Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate-without a way to pay for it

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: BestOf

The problem is everyone is paying for a Harvard Education and getting a GED.

Meaning we pay for #1 health care, and get well, terrible health care.

But that's not true in any way. A lot of people pay nothing or recieve subsidies for their care and the best care in this country is the best in the world.

CA can pay for the plan by taxing all the Hollyweirdo actors/libs and tech moguls 90%. Maybe they can finally put their money where their mouth is...

Single Payer would never work in CA because of all their illegals. The illegal immigrants would crush the system.

originally posted by: seasonal
So Cali is leading the way in the US with a single payer system.

A proposal to adopt a single-payer healthcare system for California took an initial step forward Thursday when the state Senate approved a bare-bones bill that lacks a method for paying the $400-billion cost of the plan.

The proposal was made by legislators led by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) at the same time President Trump and Republican members of Congress are working to repeal and replace the federal Affordable Care Act.

Not everyone is super excited about this bill.
Tom Bayhill (who has life time free govt funded insurance) believes that the private sector is better suited to "provide" healthcare. He doesn't trust the govt (again free govt funded health care for life) to run health care, what has the govt ever done right (again free govt funded health care for life for good ol'Tom).

Republican senators opposed the bill as a threat to the state’s finances.

“We don’t have the money to pay for it,” Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto) said. “If we cut every single program and expense from the state budget and redirected that money to this bill, SB 562, we wouldn’t even cover half of the $400-billion price tag.”

Berryhill also said the private sector is better suited to provide healthcare.

“I absolutely don’t trust the government to run our health system,” he said. “What has the government ever done right?”

www.latimes.com...

With the US being (by far) the most expensive system, and having a dismal #37 in health outcomes (behind Columbia) I think we maybe should start to look at other options. Is this it? I can't say, but the states are supposed to be the incubators of innovation.

I think you put too much faith in that WHO study. WHO is a leftist organization and I am sure manipulated their methodology to try to show the free market not working. I bet if you read the fine print, it will say they measured soft things like "equity, justice, etc".

I have no doubt that for some routine care, some countries may have better access especially for the poor. However, when you need some serious care, IDGAF what anyone says, the US has the best healthcare system. Sure, you may go bankrupt, but you will be alive.

Our healthcare system is out of control because of too much government regulation. More government interference in the market is not going to make it better.

a reply to: Edumakated

No silly, that is when the large corps were forced to either invest the profits of give it over to the feds.

Remember how the highway system was built?

a reply to: BestOf


Correct if you are not paying, you are not paying...??

a reply to: Edumakated

Source

Well, I guess it's time for California to secede from the United States. With all that tax money they'll save , they can finance their new health plan.

And the rest of us won't have to deal with California's fine inhabitants.

It's a win/win.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: seasonal
My parents home country of Colombia haas better health care outcomes than the USA?? No wonder my mom and her friends always flew there to get cosmetic procedures. I always figured the cost of the plane would negate any savings, but I guess its cheaper AND safer.

Crazy isn't it? A girl I know has been trying to get me to move to Bogota for a while, and in my research about Colombia that was one of the things I was surprised by. Their healthcare, doctors, and hospitals are so much better than the U.S.

What happened in the USA, was that private doctors were free to charge what they liked. Those that charged more, could buy new equipment, more staff, more research, and charge more. That went round in a circle. Then the universities saw how much the doctors were making and so they started charging more fees. That too went round in a circle. The cost of living rises; house prices, relocation, private schools. The pharma companies started charging more for their medicines. A $65 sheep dip treatment became a $50,000 fungal infection cure - after all what price is a human life?

Back in the 1900's, a bright high school student could go to med school for a few years, come back home, become a GP doctor, and live in the same small town that he grew up in. That's gone because the small town won't have the customer base to cover college fees.

a reply to: stormcell

Ahhh progress?

a reply to: SBMcG
Im not going to derail this thread to defend my parents country, but I just think you probably should do a bit more research before calling this place third world. EVERY country is a developing country, including the USA. If your not developing, your stagnating.

Colombia's economy
According to International Monetary Fund estimates, in 2012 Colombia's GDP (PPP) was US$500 billion (28th in the world and third in South America).
Colombia is now one of only three economies with a perfect score on the strength of legal rights index, according to the World Bank.
The electricity production in Colombia comes mainly from renewable energy sources. 69.97% is obtained from the hydroelectric generation.[195] Colombia's commitment to renewable energy was recognized in the 2014 Global Green Economy Index (GGEI), ranking among the top 10 nations in the world in terms of greening efficiency sectors.[196]
Also invented in Colombia were the microkeratome and keratomileusis technique, which form the fundamental basis of what now is known as LASIK (one of the most important techniques for the correction of refractive errors of vision) and the Hakim valve for the treatment of Hydrocephalus, among others.[212] Colombia has begun to innovate in military technology for its army and other armies of the world; especially in the design and creation of personal ballistic protection products, military hardware, military robots, bombs, simulators and radar.[213][214][215]

I am fairly certain Colombia is more developed than a handful of NATO states, especially the likes of Latvia and Estonia, although they have their fair share of accomplishments no doubt.

I don't think this bill is going to pass the Cali senate in any case.

a reply to: stormcell

You left out the fact that a GP pays $3000 a day to belong to a network. This cost was before O care so I bet it has gone up up up.

If you take a vacation for 10 working days (2 weeks) that is $30,000. Seems about right doesn't it?

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

How do you spell "Schadenfreude"?

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: SBMcG
Im not going to derail this thread to defend my parents country, but I just think you probably should do a bit more research before calling this place third world. EVERY country is a developing country, including the USA. If your not developing, your stagnating.

Colombia's economy
According to International Monetary Fund estimates, in 2012 Colombia's GDP (PPP) was US$500 billion (28th in the world and third in South America).
Colombia is now one of only three economies with a perfect score on the strength of legal rights index, according to the World Bank.
The electricity production in Colombia comes mainly from renewable energy sources. 69.97% is obtained from the hydroelectric generation.[195] Colombia's commitment to renewable energy was recognized in the 2014 Global Green Economy Index (GGEI), ranking among the top 10 nations in the world in terms of greening efficiency sectors.[196]
Also invented in Colombia were the microkeratome and keratomileusis technique, which form the fundamental basis of what now is known as LASIK (one of the most important techniques for the correction of refractive errors of vision) and the Hakim valve for the treatment of Hydrocephalus, among others.[212] Colombia has begun to innovate in military technology for its army and other armies of the world; especially in the design and creation of personal ballistic protection products, military hardware, military robots, bombs, simulators and radar.[213][214][215]

I am fairly certain Colombia is more developed than a handful of NATO states, especially the likes of Latvia and Estonia, although they have their fair share of accomplishments no doubt.

I don't think this bill is going to pass the Cali senate in any case.

Brah -- I have already stated that I think the term "third world" is stale at best. I'm telling you what the general consensus was of the sources i consulted -- many of which were left-leaning NGO's.

The original topic was on the health care system and in the strictest sense, according to the WHO, America spends almost $10,000 per capita on healthcare, Columbia $167.

There's NO WAY the system in Columbia is remotely close to what we have here in the US.

a reply to: incoserv

What would the cost have been to local in the local Mogol economy? You are talking about an exchange rate of US dollars to the local monetary system.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: BestOf

If this is the case, then how are 36 other countries out performing the US in terms of health outcomes and cost?

One thing is the differences in how statistics are counted.

One thing that often gets tossed out is infant mortality. However, while the UN is great at compiling stats, they don't have a standardized system. So some countries that record their live births only do so after a child has been alive for a year whereas the US counts anything that is born and draws even on breath as a live birth.

You can imagine how that might skew the stats against us in the area of infant mortality for example.

I imagine there are other areas that could be examined.

That is the way the left and California works. Stick it to the tax payers after.
a reply to: seasonal

a reply to: SBMcG

By close to our system do you mean in cost?

Or do you mean in terrible outcomes?

Do you think our system is working in any sustainable way?
From my perspective it is literally a money making venture based on the same economic ideals as making cars or playground equipment. That is a constant push to remove any and all materials not necessary and maximize profits. This is why a Dr can only spend 10 minutes with the patient. assembly line mentality. FAIL

Sorry health care IS NOT the same as durable goods.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: seasonal
My parents home country of Colombia haas better health care outcomes than the USA?? No wonder my mom and her friends always flew there to get cosmetic procedures. I always figured the cost of the plane would negate any savings, but I guess its cheaper AND safer.

Depends on how you define it. Access is the biggest problem in America. So 'outcomes' includes those who don't use healthcare.

So if you have the most advanced healthcare in the world and can cure literally everything, but half the country has a religion saying you can't use healthcare .. your healthcare would have the worst outcomes possible.

TLDR: It's not exactly true.

a reply to: seasonal

i have no sources for this, just crap i have read on alternative news sites and seen on mainstream news media. have you been paying attention to whats going on in Cali? they are not like the rest of the country and its getting worse all the time. do a little research you will see what i'm talking about.

a reply to: seasonal

The would be a bad system