It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Leaders Focus on Universal Health Care

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Following reports of renewed bird flu outbreaks in South Korea, Nigeria and Indonesia, a top California lawmaker proposed expanding health care coverage to all uninsured children in the state, including those of illegal immigrants. Earlier this year, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed plans for universal coverage that made the state the health care administrator. Schwarzenegger calls Nunez's new plan a "significant contribution to the health care debate," and says health care will be his top priority in the coming year. Leaders from all parties have agreed to focus on universal health care.

 



today.reuters.co.uk
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A senior California Democrat proposed on Thursday that employers pay to expand health care coverage to all uninsured children in the state, including those of illegal immigrants, as leaders across the political spectrum agreed to focus on universal health care.

Some 6.5 million people lack health care insurance in the most populous U.S. state. Many of the uninsured are children.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger earlier this year vetoed plans for universal coverage that would have set up the state as the health care administrator for California's 36 million residents.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Infectious diseases like bird flu mutate, cross-breed and spread most efficiently in children and people who don't have access to medical care. But many people in California and the USA cannot afford health insurance.

It's a crisis waiting to explode. Universal health care is one way to prevent a pandemic, or at least lessen its effects.

Many people loath the idea of government interfering in private affairs like health care - or picking up the tab for it - but what other options are there to preserve and protect everyone's health, and the nation's health?


[edit on 22/12/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I live in Canada, which has national universal health insurance.

We just get a bare-minimum package of basic coverage - and it's nothing to write home about. But I'm glad we've got it. It's a first line of defense, more important than our military, imo.




posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Of course it's more important than our military, just look at the state of it

the health care system does a better job than the military for sure



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Actually....

my point was that we are in FAR greater danger from microbial attack than any other kind. Against which the military can do zip.




posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
While it's a lofty aim to have universal health care in the US, I have yet to see a fiscally rersponsible plan.
I fail to see how any plan will not place an unfair burden on an already over-taxed middle class.
I see that states are looking at the plan adopted by Massachusetts, but could not find out exactly how well this plan IS working.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I think authorities are getting scared - and willing to consider any measures to fight the coming pandemic(s).

California does tend to be fairly "positive" - but it's still a very strange day when "leaders across the political spectrum agreed to focus on universal health care."



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I think it's more likely they're looking for votes. That would certainly explain the cross-party interest in health care.

And another thing, government requiring small businesses to carry insurance for all employees is not the government's business. Are we going to hand over yet another nail in the coffin of our freedoms?
Not to mention the number of small businesses that will be forced to close their doors.
(although if I remember correctly, small businesses were exempt from the MA bill?)



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I think it's more likely they're looking for votes.


Don't you think this will LOSE more votes than it gains? ...True, there is a high population of poor, uninsured and immigrant children in CA - but I think the number of voters who would be paying the tab is much higher.

Unless you think the Hispanic vote would carry it?

???



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

by DontTreadOnMe
Are we going to hand over yet another nail in the coffin of our freedoms?



Unfortunately, I think the Majority eventually will. Who doesn't turn down freebee's? Of course, we know the price paid in Freedom, but the masses don't. Capitilism and Socialism are at war. A situation brought on by too much prosperity?



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I think it's more likely they're looking for votes.


Don't you think this will LOSE more votes than it gains? .....- but I think the number of voters who would be paying the tab is much higher.


I am going on the assumption that the universal plan will not be something citizens get to vote on.
Taxpayers could disagree, but could they actually keep the law from passing? In MI, we do get to vote on school millages and certain other taxes. But I just don't know if this universal health thing would be voter driven, so good point.

Those standing to gain the most are the poor, uninsured and possilby Hispanic, certainly a large future voting block in CA.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I am admittedly somewhat obsessive about our microbial world and the coming pandemic(s) - and honestly think that CA is hoping to mitigate the effects on the state with a health care plan. The idea being that children are the biggest carriers and spreaders of disease - with poor children being the most likely "vectors" because they lack health care.

Here is a quick and dirty demographic overview:



California Per capita income, 1997: $26,314

***

Los Angeles

population in July 2005: 3,844,829
Median resident age: 31.6 years
Median household income: $36,687
Races in Los Angeles:
* Hispanic (46.5%)
* White Non-Hispanic (29.7%)
* Other race (25.7%)
* Black (11.2%)

***

National Center for Children in Poverty

In California, there are 5,231,478 families, with 9,504,625 children.

Low-Income Children: 42% (3,981,521) of children live in low-income families (National: 39%), defined as income below 200% of the federal poverty level.

Children in Low-Income Families in California, by Race:
* 21% (692,078) of white children live in low-income families.
* 52% (343,506) of black children live in low-income families.
* 60% (2,594,623) of Latino children live in low-income families.
* 28% (264,125) of Asian children live in low-income families.

Notes: * This estimate should be used with caution. It may be unreliable due to a small sample size.

[Ed. Note: This source is biased towards children in poverty.]




So what do you make of it?

A play for the poor Hispanic vote? Or a desperation move, part of pandemic planning?



format, wd




[edit on 22-12-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I don't know waht to make of it.
But ant changes for the alleged betterment of the citizems seems to rarely be for completely altruistic reasons.

I doubt many politicians are concerned about how microbes or prions or lack of health care affects any of us.
Or how wheeling and dealing with energy would affect a state. But I digress.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
This is a nice thought but the big pharma and medical lobbist on K street in D.C. would never let this happen



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
While it sounds good that all should have health care, forcing business to pick up the tab of people not even employed by them in anyway is a sure fire way for California to see another mass exodus of businesses from the state. There has to be other ways of paying for the coverage. Everybody is for any proposal as long as they don't have to pick up the tab.

The sad thing is, nationally there is probably so much fat in the overall health care system that really affordable health care for everyone is possible, just not under it's current system.

I'll give you an example. One of my clients, a senior, had problems with her shoulder. She had three months of PT 3 times a week. In less than an hour, she was administered a heating pad and sat in a mood lit room with music for about 40 minutes, then she had a small massage and did a simple exercise. The cost of one session was just under $300. or about $12,000 for the whole 3 months. The therapy place wanted her to get a doctor's ok for another 6 months to "fix the problem", even though she felt fine after the first week of treatments! I could go on and on about shady billing processes in the medical industry but you get the idea.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

...changes for the alleged betterment of the citizems seems to rarely be for completely altruistic reasons.




Nah - I may be idealistic but I am not completely stupid.


I do not think the motives are altruistic.

...A pandemic could wipe Californaia off the economic map - and they know it. E. coli already appears to be endemic in CA, plus AIDS maybe and who knows what else. They're poised for some heavy action. So they're scrambling. (Re: the perfect microbial storm.)

Many epidemiologists think children are the biggest carriers and spreaders of disease - with poor children being the most likely "vectors" because they lack health care.

...So providing children with free health care is a stop gap measure, designed to block disease spread. ...Not altruistic at all.

Personally - I don't agree that children will be the key vectors in a new pandemic - or that our biggest problem will be human-to-human transmission - but who knows?

(IMO - we will face environmental reservoirs and non-vectors - water borne and airborne stuff.)



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I fail to see the connection between socialized health care and mocrobial attacks.

If California goes to full state-run medicine, I expect to see a boom of specialist centers, pop up in Californias' surrounding states. Californian's can also expect to wait for very long periods time for minor, minimal care. Californian's can also expect a decline in the quality of that care as well.

If we as people, want to insure that everyone has access to proper medical care, then I believe it starts with the medical professionals themselves. Doctors and such, should be compensated for their hard work, and should be compensated well; but, to me, to many doctors go into the field for the wealth, and not the compassion.

Imagine if there was a city program; initiated by the medical community. This program (considering medical care cost stays the same), would have all Medical doctors donate 5-10% of their salaries into a pool, that funded a free hopital, free medicine and free care. Part of the program requires that individuals donate so many hours per week to the free program.

All medical professionals should be supportive of something like this, and I realize there are similar programs.

Helping people doesn't have to be a payed job.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Thanks for your response nextguyinline. Your points are well taken.



Originally posted by nextguyinline

I fail to see the connection between socialized health care and mocrobial attacks.



I am speculating that California politicians are motivated to work together across party lines because of the coming pandemics and anticipated microbial storms.

The writing is on the wall - and everyone who is even marginally informed is trying to plan to survive.

Those who have positions and status to protect are working towards preserving their position and status. State politicians are concerned not just with their constituents, who confer their position and status, but also with their state's survival as an economic power.

Granted, a crisis is not a required rationalization for those already commited to the concept of socialized medicine. But crises do provide justifications that can be used opportunistically, as a marketing point.



FYI - I also suspect it was a similar motivation that convinced John F. Kennedy to support a federal universal health care plan just before he was assassinated.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Do you have any idea just how big the Medical Insurance industry is in California?

Do yo have any idea how much fraud is committed against the Insurance Companies in California?

Do you have any idea how high the rates are from Insurance Companies in California?



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I don't understand what you're getting at 2stepsfromtop.

Are you saying that medical care is expensive because of fraud? Or what?

...And how does your thinking tie in to this topic?

Thanks, sofi



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Sorry, this is what I reacted to:

Originally posted by soficrow
Those who have positions and status to protect are working towards preserving their position and status.


The Medical Insurance Industry in California is huge, billions of dollars a year, each time the public begins to squeek about Medical Insurance Rates the Insurance Companies scream that it is due to Fraud in the Workers Comp. System. They also use this argument to establish rates that are murderous for small families, the middle class and the poor. I have been informed that Executives from many of these companies are compensated in the Millions of Dollars each year, so in order to protect their income, they must have a scapegoate argument to justify the raising of their rates.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join