Single payer in Cali?

[Avatar4321]

Telll me why other countries can make these programs work yet you think Americans cant make them work?

They can't. That's just it. We have example after example of their failure and you want us to adopt them anyway.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Telll me why other countries can make these programs work yet you think Americans cant make them work?

B/c they are not making it work.

look at Greece

 

[Anachronism]

what do you see as a solution to these problems?

Get the government out of healthcare entirely. Let those individuals who can afford healthcare get it and those who can't afford it.... well, TOUGH LUCK.

What if it works?

Almost as much chance of that as me voting for Obama in 2012.

health care has been determined to be a right already. as you if you show up at a hospital and need care, they are required by law to treat you regardless of you ability to pay.

Healthcare is NOT a right, regardless of what ANY piece of legislation or judicial decision may suggest. The fact that these facilities are forced to endure expenses without possibility of recouping their costs is a large part of what caused this problem in the first place.

if you read the article, it stated that California currently spends $200 billion a year treating the uninsured.

can you explain further how a non profit business is more costly to run than a for profit business? that makes no sense.

Very simple......

Costs will go UP because there will be more people getting more services. Individuals who currently pay NOTHING for their care (and who I'm sure will STILL pay NOTHING) will be more apt to partake of additional services that they currently are not partaking in.

Income into the system will go DOWN as companies and individuals who will be expected to pay a larger bill for their services (and to cover the services of the non-payers) leave the state for greener pastures.

That $200 Billion expense will probably go to $300 Billion as these non-payers stick their hands even further into the healthcare "cookie jar". Companies and businesses which are currently paying for the "cookies" will stop doing so. When there becomes a shortfall in the "cookies" available through the rates paid by those who are forced to pay for services, the government is going to have to make that difference up.

Let's assume that the $200 Billion even stays the same. You've currently got let's say $2 Trillion (pulling that number out of my ass) that is paid in premiums by the general public for their insurance plans. If we assume all that money now goes to funding this Cali-care plan instead, the plan has to soak up an additional 10% ($200 Billion) in expenses without adding even a single penny in income to maintain the same rates as our currently being paid. I don't think any of us are naive enough to believe that rates won't go UP. Then people leave, and the overall income to the plan decreases.

 

[Truthmatters]

File:Total health expenditure per capita, US Dollars PPP.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But it seems to work to keep costs down

 

[Anachronism]

Yeah that is why the state has so many residents of their own free will

To quote a fellow Connecticut native..... "There's a sucker born every minute." It would just seem that a lot of them flock to the sun and sand of California.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This idea that non-profit is some how cheaper is nuts.

the governemnt always costs more than for profit companies. Why? B/c they have to worry about going out of business, while the governement doesnt'.

I don't understand. Business is run by people, and government is run by people. Both are at risk of going out of business - in effect losing their job. Mayors, governors, legislators, etc. can be recalled and face reelection on a regualr basis. Government, by law, must be open to the public, not so a private business.

 

[Truthmatters]

And those suckers as you call them pay a huge amount of the countries taxes.

 

[Two Thumbs]

File:Total health expenditure per capita, US Dollars PPP.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But it seems to work to keep costs down

I hope it does work.

There are no examples of it working in real life though.

 

[Skynet]

Telll me why other countries can make these programs work yet you think Americans cant make them work?

They can't. That's just it. We have example after example of their failure and you want us to adopt them anyway.

Contrary to what one hears in political discourse, the bulk of the research comparing the United States and Canada found a higher quality of care in our northern neighbor. Canadians, for example, have longer survival times while undergoing renal dialysis and after a kidney transplant. Of 10 studies comparing the care given to a broad range of patients suffering from a diverse group of ailments, five favored Canada, three yielded mixed results, and only two favored the United States.

Editorial - World’s Best Health Care - NYTimes.com

according the WHO we are actually the 37th best system in the world (as of 2009)

Why change? The US has the 37th best health care system in the world - National Extreme Weight Loss | Examiner.com

heres a great article about the US health care system too (or well how it screws the little guy)

The best health care in the world - Standard-Examiner

 

[Anachronism]

And those suckers as you call them pay a huge amount of the countries taxes.

Yes. Taxes for unConstitutional, immoral, and disgusting programs like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, welfare, foreign aid, etc....

Imagine how much more money they could put in their pocket if they'd wise up and start refusing to pay for those illegal, immoral, and unConstitutional programs. Hell, it would probably be enough to pay their Starbucks bill for a month. Well, maybe not THAT much.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This idea that non-profit is some how cheaper is nuts.

the governemnt always costs more than for profit companies. Why? B/c they have to worry about going out of business, while the governement doesnt'.

I don't understand. Business is run by people, and government is run by people. Both are at risk of going out of business - in effect losing their job. Mayors, governors, legislators, etc. can be recalled and face reelection on a regualr basis. Government, by law, must be open to the public, not so a private business.

The government can not go out of business. A state union employee must go out of their way to lose thier job.

a personal story;

I did csr work for a company that did Med Sup Part D in CA [ironically]. We had 250 - 300 totla csr. Each week we go 1-2 calls where the customer advised us that they were not dead. Medicare had declared them dead and cancelled thier insurance. Now we did what we could to help, and at the speed of government the got thier ins back in ~ 3 months, assuming they didn't die w/o thier meds in the mean time.

Now tell me you want the same people running ALL your health ins cradle to the grave.

 

[Skynet]

what do you see as a solution to these problems?

Get the government out of healthcare entirely. Let those individuals who can afford healthcare get it and those who can't afford it.... well, TOUGH LUCK.

id just like to point out that anachronism just told everyone who cant afford insurance, fuck you too bad.



Very simple......

Costs will go UP because there will be more people getting more services. Individuals who currently pay NOTHING for their care (and who I'm sure will STILL pay NOTHING) will be more apt to partake of additional services that they currently are not partaking in.

Income into the system will go DOWN as companies and individuals who will be expected to pay a larger bill for their services (and to cover the services of the non-payers) leave the state for greener pastures.

where did it say companies are footing the bill? this would be single payer, hence ever resident has to pay taxes to for services in the system.

That $200 Billion expense will probably go to $300 Billion as these non-payers stick their hands even further into the healthcare "cookie jar". Companies and businesses which are currently paying for the "cookies" will stop doing so. When there becomes a shortfall in the "cookies" available through the rates paid by those who are forced to pay for services, the government is going to have to make that difference up.

Let's assume that the $200 Billion even stays the same. You've currently got let's say $2 Trillion (pulling that number out of my ass) that is paid in premiums by the general public for their insurance plans. If we assume all that money now goes to funding this Cali-care plan instead, the plan has to soak up an additional 10% ($200 Billion) in expenses without adding even a single penny in income to maintain the same rates as our currently being paid. I don't think any of us are naive enough to believe that rates won't go UP. Then people leave, and the overall income to the plan decreases.

so because more people are paying for services, costs will go up. well yes...... that true, but since more people are paying for services the burden to the state goes down..... more money in from the plan holders (i.e. by paying taxes that go towards the system) = less money needed from the state.

 

[Claudette]

This idea that non-profit is some how cheaper is nuts.

the governemnt always costs more than for profit companies. Why? B/c they have to worry about going out of business, while the governement doesnt'.

I don't understand. Business is run by people, and government is run by people. Both are at risk of going out of business - in effect losing their job. Mayors, governors, legislators, etc. can be recalled and face reelection on a regualr basis. Government, by law, must be open to the public, not so a private business.

The Govt is always backed by the tax dollar. They can't go out of business.

Private companies can.

 

[daveman]

What if it works?

History suggests it won't. TennCare failed. MassCare failed.

DirigoChoice in Maine.
...

In 2003, the state to great fanfare enacted its own version of universal health care. Democratic Governor John Baldacci signed the plan into law with a bevy of familiar promises. By 2009, it would cover all of Maine's approximately 128,000 uninsured citizens. System-wide controls on hospital and physician costs would hold down insurance premiums. There would be no tax increases. The program was going to provide insurance for everyone and save businesses and patients money at the same time.

After five years, fiscal realities as brutal as the waves that crash along Maine's famous coastline have hit the insurance plan. The system that was supposed to save money has cost taxpayers $155 million and is still rising.

Here's how the program was supposed to work. Two government programs would cover the uninsured. First the legislature greatly expanded MaineCare, the state's Medicaid program. Today Maine families with incomes of up to $44,000 a year are eligible; 22% of the population is now in Medicaid, roughly twice the national average.

Then the state created a "public option" known as DirigoChoice. (Dirigo is the state motto, meaning "I Lead.") This plan would compete with private plans such as Blue Cross. To entice lower income Mainers to enroll, it offered taxpayer-subsidized premiums. The plan's original funding source was $50 million of federal stimulus money the state got in 2003. Over time, the plan was to be "paid for by savings in the health-care system." This is precisely the promise of ObamaCare. Maine saved by squeezing payments to hospitals and physicians.

The program flew off track fast. At its peak in 2006, only about 15,000 people had enrolled in the DirigoChoice program. That number has dropped to below 10,000, according to the state's own reporting. About two-thirds of those who enrolled already had insurance, which they dropped in favor of the public option and its subsidies. Instead of 128,000 uninsured in the program today, the actual number is just 3,400. Despite the giant expansions in Maine's Medicaid program and the new, subsidized public choice option, the number of uninsured in the state today is only slightly lower that in 2004 when the program began.

Why did this happen? Among the biggest reasons is a severe adverse selection problem: The sickest, most expensive patients crowded into DirigoChoice, unbalancing its insurance pool and raising costs. That made it unattractive for healthier and lower-risk enrollees. And as a result, few low-income Mainers have been able to afford the premiums, even at subsidized rates.

This problem was exacerbated because since the early 1990s Maine has required insurers to adhere to community rating and guaranteed issue, which requires that insurers cover anyone who applies, regardless of their health condition and at a uniform premium. These rules—which are in the Obama plan—have relentlessly driven up insurance costs in Maine, especially for healthy people.

The Maine Heritage Policy Center, which has tracked the plan closely, points out that largely because of these insurance rules, a healthy male in Maine who is 30 and single pays a monthly premium of $762 in the individual market; next door in New Hampshire he pays $222 a month. The Granite State doesn't have community rating and guaranteed issue.

One proposal to get people into the DirigoChoice system is to reduce the premiums, presumably to give the uninsured a larger incentive to join. But that would explode the program's costs when it already can't pay its bills. A program that was supposed to save money by reducing health-care waste and inefficiencies has seen a 74% increase in premiums. But even those inflated payments can't keep the program out of the red.

Last year, DirigoCare was so desperate for cash that the legislature broke its original promise of no tax hikes and proposed an infusion of funds through a beer, wine and soda tax, similar to what has been floated to pay for the Obama plan. Maine voters rejected these taxes by two to one. Then this year the legislature passed a 2% tax on paid health insurance claims. Taxing paid insurance claims sounds a tad churlish, but the previous funding formula was so complicated that it was costing the state $1 million a year in lawsuits.

Unlike the federal government, Maine has a balanced budget requirement. So out of fiscal necessity, the state has now capped the enrollment in the program and allowed no new entrants. Now there is a waiting list. DirigoChoice has become yet another expensive, failed experiment in government-run health care, alongside similar fiascoes in Massachusetts and Tennessee.
...

Maine’s Dirigo Provides Caveat for ObamaCare - WSJ.com

That's three. Anybody want to make the claim that CA can make it work?

Like I said: History suggests it will fail.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This idea that non-profit is some how cheaper is nuts.

the governemnt always costs more than for profit companies. Why? B/c they have to worry about going out of business, while the governement doesnt'.

I don't understand. Business is run by people, and government is run by people. Both are at risk of going out of business - in effect losing their job. Mayors, governors, legislators, etc. can be recalled and face reelection on a regualr basis. Government, by law, must be open to the public, not so a private business.

The government can not go out of business. A state union employee must go out of their way to lose thier job.

a personal story;

I did csr work for a company that did Med Sup Part D in CA [ironically]. We had 250 - 300 totla csr. Each week we go 1-2 calls where the customer advised us that they were not dead. Medicare had declared them dead and cancelled thier insurance. Now we did what we could to help, and at the speed of government the got thier ins back in ~ 3 months, assuming they didn't die w/o thier meds in the mean time.

Now tell me you want the same people running ALL your health ins cradle to the grave.

Are you suggesting similar problems don't occur in the private sector?

My point was policy makers - not clerks - would lose their jobs; policy makers do when they fail to perform. It happens every election, incumbents lose and others take their place, some even are recalled. In effect a new government replaces the old, tantamount to how new businesses spring up when others fail.

 

[Claudette]

History suggests it won't. TennCare failed. MassCare failed.

DirigoChoice in Maine.
...

In 2003, the state to great fanfare enacted its own version of universal health care. Democratic Governor John Baldacci signed the plan into law with a bevy of familiar promises. By 2009, it would cover all of Maine's approximately 128,000 uninsured citizens. System-wide controls on hospital and physician costs would hold down insurance premiums. There would be no tax increases. The program was going to provide insurance for everyone and save businesses and patients money at the same time.

After five years, fiscal realities as brutal as the waves that crash along Maine's famous coastline have hit the insurance plan. The system that was supposed to save money has cost taxpayers $155 million and is still rising.

Here's how the program was supposed to work. Two government programs would cover the uninsured. First the legislature greatly expanded MaineCare, the state's Medicaid program. Today Maine families with incomes of up to $44,000 a year are eligible; 22% of the population is now in Medicaid, roughly twice the national average.

Then the state created a "public option" known as DirigoChoice. (Dirigo is the state motto, meaning "I Lead.") This plan would compete with private plans such as Blue Cross. To entice lower income Mainers to enroll, it offered taxpayer-subsidized premiums. The plan's original funding source was $50 million of federal stimulus money the state got in 2003. Over time, the plan was to be "paid for by savings in the health-care system." This is precisely the promise of ObamaCare. Maine saved by squeezing payments to hospitals and physicians.

The program flew off track fast. At its peak in 2006, only about 15,000 people had enrolled in the DirigoChoice program. That number has dropped to below 10,000, according to the state's own reporting. About two-thirds of those who enrolled already had insurance, which they dropped in favor of the public option and its subsidies. Instead of 128,000 uninsured in the program today, the actual number is just 3,400. Despite the giant expansions in Maine's Medicaid program and the new, subsidized public choice option, the number of uninsured in the state today is only slightly lower that in 2004 when the program began.

Why did this happen? Among the biggest reasons is a severe adverse selection problem: The sickest, most expensive patients crowded into DirigoChoice, unbalancing its insurance pool and raising costs. That made it unattractive for healthier and lower-risk enrollees. And as a result, few low-income Mainers have been able to afford the premiums, even at subsidized rates.

This problem was exacerbated because since the early 1990s Maine has required insurers to adhere to community rating and guaranteed issue, which requires that insurers cover anyone who applies, regardless of their health condition and at a uniform premium. These rules—which are in the Obama plan—have relentlessly driven up insurance costs in Maine, especially for healthy people.

The Maine Heritage Policy Center, which has tracked the plan closely, points out that largely because of these insurance rules, a healthy male in Maine who is 30 and single pays a monthly premium of $762 in the individual market; next door in New Hampshire he pays $222 a month. The Granite State doesn't have community rating and guaranteed issue.

One proposal to get people into the DirigoChoice system is to reduce the premiums, presumably to give the uninsured a larger incentive to join. But that would explode the program's costs when it already can't pay its bills. A program that was supposed to save money by reducing health-care waste and inefficiencies has seen a 74% increase in premiums. But even those inflated payments can't keep the program out of the red.

Last year, DirigoCare was so desperate for cash that the legislature broke its original promise of no tax hikes and proposed an infusion of funds through a beer, wine and soda tax, similar to what has been floated to pay for the Obama plan. Maine voters rejected these taxes by two to one. Then this year the legislature passed a 2% tax on paid health insurance claims. Taxing paid insurance claims sounds a tad churlish, but the previous funding formula was so complicated that it was costing the state $1 million a year in lawsuits.

Unlike the federal government, Maine has a balanced budget requirement. So out of fiscal necessity, the state has now capped the enrollment in the program and allowed no new entrants. Now there is a waiting list. DirigoChoice has become yet another expensive, failed experiment in government-run health care, alongside similar fiascoes in Massachusetts and Tennessee.
...

Maine’s Dirigo Provides Caveat for ObamaCare - WSJ.com

That's three. Anybody want to make the claim that CA can make it work?

Like I said: History suggests it will fail.

These plans can't work. How many States have tried and how many work as they are advertised?? They are full of Unintended Consequences.

Those who can buy premiums end up having to pay more to cover the costs of those who can't pay. I don't know about you but I'm not interested in paying anyones HC costs anymore than I want to pay the mortgage, rent or send their kids to college.

Obamacare will be the same damnend thing.

Sure hope the SC finds that clusterfuck unconstitutional because if it doesn't anyone who can pay is going to the poorhouse.

 

[Anachronism]

id just like to point out that anachronism just told everyone who cant afford insurance, fuck you too bad.

Yes. Yes, I did.

where did it say companies are footing the bill? this would be single payer, hence ever resident has to pay taxes to for services in the system.

Even better. Now, rather than paying a percentage of my healthcare expense (20-35%) through my employer, I'm going to be paying 100% of it PLUS the cost of the lazy, worthless sacks of shit who don't pay any taxes to begin with. This just keeps getting better and better.

So rather than paying $25 (20%) a week to my employer, I'll be paying 100% ($125 a week, $6500 a year) of my own bill, plus probably another 50% (at least) of someone else's. Gee, I'd really like to pay $10,000 a year for my (and someone else's) health care rather than paying $1300 a year for just mine. NO THANKS.

so because more people are paying for services, costs will go up. well yes...... that true, but since more people are paying for services the burden to the state goes down..... more money in from the plan holders (i.e. by paying taxes that go towards the system) = less money needed from the state.

More people will NOT be paying into the system. I have a very hard time believing that the lower tax bracket people will be forced to pay their fair share in this. As always the burden will end up on the middle and upper income brackets to pay for the worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen in the lower brackets.

 

[DiamondDave]

Telll me why other countries can make these programs work yet you think Americans cant make them work?

They can't. That's just it. We have example after example of their failure and you want us to adopt them anyway.

Contrary to what one hears in political discourse, the bulk of the research comparing the United States and Canada found a higher quality of care in our northern neighbor. Canadians, for example, have longer survival times while undergoing renal dialysis and after a kidney transplant. Of 10 studies comparing the care given to a broad range of patients suffering from a diverse group of ailments, five favored Canada, three yielded mixed results, and only two favored the United States.

Editorial - World’s Best Health Care - NYTimes.com

according the WHO we are actually the 37th best system in the world (as of 2009)

Why change? The US has the 37th best health care system in the world - National Extreme Weight Loss | Examiner.com

heres a great article about the US health care system too (or well how it screws the little guy)

The best health care in the world - Standard-Examiner

The WHO report??/ Seriously?? LMAO

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study

 

[Claudette]

id just like to point out that anachronism just told everyone who cant afford insurance, fuck you too bad.

Yes. Yes, I did.

where did it say companies are footing the bill? this would be single payer, hence ever resident has to pay taxes to for services in the system.

Even better. Now, rather than paying a percentage of my healthcare expense (20-35%) through my employer, I'm going to be paying 100% of it PLUS the cost of the lazy, worthless sacks of shit who don't pay any taxes to begin with. This just keeps getting better and better.

So rather than paying $25 (20%) a week to my employer, I'll be paying 100% ($125 a week, $6500 a year) of my own bill, plus probably another 50% (at least) of someone else's. Gee, I'd really like to pay $10,000 a year for my (and someone else's) health care rather than paying $1300 a year for just mine. NO THANKS.

so because more people are paying for services, costs will go up. well yes...... that true, but since more people are paying for services the burden to the state goes down..... more money in from the plan holders (i.e. by paying taxes that go towards the system) = less money needed from the state.

More people will NOT be paying into the system. I have a very hard time believing that the lower tax bracket people will be forced to pay their fair share in this. As always the burden will end up on the middle and upper income brackets to pay for the worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen in the lower brackets.

Your so right.

We have 50% of the people in this country who pay for nothing now. What makes anyone think that they will pay for their HC??

Dream the fuck on.

 

[Skynet]

id just like to point out that anachronism just told everyone who cant afford insurance, fuck you too bad.

Yes. Yes, I did.

where did it say companies are footing the bill? this would be single payer, hence ever resident has to pay taxes to for services in the system.

Even better. Now, rather than paying a percentage of my healthcare expense (20-35%) through my employer, I'm going to be paying 100% of it PLUS the cost of the lazy, worthless sacks of shit who don't pay any taxes to begin with. This just keeps getting better and better.

So rather than paying $25 (20%) a week to my employer, I'll be paying 100% ($125 a week, $6500 a year) of my own bill, plus probably another 50% (at least) of someone else's. Gee, I'd really like to pay $10,000 a year for my (and someone else's) health care rather than paying $1300 a year for just mine. NO THANKS.

so because more people are paying for services, costs will go up. well yes...... that true, but since more people are paying for services the burden to the state goes down..... more money in from the plan holders (i.e. by paying taxes that go towards the system) = less money needed from the state.

More people will NOT be paying into the system. I have a very hard time believing that the lower tax bracket people will be forced to pay their fair share in this. As always the burden will end up on the middle and upper income brackets to pay for the worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen in the lower brackets.

glad to see your company is footing the bill. i hope they eliminate your benefits because costs get too high and then you cant afford HC. then you become part of the millions of uninsured and, actually that would be like saying fuck you to yourself!