that I will oppose anything that comes out their mouth. And I don't want to pay for the healthcare of illegal aliens.

Would you want to be operated on by a doctor who got through medical school on "good feelings" or a total academic killer who crushed the MCAT, got straight A's in Harvard, with an eye on making $300,000 a year as a surgeon?

Because if you make healthcare "non profit" aka socialist, you will get doctors who are less qualified, less motivated, and less skilled. Think about that before you push for "non-profit" healthcare.

[payutenyodagimas]

I thought we are going to save when we have single payer system because the middlemen (insurance) is eliminated and they have the power to dictate how much healthcare providers will charge?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

I thought we are going to save when we have single payer system because the middlemen (insurance) is eliminated and they have the power to dictate how much healthcare providers will charge?

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Would you want to be operated on by a doctor who got through medical school on "good feelings" or a total academic killer who crushed the MCAT, got straight A's in Harvard, with an eye on making $300,000 a year as a surgeon?

Because if you make healthcare "non profit" aka socialist, you will get doctors who are less qualified, less motivated, and less skilled. Think about that before you push for "non-profit" healthcare.

It's a valid argument with no clear answer. Doctors motivated by profit aren't necessarily the best servants of healthy outcomes - let alone patient pocketbooks. For example:
Ian Paterson: 'He took a pound of flesh for money' - BBC News
You can read about charlatan MD's all around the world.

Having an "eye on making $300,000 a year as a surgeon" doesn't guarantee competence or ethics.

It is at least equally arguable that individuals motivated to serve humanity will be as likely or more so to exercise the greatest care and responsibility toward patients.

Thus, if we consider doctors serving elective procedures compared with doctors serving emergency and debilitating conditions we might find the profit motive providing great excellence in electives and the altruists doing best with emergencies and chronic diseases.

Meanwhile, doctors in many 'socialized medicine' systems contribute to better health outcomes for dollars spent than we get here in profit-driven, free-market capitalist America. It's well documented we spend more for worse outcomes.