California Assembly Passes Universal Health Care Bill

[lawrocket 3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071218/pl_nm/california_health_dc_2

Some key points:
"The $14 billion plan must also win approval from the state Senate and voters even as the most populous U.S. state faces an expected $14 billion gap in its budget." - oh, yes. THAT makes sense. Let's make it a $28 billion deficit.

"Under the plan, insurers could not deny coverage regardless of age or medical history and must spend at least 85 cents of every premium dollar on patient care."

- okay. Tht makes sense. While we're at it, let's have auto insurers cover all preexisting dents. This is a good way to say to insurers, "Raise the premiums."

"The bill would provide funding for community clinics in a bid to save money and ease stress on overcrowded emergency rooms, which provide the most expensive health care and act as a safety net for the uninsured"
- okay. Something somewhat sensible.

"Revenue to pay for the new plan would come from taxes on hospitals, cigarettes and employers who do not provide health insurance."

- okay. So lets tax the hospitals - who are already in the red and struggling. WTF?

"Amid concerns about how the state will pay for the ambitious program, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said he ordered an analysis of the long-term fiscal effects of the bill.

"This analysis, combined with the governor's proposed budget, will help determine how we can move forward in a fiscally responsible manner," Perata, a Democrat, said."

- Hmm. Okay. They have no real idea how they'll pay for it. They really haven't examined it. And these are the folks citing irresponsibility for the mortgage crisis????

But, they compromised and rushed into something. Hey, Ahnold! Remember how you got into office? That whole thing about a plan for the energy deregulation? It was rushed, made by backroom deals and compromise but was done without any freaking clue of how to accomplish the objectives.

So now, let's make universal healthcare but have no clue how to manage it or even PAY for it?

Pass the tylenol...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

So now, let's make universal healthcare but have no clue how to manage it or even PAY for it?

Pass the tylenol...

This might be a good thing. Maybe when people see how it works in California people will wise up and see it is not the euphoria that say it will be.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Gawain 0]

I haven't been following this item, how likely is it that the Senate will pass it, and will the Gov. Schwarzenegger sign it?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

Oh, Arnold was in on the negotiations. He'd sign it.

The State Senate is actually being more deliberate and tempered about it. They won't even start acting on it until next year.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So now, let's make universal healthcare but have no clue how to manage it or even PAY for it?

Pass the tylenol...

This might be a good thing. Maybe when people see how it works in California people will wise up and see it is not the euphoria that say it will be.

Amen brother, then we'll go back to denying basic healthcare like we should be doing.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Amen brother, then we'll go back to denying basic healthcare like we should be doing.

Seems to me the problem identified is that we HAVEN'T been denying basic healthcare. It's just that the people and organizatins PROVIDING it are going out of business because they are not denying care.

So the state wants to take over, and ironically, has no way to pay for it. So the state will be in the business of ensuring more people get denied care.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,471]

>This might be a good thing. Maybe when people see how it works in California . . .

I agree. It's a test case of sorts. If it doesn't work, then other states know what NOT to try. It if works in some areas but not others, they can take what works and reject what doesn't.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>This might be a good thing. Maybe when people see how it works in California . . .

I agree. It's a test case of sorts. If it doesn't work, then other states know what NOT to try. It if works in some areas but not others, they can take what works and reject what doesn't.

But it doesn't work like that, bill. The other states will say, "This is where California did it wrong" and each will mess it up in their own way.

And Cali won't fix it, either. They'll just pump more money into it. No government has ever been in the business of ceding power.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

>This might be a good thing. Maybe when people see how it works in California . . .

I agree. It's a test case of sorts. If it doesn't work, then other states know what NOT to try. It if works in some areas but not others, they can take what works and reject what doesn't.

Precisely. It has failed up here in Canada primarily because of the implementation in the past 2 decades. In it's original form it did seem to work.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[billvon 2,471]

>The other states will say, "This is where California did it wrong" and
>each will mess it up in their own way.

Yep, it is their right to mess it up in their own way. But they are less likely to mess it up if they have hard examples of what really DOES mess it up.

And don't forget, in some states voters still have some say. If the California initiative fails miserably they will vote against it, or vote against politicians who propose it. If it works the opposite will happen.

[airdvr 200]

This is funny... http://www.healthdecisions.org/News/default.aspx?doc_id=145126

The leaders have agreed to ask voters in November to require employers to spend between 1% and 6.5% of their payroll costs on healthcare. The measure would also levy a tax on tobacco sales of at least $1.50 a pack, although it could be as high as $2 a pack, the aides said.

"It's an incredible plan," Nunez (D-Los Angeles) said in an interview. "I couldn't tell you there is one single outstanding issue that is a make-or-break issue." Yea right

Under the plan, California employers with payrolls of up to $250,000 a year would have to spend at least 1% on healthcare for their workers. Those that didn't would pay into a state-run health insurance pool that would help secure coverage for the employees. Companies with payrolls up to $1 million would have to pay 4% and those with payrolls up to $15 million would have to pay 6%. All larger companies would pay 6.5%.

As you get higher in the payroll number the effect lessens. Most companies with these payroll numbers already are contributing to an employer sponsored plan.

Those involved in the negotiations said the only major piece still to be ironed out is the tax on tobacco. Schwarzenegger and Nunez have been negotiating with the tobacco companies to see if they can craft the provision in a way that will win their acquiescence, if not their support. But aides said they are also still discussing whether $1.50 a pack will be enough to fund the plan, or whether they will need $2 a pack -- an amount tobacco industry leaders say they will oppose.

I believe this is where the lion's share of the money will come from. You can bet the tobacco's won't just roll over.

Bob Ross, president of the California Endowment, a Los Angeles-based foundation that favors expanded healthcare, cited as obstacles the state's weakening economy, the budget gap and the continued standoff between President Bush and the Democratic-led Congress about expanding federal health insurance for children.

"Just as with the energy deregulation fiasco, legislators are being rushed into voting in the dark on a sweeping bill with massive loopholes and serious financial ramifications that no one has adequately reviewed," said Donna Gerber, the [California Nurses] union's chief lobbyist.

I wouldn't hold my breath over this one.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[1969912 0]

The bill requires that:

"On and after July 1, 2010, every California resident
shall be enrolled in and maintain at least minimum creditable
coverage.."

I wonder what happens to those who refuse to do so.


EDIT:

I found something in the bill. Those who fail to enroll/pay for insurance will be automatically enrolled in a plan, and the state will pay the premiums. The CA FTB (taxing authority) will then use its normal civil powers to collect the premium $ spent by the state.

Lawrocket, any opinions? Has anything similar been tested in CA courts?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[lawrocket 3]

There is a program where MediCal will put a lien on property of those who owe money. A MediCal lien is pretty tried and trued.

Also, you find situations where child support deadbeats get collections actions against them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Amen brother, then we'll go back to denying basic healthcare like we should be doing.

Seems to me the problem identified is that we HAVEN'T been denying basic healthcare. It's just that the people and organizatins PROVIDING it are going out of business because they are not denying care.

So the state wants to take over, and ironically, has no way to pay for it. So the state will be in the business of ensuring more people get denied care.

HMO's are going out of business? Is that so? Hospitals are recording huge profits, yet bitch about emergency care not be recompensed. I haven't heard that HC providers are going out of business, and if so, is it due to poor management / 100M salaries for those up top, or what?

If the state has no way to pay for it, they will still pay for it and worry about paying for it later, kinda like the military expenditures now. Point is, I don't think it's humane to deny based upon cost, if it is needed we need to pay for it. Explain how Canada and much of Europe does it w/o going broke and having their $$$ kill ours. Oh, I know, they don't match the world in defense spending.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>This might be a good thing. Maybe when people see how it works in California . . .

I agree. It's a test case of sorts. If it doesn't work, then other states know what NOT to try. It if works in some areas but not others, they can take what works and reject what doesn't.

But it doesn't work like that, bill. The other states will say, "This is where California did it wrong" and each will mess it up in their own way.

And Cali won't fix it, either. They'll just pump more money into it. No government has ever been in the business of ceding power.

Explain how Canada does it and kicks our dollar's ass at the same time.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>This might be a good thing. Maybe when people see how it works in California . . .

I agree. It's a test case of sorts. If it doesn't work, then other states know what NOT to try. It if works in some areas but not others, they can take what works and reject what doesn't.

Precisely. It has failed up here in Canada primarily because of the implementation in the past 2 decades. In it's original form it did seem to work.

Really? It has failed? Then why is it still there and your dollar kicking our asses? I've spoken with many Canadians and thee is no 6 month waiting list, etc.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Explain how Canada and much of Europe does it w/o going broke

By rationing. So while you do not find it humane to deny based on cost, those governments deny care because they cannot afford it.

The quality of Canadian health care is good when you can get it. The quality of US healthcare is great when you can afford it. Hence, wealthier Canadians come to the US for treatment because they cannot get the care in Canada.

Ergo, inhumane.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[1969912 0]

Quote

There is a program where MediCal will put a lien on property of those who owe money. A MediCal lien is pretty tried and trued.

Also, you find situations where child support deadbeats get collections actions against them.

I should have been more specific with my question.


In order to reside in CA, are there currently any requirements (Assume no job, no property, no car, no kids....) like registering as a resident, vaccinations, paying a fee, paying any taxes, etc? If not, what about any other states?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Precisely. It has failed up here in Canada primarily because of the implementation in the past 2 decades. In it's original form it did seem to work.

Really? It has failed? Then why is it still there and your dollar kicking our asses? I've spoken with many Canadians and thee is no 6 month waiting list, etc.

You're wrong - again

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Then why is it still there and your dollar kicking our asses?

In economic terms the relative performance of one currency to another has approximately zero relationship to health care -- at least until you get to Zimbabwe-like scenarios where the printing presses start rolling to "fund" universal coverage.

There's a leading theory that currency fluctuations mean very little beyond fuel for pissing contests between nationalists.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>This might be a good thing. Maybe when people see how it works in California . . .

I agree. It's a test case of sorts. If it doesn't work, then other states know what NOT to try. It if works in some areas but not others, they can take what works and reject what doesn't.

Precisely. It has failed up here in Canada primarily because of the implementation in the past 2 decades. In it's original form it did seem to work.

Really? It has failed? Then why is it still there and your dollar kicking our asses? I've spoken with many Canadians and thee is no 6 month waiting list, etc.

We have had several problems with it. Failure may have been a bit of a strong choice of words. We have mismanaged it and in it's current state it will not be sustainable. A culture of entitlement (canadians seem to feel that they are owed a quality of life for some reason) has caused gratuitous abuse of our health care system. Furthermore, special interest pandering has caused misallocation of funds in our health care towards non-essentials at the expense of some life saving treatments.

The wait lists are there. My mother in law had severe pain and required surgury and had to eventually go out of the country for it. I did not have a family doctor and was on a waiting list for a year.

Regarding the strong dollar, remember that Canada is a heavily commodity export based economy with the bulk of our exports going to the US. A strong dollar hurts that. Also the bulk of our tourism is Americans, so again the strong dollar may not be good. There are arguments both ways for that.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Then why is it still there and your dollar kicking our asses?

In economic terms the relative performance of one currency to another has approximately zero relationship to health care -- at least until you get to Zimbabwe-like scenarios where the printing presses start rolling to "fund" universal coverage.

There's a leading theory that currency fluctuations mean very little beyond fuel for pissing contests between nationalists.

But the righty argument is that soc meds will break the bank,that is my point. Point is, that's not true. In fact, the US bank is well beyong hammmered, yet no soc meds...... that's the argument have an answer?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>This might be a good thing. Maybe when people see how it works in California . . .

I agree. It's a test case of sorts. If it doesn't work, then other states know what NOT to try. It if works in some areas but not others, they can take what works and reject what doesn't.

Precisely. It has failed up here in Canada primarily because of the implementation in the past 2 decades. In it's original form it did seem to work.

Really? It has failed? Then why is it still there and your dollar kicking our asses? I've spoken with many Canadians and thee is no 6 month waiting list, etc.

We have had several problems with it. Failure may have been a bit of a strong choice of words. We have mismanaged it and in it's current state it will not be sustainable. A culture of entitlement (canadians seem to feel that they are owed a quality of life for some reason) has caused gratuitous abuse of our health care system. Furthermore, special interest pandering has caused misallocation of funds in our health care towards non-essentials at the expense of some life saving treatments.

The wait lists are there. My mother in law had severe pain and required surgury and had to eventually go out of the country for it. I did not have a family doctor and was on a waiting list for a year.

Regarding the strong dollar, remember that Canada is a heavily commodity export based economy with the bulk of our exports going to the US. A strong dollar hurts that. Also the bulk of our tourism is Americans, so again the strong dollar may not be good. There are arguments both ways for that.

I'm still looking for that long line, as I have no line whatsoever. Whining Canucks would cring at no line vs the so-called long line.

>>>>>>>>>>Regarding the strong dollar, remember that Canada is a heavily commodity export based economy with the bulk of our exports going to the US. A strong dollar hurts that. Also the bulk of our tourism is Americans, so again the strong dollar may not be good. There are arguments both ways for that.

Point is, our economies are heavily tied, so the relevance is that you have soc meds, we don't, yet you're doing better financially than are we by far. See, the average pathetic RedNeckpublican here is so idiotic that he/she spews some shit about soc meds killing our economy, yet they don't have a problem with the US spending 45% of the world's total military bill.

[Richards 0]

Quote

I'm still looking for that long line, as I have no line whatsoever. Whining Canucks would cring at no line vs the so-called long line.

I am not saying that our system is no good at all. It simply has deteriorated from what it was in the 70's and early 80's. I am all for the idea government health care plans. I am just pointing out to you how you guys could make yours better than the one we have when you implement it. One of the benefits of being the last to jump on the bandwagon is that you get to see the implementation errors of those who did it ahead of you.

Quote

Point is, our economies are heavily tied, so the relevance is that you have soc meds, we don't, yet you're doing better financially than are we by far. See, the average pathetic RedNeckpublican here is so idiotic that he/she spews some shit about soc meds killing our economy, yet they don't have a problem with the US spending 45% of the world's total military bill.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

***Explain how Canada and much of Europe does it w/o going broke

By rationing. So while you do not find it humane to deny based on cost, those governments deny care because they cannot afford it.

The quality of Canadian health care is good when you can get it. The quality of US healthcare is great when you can afford it. Hence, wealthier Canadians come to the US for treatment because they cannot get the care in Canada.

Ergo, inhumane.

Look, I'm no expert but what about some sort of a two tiered system?

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.