+DieChecker Posted June 25, 2017 #1 Share Posted June 25, 2017 I didn't see this posted already. But, California has been working in their State Senate to provide everyone in the state with free healthcare. But, it seems for now, the law is on hold. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article157974029.html Quote Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon put the brakes on a sweeping plan to overhaul the health care market in California Friday, calling the bill “woefully incomplete.” Rendon announced plans to park the bill to create a government-run universal health care system in Assembly Rules Committee “until further notice” and give senators time to fill in holes that the bill does not currently address. “Even senators who voted for Senate Bill 562 noted there are potentially fatal flaws in the bill, including the fact it does not address many serious issues, such as financing, delivery of care, cost controls, or the realities of needed action by the Trump administration and voters to make SB 562 a genuine piece of legislation,” Rendon said. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-single-payer-bill-20170605-story.html Quote No one even knows the bill’s price tag. But whatever it is, it’s astronomical. An analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Lara, pegged it at $400 billion annually. To put that in perspective, total state spending for the next fiscal year is projected to be $290 billion, including $107 billion in federal dollars. Lara says Californians currently spend $367 billion each year on healthcare — federal, state and private money. His bill would use that money, eliminating private insurance. There’d be no patient co-pays or deductibles. The California Nurses Assn., the bill’s loudest advocate, paid for a University of Massachusetts Amherst study that picked a $331-billion cost. Lara is running for state insurance commissioner with the nurses’ backing. Even if the state gobbled up all the government and private money being spent on healthcare in California, there’d still be a need for a state tax increase of up to $100 billion. A 15% payroll tax is envisioned. The nurses also suggested business and sales tax hikes. Lots of luck with that. I'd like to see a State work out Universal Healthcare on a smaller level, before it is brought up on the Federal level. Right now, I think it is cost prohibitive, using the current pricing/payment systems. We'd need to basically tear down the entirety of Healthcare, and reboot how much doctors get paid, how much medical treatments cost, and how much medical supplies cost. With lowering costs, it simply isn't going to work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurzweil Posted June 25, 2017 #2 Share Posted June 25, 2017 (edited) I just want my insurance premiums to go back to what they were before Obama. But that'll never happen. He set the bar so like gas prices they'll stay there until we get use to them and accept it as the norm. Thanks Obama. Thanks a lot. >:( Edited June 25, 2017 by Kurzweil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted June 25, 2017 #3 Share Posted June 25, 2017 With what I have read and heard of the new Health Care bill being shoved through the US federal Government there will be many people demanding actual healthcare coverage. i honestly am surprised that there are lots of people in the US object to basic healthcare coverage. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted June 25, 2017 #4 Share Posted June 25, 2017 Just now, Thanato said: i honestly am surprised that there are lots of people in the US object to basic healthcare coverage. Its truly a bizarre situation where people have been convinced that corporate interests trump their own. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted June 25, 2017 #5 Share Posted June 25, 2017 25 minutes ago, Farmer77 said: Its truly a bizarre situation where people have been convinced that corporate interests trump their own. It's really bizarre that it's normally the people who would benefit the most who are the most against it. I guess it. Oils down to decades of anti socialist propaganda and brainwashing. Where anything that the government does to benifit the people in terms of providing a service is a step towards dictatorship. Where there are countless examples of the USs closest allies proving it's not the case. You can provide healthcare to your people without becoming soviets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted June 25, 2017 #6 Share Posted June 25, 2017 29 minutes ago, Thanato said: With what I have read and heard of the new Health Care bill being shoved through the US federal Government there will be many people demanding actual healthcare coverage. i honestly am surprised that there are lots of people in the US object to basic healthcare coverage. I don't think it's the notion of basic healthcare coverage itself, lots of folks seem to think it's an ok concept for everyone to have basic healthcare. The objections seem to start kicking in when the parts about how it happens or what process is implemented or who's paying for it or controlling it comes up. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLOMBIE Posted June 25, 2017 #7 Share Posted June 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, rashore said: I don't think it's the notion of basic healthcare coverage itself, lots of folks seem to think it's an ok concept for everyone to have basic healthcare. The objections seem to start kicking in when the parts about how it happens or what process is implemented or who's paying for it or controlling it comes up. I see Americans being opposed to even the most basic forms of universal healthcare. Especially on this forum. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted June 25, 2017 #8 Share Posted June 25, 2017 Just now, FLOMBIE said: I see Americans being opposed to even the most basic forms of universal healthcare. Especially on this forum. I see that aspect here too... but universal healthcare is part of that how it happens/who pays for it part. I've seen folks that are ok with private insurance or medicare/medicaid taking care of basic healthcare that are negative about the notion of universal healthcare taking care of basic healthcare. I've seen some folks that may be more ok with universal healthcare, but the U.S. sure has been making a mess of whatever it is so far and the Feds probably shouldn't be trusted with that level of control over how basic healthcare is handled. I've not often seen folks actively oppose basic healthcare itself. As in making the argument that things like kids wellchecks or basic yearly physicals shouldn't be accessible. Or that it is a bad idea to have some sort of systems in place to pay for healthcare. But there is quite often argument over how that accessibility should or shouldn't be handled. Often a lot of argument over what should or shouldn't be considered basic healthcare or what should or shouldn't be considered part of universal healthcare. Lots of arguments about what sorts of systems should or shouldn't be in place to pay for it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliss Posted June 25, 2017 #9 Share Posted June 25, 2017 11 hours ago, DieChecker said: I didn't see this posted already. But, California has been working in their State Senate to provide everyone in the state with free healthcare. But, it seems for now, the law is on hold. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article157974029.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-single-payer-bill-20170605-story.html I'd like to see a State work out Universal Healthcare on a smaller level, before it is brought up on the Federal level. Right now, I think it is cost prohibitive, using the current pricing/payment systems. We'd need to basically tear down the entirety of Healthcare, and reboot how much doctors get paid, how much medical treatments cost, and how much medical supplies cost. With lowering costs, it simply isn't going to work. I remember reading a study years ago that listed the world's different Healthcare systems and broke them down dispassionatly into what works and what doesnt. France was one of the biggest I remember that listed many of the problems that come with Universal Healthcare...your post reminded me of some of it. One being that when doctors prices are set by the government it takes away the financial incentive for those who consider that field and therefore the best and the brightest will generally pick a profession that gives them a better chance at wealth such as being a lawyer. What you end up with is the B and C students going into medicine. Not optimum. For France in particular their aging population was quickly becoming a factor. Not enough working young to make up the money needed. That and the fact that people hear the word "free" and they run to the doctor for every little thing, colds, splinters, etc that they normally would have taken care of themselves resulting in less and less being covered. This was maybe 8 years ago and at that time something like 85% of their citizens were paying for secondary healthcare from private insurances to cover the more and more services that weren't being coversed by universal care. Considering that the countries who have this care also have MUCH smaller populations than we do in the U.S. I just can't see how it's sustainable for us. Maybe in France they are fine with 65% income tax or more, but I'm not. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted June 25, 2017 #10 Share Posted June 25, 2017 6 hours ago, rashore said: I don't think it's the notion of basic healthcare coverage itself, lots of folks seem to think it's an ok concept for everyone to have basic healthcare. The objections seem to start kicking in when the parts about how it happens or what process is implemented or who's paying for it or controlling it comes up. Exactly right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted June 26, 2017 #11 Share Posted June 26, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, DieChecker said: Even senators who voted for Senate Bill 562 noted there are potentially fatal flaws in the bill, including the fact it does not address many serious issues, such as financing, delivery of care, cost controls, or the realities of needed action by the Trump administration and voters to make SB 562 a genuine piece of legislation,” Rendon said. So it's a big pass it to see what's in it feel good piece of garbage designed for emotional votes. They have no idea how to make it work. I have a question. What would Californians do for treatment outside the state? Would the state pick up the bill. I doubt it. California's population would also surge at least on paper as out of state relatives start using their California kin's addresses as their main address. They also couldn't stop a surge of people who live in other states from actually moving there to take advantage of the free system. It's not another country so there's no way to make migration requirements of other Americans to make sure they weren't moving there to take advantage of it. With that in mind the $400B would balloon to a trillion or more in no time. Universal would have to be the whole country or nothing and plenty of reasons listed here and in past threads show how it can't work and won't work. Edited June 26, 2017 by F3SS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickian Posted June 26, 2017 #12 Share Posted June 26, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Thanato said: i honestly am surprised that there are lots of people in the US object to basic healthcare coverage. It's a matter of viewing a service as a right instead of a service. "Free" healthcare would be nice, but most people would rather have an affordable variety of services(something we don't have now due to numerous reasons) to choose from instead of being taxed obscenely to make "free" healthcare practical. Edited June 26, 2017 by Wickian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 26, 2017 Author #13 Share Posted June 26, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, Thanato said: It's really bizarre that it's normally the people who would benefit the most who are the most against it. I guess it. Oils down to decades of anti socialist propaganda and brainwashing. Where anything that the government does to benifit the people in terms of providing a service is a step towards dictatorship. Where there are countless examples of the USs closest allies proving it's not the case. You can provide healthcare to your people without becoming soviets. Well, as a Conservative, I don't want people to go without healthcare, but I don't want to be paying 2/3rd of my income so other people can go to the doctor for a headache each and every day. I think people who make 30,000 dollars a year, really don't want to be paying 15,000 of it for their healthcare, while getting maybe 1000 dollars worth of services for it. Those people would really rather have 25,000 dollars and total crap insurance they can only use in utter emergencies. Sure, if it was free it will be there for you when you really need it, but I suspect, like myself, that before 50, a average person might only have one, or two, major events. So they pay half their wages for 30 years and only get a return on it twice for maybe a quarter, to half, what they paid in. I can see why young, and middle aged, working people wouldn't like this at all. I'm already paying a good bit in Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security taxes. Let the FeGov pay those that need insurance out of that. 2 hours ago, Wickian said: It's a matter of viewing a service as a right instead of a service. "Free" healthcare would be nice, but most people would rather have an affordable variety of services(something we don't have now due to numerous reasons) to choose from instead of being taxed obscenely to make "free" healthcare practical. I really wouldn't even mind free healthcare, but I really just don't trust the FedGov to run it efficiently, or effectively. Let them run the VA healthcare for like 5 to10 years.... effectively, efficiently... and then show us that it can be done. Edited June 26, 2017 by DieChecker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted June 26, 2017 #14 Share Posted June 26, 2017 6 hours ago, DieChecker said: Well, as a Conservative, I don't want people to go without healthcare, but I don't want to be paying 2/3rd of my income so other people can go to the doctor for a headache each and every day. I think people who make 30,000 dollars a year, really don't want to be paying 15,000 of it for their healthcare, while getting maybe 1000 dollars worth of services for it. Those people would really rather have 25,000 dollars and total crap insurance they can only use in utter emergencies. Sure, if it was free it will be there for you when you really need it, but I suspect, like myself, that before 50, a average person might only have one, or two, major events. So they pay half their wages for 30 years and only get a return on it twice for maybe a quarter, to half, what they paid in. I can see why young, and middle aged, working people wouldn't like this at all. I'm already paying a good bit in Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security taxes. Let the FeGov pay those that need insurance out of that. I really wouldn't even mind free healthcare, but I really just don't trust the FedGov to run it efficiently, or effectively. Let them run the VA healthcare for like 5 to10 years.... effectively, efficiently... and then show us that it can be done. I make about 63,000 a year I pay 14000 in federal and provincial tax. If I was making 30,000 I'd pay about 5000 in tax. I honestly don't see how someone would pay half thier income in tax to fund a healthcare system. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Caspian Hare Posted June 26, 2017 #15 Share Posted June 26, 2017 If you use VA of an example how national healthcare can not work in the US then it is only fair to point out that most people who have Medicare like it, according to polling, and regardless of political party. US in fact already has national health insurance, but only for a limited segment of population, and the ones who have it generally like it. (For those outside US, Medicare in US context is the program for old people, not to be confused with programs in couple other countries having the exact same name.) There is also "Medicaid" for the poor. Also remember that health insurance and health care delivery are two different things. HEalth insurance could be nationalized while health care delivery could remain private. Personally it looks to me that a lot of money gets consumed in the various insurance companies' administrative costs, and much time wasted working with the details of thousands of different employer health plans, and a national program where you simply pay through tax would be simpler and hence cheaper. As it stands the US has already all the cost and complexity of government run healthcare but without the universal coverage. Worst of both worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted June 26, 2017 #16 Share Posted June 26, 2017 15 hours ago, skliss said: I remember reading a study years ago that listed the world's different Healthcare systems and broke them down dispassionatly into what works and what doesnt. France was one of the biggest I remember that listed many of the problems that come with Universal Healthcare...your post reminded me of some of it. One being that when doctors prices are set by the government it takes away the financial incentive for those who consider that field and therefore the best and the brightest will generally pick a profession that gives them a better chance at wealth such as being a lawyer. What you end up with is the B and C students going into medicine. Not optimum. For France in particular their aging population was quickly becoming a factor. Not enough working young to make up the money needed. That and the fact that people hear the word "free" and they run to the doctor for every little thing, colds, splinters, etc that they normally would have taken care of themselves resulting in less and less being covered. This was maybe 8 years ago and at that time something like 85% of their citizens were paying for secondary healthcare from private insurances to cover the more and more services that weren't being coversed by universal care. Considering that the countries who have this care also have MUCH smaller populations than we do in the U.S. I just can't see how it's sustainable for us. Maybe in France they are fine with 65% income tax or more, but I'm not. Aside from the priority issue - i.e prioritizing the criminally bloated DOD budget over our citizens health - your position is kind of short sighted. We in the US have lived with a de facto socialist healthcare system for decades. The benefactor of that system however are corporate interests. When you go to the hospital you see charges like $30 for an 800MG ibuprofen (real charge from an ER visit I made). The reason that iburpofen costs so much is to offset the costs for those who cant afford or just choose not to pay their bills. The majority of folks who cant afford to pay their bills also cant afford preventative healthcare. Without preventative healthcare the conditions which these people eventually end up going to the ER for are far more costly than they would have been had they simply received the maintenance they should have. Once those conditions pass a certain point they're put on the medicare/medicaid rolls and you and I are paying for these people's health, just now at a much higher cost than had we simply provided the care to prevent these health conditions from materializing in the first place. The having to pay 65% of your income to healthcare is if not a myth, myth adjacent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted June 26, 2017 #17 Share Posted June 26, 2017 On 6/25/2017 at 2:58 AM, DieChecker said: I'd like to see a State work out Universal Healthcare on a smaller level, before it is brought up on the Federal level. Right now, I think it is cost prohibitive, using the current pricing/payment systems. We'd need to basically tear down the entirety of Healthcare, and reboot how much doctors get paid, how much medical treatments cost, and how much medical supplies cost. With lowering costs, it simply isn't going to work. That is a big key for me. I think we started on the wrong side to start universal healthcare. The medical/pharmaceutical/healthcare system is really messed up with inflated costs running wild. I would start with a large accounting firm doing massive audits and get it to where every cost is itemized. No more $18 aspirin. A lady that works for me had an incident with her husband a couple weeks ago. He was flown via helicopter a 1/2 hour away to a larger hospital (thankfully he is OK). She got a copy of the bill that she needed to submit to the insurance and the bill for the copter was $50,000. I know that is not an actual cost. I had to rent a copter for a full day for the company I work for and it cost $15,000. I know there are differences in the units and other variables, but $50,000 would need to be itemized for me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted June 26, 2017 #18 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Just now, Myles said: That is a big key for me. I think we started on the wrong side to start universal healthcare. The medical/pharmaceutical/healthcare system is really messed up with inflated costs running wild. I would start with a large accounting firm doing massive audits and get it to where every cost is itemized. No more $18 aspirin. A lady that works for me had an incident with her husband a couple weeks ago. He was flown via helicopter a 1/2 hour away to a larger hospital (thankfully he is OK). She got a copy of the bill that she needed to submit to the insurance and the bill for the copter was $50,000. I know that is not an actual cost. I had to rent a copter for a full day for the company I work for and it cost $15,000. I know there are differences in the units and other variables, but $50,000 would need to be itemized for me. Remember when you're getting a med evac you're not only paying for the aircraft, fuel and insurance you're also getting 2 highly specialized medical professionals along with a pilot with world class qualifications and the best training money can buy. Many med evac companies, in my opinion the more morally correct ones, will bill insurance astronomical rates so they can offset their costs for those who have to pay out of pocket. The less scrupulous ones will charge the same retail rate and gladly watch their patients go bankrupt while pursuing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted June 26, 2017 #19 Share Posted June 26, 2017 look at beauty of Canadian free healthcare, a woman waited 4 hours to see a doctor, and the doctor could not even speak English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted June 26, 2017 #20 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Just now, Farmer77 said: Many med evac companies, in my opinion the more morally correct ones, will bill insurance astronomical rates so they can offset their costs for those who have to pay out of pocket. yes, when insurance pays only 10% of that bill, they send the rest to you. seen it many times for doctor, hospitals, and even ems services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted June 26, 2017 #21 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Just now, aztek said: yes, when insurance pays only 10% of that bill, they send the rest to you. seen it many times for doctor, hospitals, and even ems services. Like I said the more morally correct companies don't do that. Unfortunately though the more i think about it the vast majority of air ambulance and med evacuation flights are operated by two companies and neither one of them fall into that category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted June 26, 2017 #22 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Just now, Farmer77 said: Like I said the more morally correct companies don't do that. lol, yea morally correct company in your imaginary world do not, but in real world it is done everyday,. Sky-Rage: Bills, Debt, Lawsuits Follow Helicopter Medevac Trips http://abcnews.go.com/US/sky-rage-bills-debt-lawsuits-follow-helicopter-medevac/story?id=37669153 $23,000 airlift bill https://forum.freeadvice.com/auto-accidents-vehicle-claims-1/23-000-airlift-bill-584549.html Lifesaving Flights Can Come With Life-Changing Bills http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/18/460848383/lifesaving-flights-can-come-with-life-changing-bills Patient Charged $25,000 For 46-Mile Medical Helicopter Ride http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Patient-Charged-25000-For-Short-Medical-Helicopter-Ride-208591771.html My $54,000 helicopter ride 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted June 26, 2017 #23 Share Posted June 26, 2017 (edited) Just now, aztek said: lol, yea morally correct company in your imaginary world do not, but in real world it is done everyday,. Sky-Rage: Bills, Debt, Lawsuits Follow Helicopter Medevac Trips http://abcnews.go.com/US/sky-rage-bills-debt-lawsuits-follow-helicopter-medevac/story?id=37669153 $23,000 airlift bill https://forum.freeadvice.com/auto-accidents-vehicle-claims-1/23-000-airlift-bill-584549.html Lifesaving Flights Can Come With Life-Changing Bills http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/18/460848383/lifesaving-flights-can-come-with-life-changing-bills Patient Charged $25,000 For 46-Mile Medical Helicopter Ride http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Patient-Charged-25000-For-Short-Medical-Helicopter-Ride-208591771.html My $54,000 helicopter ride You really dont need to educate me on the industry. Edited June 26, 2017 by Farmer77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted June 26, 2017 #24 Share Posted June 26, 2017 51 minutes ago, Farmer77 said: Remember when you're getting a med evac you're not only paying for the aircraft, fuel and insurance you're also getting 2 highly specialized medical professionals along with a pilot with world class qualifications and the best training money can buy. Many med evac companies, in my opinion the more morally correct ones, will bill insurance astronomical rates so they can offset their costs for those who have to pay out of pocket. I understand this, but still think $50,000 is raping the patient. If they can justify it, they can itemize it. I suspect that is why it is not itemized. Just a nice lump sum number of $50,000. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingitsune Posted June 26, 2017 #25 Share Posted June 26, 2017 13 hours ago, F3SS said: I have a question. What would Californians do for treatment outside the state? They will do like Canadian do when going abroad, take a temporary travel health insurance. It coast about 30 bucks for a week, some credit card have them in the advantages you pay for yearly. Also, Canadian medical insurances systems will cover the medical expense abroad, if it's not a known condition. For example, if you are recovering from a surgery while you go to Europe, then have some problem due to internal bleeding, your on you own. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now