I have no idea if there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of this getting over Arnie’s veto, but it’s damn impressive anyway:
The Democratic-controlled Legislature is on the verge of sending Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill that would create a state-run universal health care system, testing him on an issue that voters rate as one of their top concerns in this election year.
On a largely party-line 43-30 vote, the Assembly approved a bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would eliminate private medical insurance plans and establish a statewide health insurance system that would provide coverage to all Californians. The state Senate has already approved the plan once and is expected this week to approve changes that the Assembly made to the bill.
Wow — single-payer health care as an electoral winner. Awesome. Too bad the mealy-mouth Dem Gov. nominee doesn’t support it.
From winner to whiner, here’s a funny response from the Republicans:
“This takes us in the wrong direction,” said Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian, R-Stockton. “This creates a government-run system akin to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Do we want health care taken care of by another bloated bureaucracy?”
Now, can someone explain to me why private-sector bloat and bureaucracy is preferable to public-sector bloat and bureaucracy? And why DMV as the analogy — why not, say, Medicare, which most people rather like?
I suspect that the CA Dems have been bold on this because they know it’s DOA when it hits Schwarzenegger’s desk. But it’s a fine idea, anyway.
The Governator’s been doing some wacky shit lately!
are they really “eliminat[ing] private medical insurance plans?” To me, that doesn’t make sense. Provide single payer medical insurance to everyone — and then, if somebody wants to carry additional coverage, they should be welcome to do so. What sorts of additional coverage? Maybe “vanity” coverage like getting white caps and fillings for their teeth instead of silver. Maybe “comfort” coverage like always getting private rooms in hospitals. Maybe “hi tech” coverage like getting the best prosthetic limbs available, not merely the minimum cost one that gets the job done. I’m sure there are other scenarios as well.
<
p>
I realize that this is a drop in the bucket compared to the private insurance industry in California right now, but why eliminate those extra opportunities and choices from those who want to pay for them and those who want to provide them?
is like the DMV, is dealing with private insurance like dealing with auto-insurance companies?
<
p>
Cause at least the DMV doesn’t go out of their way to stick it to me.
If I had a buck for every time I’ve been told something regarding the incompatibility of public universal healthcare and “political reality”, I’d be able to buy dinner for two at L’Espalier…
<
p>
I’m mighty impressed that the California Dems have the ‘nads to do the right thing. And I suspect that if the Gropernator tur-mah-nates the bill, the people of California will quickly see to it that said Gropernator soon has more time to make those awful, awful films that he turns up in.
California’s expert and commited activist community has created the VERY impressive One Care Now project to accomplish the needed political and community movement-building required to win and sustain a veto of SB 840, the policy legislation for a smart-financing universal coverage plan (often called “single payer”). The additional financing mechanism legislation for the plan will be brought forward for its vote in the CA Assembly next year at a strategic time. This is all part of the One Care Now project.
<
p>
The work in California, which is being done on smaller scales all around the country, I hope will help lead the way for the US to finally join the rest of the industrialized world and provide national health insurance for its people while spending a hell of a lot LESS MONEY and having a HEALTHIER population. BTW these are attributes that ALL other industrialized countries enjoy in respect to their health care systems.
<
p>
As Winston Churchill put it: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.” But with so much money at stake in this public policy issue, with billions of dollars literally pouring into the coffers of enormously wealthy insurance, pharmaceutical, and other corporations that comprise the medical-industrial complex, we’re not going to get universal healthcare without a fight. Please join the effort in your state and your local community.
<
p>
Only when a tipping point is reached after enough people decide to take action on this issue and enough state-wide activist communities are doing similar work to California’s with their SB 840 legislation and the accompanying http://www.OneCareNow.org Campaign, will we win sustainable and affordable universal healthcare for all. What are we waiting for?
Now, can someone explain to me why private-sector bloat and bureaucracy is preferable to public-sector bloat and bureaucracy?
<
p>
Here are a few:
<
p>
Reason 1: An individual would no longer have the option of not being insured. My brother is one of them. His health care needs are low enough that it’s actually less expensive for him to pay out of pocket for services on an as needed basis than to get health insurance. Under CA’s proposal, everyone would have to pay a health-care tax. Well, everyone that is EXCEPT for the undocumneted workers who don’t pay taxes and yet would be fully insured.
<
p>
Reason 2: Public agencies have no incentive for innovation or efficiency. If cost containment isn’t effective, the Legislature is authorized to raise taxes. How convenient. We’ve heard a lot about making adminsitration more efficient — who is going to be more incented to do that — the unionized public employee, or the for-profit corporation? Fact is, private industry is already making progress in the area, and as solutions are developed you will need competition among providers to drive costs down.
<
p>
Reason 3: You move to CA for a job, and you can immediately enroll in health care coverage. Bill 840 makes provisions for a “waiting list” in case people flood into the state just for the state health care benefit.
<
p>
And why DMV as the analogy — why not, say, Medicare, which most people rather like?
<
p>
Where are you getting impression from? Are you not taking into consideration the prescription plan?
<
p>
2. No other country (except Canada) spends much more than half of what we spend, per capita. Canada spends about 2/3rds as much as we do, per capita.
<
p>
3. There is no evidence that health care in other first world countries is worse than in ours. In fact, the best evidence is that our health care outcomes are well below average – for example, our life expectancy and infant mortality are at the bottom of the first-world pack.
<
p>
We can discuss innovation and the unseen hand of Adam Smith until the cows come home – but the bottom line is that universal single-payer health care works better and costs less in every instance where it’s been tried – even in the US, with Medicare. Doctors whine because they can only make 6-8 times what an average worker makes. Insurance companies moan because the 20% excess in health care costs that pays for them funds a lot of whopping fat-cat salaries. Pharma companies squeal because they can only charge half as much for the same drugs, since there is a rational purchasing plan.
<
p>
But… remember those people called “the rest of us”? We’d get better health care, for everyone, at a much lower cost. When our pols start working for US, then we’ll have universal single-payer health care. Until then, we’ll have ever-more-byzantine versions of the expensive mess we have now.
Why does the U.S. spend more? Is it because we don’t have socialized health insurance? I think not.
<
p>
According to this report, the U.S. was spending a larger percentage of its GDP on health insurance because of higher labor, administrative, and malpractice costs. Would CA’s system reduce these costs? I don’t think so. You aren’t going to see medical personnel, who earn less in the public sector, taking pay cuts. But you will see administrative workers that will be needed to support the government beauracracy getting a pay hike.
<
p>
How you drawing your conclusion about Medicare costing less? Again from the PNREC report, in 1997, the US was already first in public spending on health care per capita! We spend $277 billion on Medicare for 41 million Americans. That is over $6,000 per person served! The Medicare system is headed for bankruptcy without some serious overhaul.
They’ve used the Medicare is more efficient argument for years.
<
p>
There is an alternative opinion
<
p>
<
p>
Funny how the article didn’t carry through on the math… but fortunately you have me and my calculator to do the heavy lifting!
<
p>
Even if that article is correct, Medicare still comes out (with regard to administrative costs) as four times as efficient per dollar spent vs. private insurers, instead of twelve times.
<
p>
Even if it’s only four times as efficient – it’s still four times as efficient.
<
p>
They also conveniently left out the part about Medicare being able to pay less for procedures because they have great bargaining power… ah well…
You write:
<
p>
“Seeing as you only addressed the issue of cost”
<
p>
Which part of my response:
<
p>
“There is no evidence that health care in other first world countries is worse than in ours. In fact, the best evidence is that our health care outcomes are well below average – for example, our life expectancy and infant mortality are at the bottom of the first-world pack.”
<
p>
were you having trouble understanding?
<
p>
Look, you’ve been duped by people who make fabulous sums by keeping you duped. Pick yourself up, shake yourself up, and swear off the truthy in favor of the truth.
Just offering this up as something for you to consider, — your replies in this thread are rather condescending and rude.
<
p>
In my original reply, I put forward three reasons, and you replied to one of them. You then offered this statement about quality of health care, which did not address anything I had said and did not include any references.
<
p>
I have made no assertion about quality of care, as I think in policy making, that is a secondary concern to economic feasibility and sustainability. But, as for your comments: Where do you get your data? I have not found evidence of much difference in either IMR or life expectancy. Is it possible that the small differences exist because of lifestyle choices rather than the economic structure of the health care system?
<
p>
Afterall, I could see my doctor every week, but if I still choose to eat french fries and pizza every night, despite her advice — what do you think is going to lead to my heart disease?
<
p>
I talked with my mother this past weekend about her experience with Medicare. Disclaimer: Now, I don’t typically talk politics with my mother. She’s a steadfast Democrat and doesn’t trust anyone who isn’t. For many years, I believed “the others” were evil, too, but then I married one. đŸ™‚
<
p>
My mother said Medicare has been fine — never gotten a doctor’s bill. But then she added that was because she pays for a supplement which costs her $169/mo. She’s in good health at 76 and not on prescriptions, and she turned up her nose at the prescription plan. Refused to join it — confusing and a waste in her mind. She also said that while she saw an increase in her Social Security check, the increase in Medicare was over 3 times the amount. So, she’s actually getting LESS in Social Security than she was just a few years ago.
<
p>
Look, I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be cared for. I know someone who has benefitted from MassHealth, but who also has a doctor willing to make very flexible payment plans. I think that’s better — having programs that are flexible and allow people to flow on and off public assistance. I’ve done a good amount of work, volunteer and otherwise, with folks who truly need public assistance. While their health may not have always been good, it wasn’t for lack of care. I am truly concerned that universal systems drain the resources that are currently targetted to the most needy, in order to provide blanket coverage. Just like Social Security checks go to everyone — even those who do not need it — universal health care will serve as a subsidy for people who can and should be taking care of themselves.
Because people may want the option to get their own health insurance and not rely on the government to provide it for them.
<
p>
Because people want choice and options, not government mandates. Medicare service is optional; private primary and supplemental plans are allowed.
<
p>
Why is it that everyone in the world with money and a serious condition comes to the US? Mayo Clinic? Looks like the UN diplomats lobby.
<
p>
When Patrick Kennedy said he had a drinking problem, where’d he go? Toronto? Hamburg? Paris?
<
p>
We have the best health care in the world. Because it’s private.
There is zero objective evidence that we have superior health care. Few if any people travel to the US for care – it’s pretty much an urban legend. We trail the rest of the first world in most measures of outcome, such as life expectancy and infant mortality – heck, even Cuba has better infant mortality than we do.
<
p>
See for yourself – try to find measures of medical outcomes where America leads the world. You’ve been duped – as have a lot of other Americans.
Manny, I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
<
p>
First at Mayo Clinic. I have relatives who are major benefactors to the Clinic, and in the course of their involvement with the institution get to see its inner workings, including finances and client lists.
<
p>
I get into an elevator one day with a Saudi sheik and 3 — count them, 3! — retired US Supreme Court justices. Our family has referred French and Italian friends to the clinic for care they cannot secure in their own countries. One person’s life was saved as a result of procedures available at Mayo but not in Milan.
<
p>
There’s a reason why the Clinic has translators for 20 different languages … a ton of business comes for overseas, especially the Middle East. Paris and London are closer. Why aren’t people going there?
<
p>
Because for critical care, the US is tops. You only have to look around metro Boston and you come up with 3 of the top 50 cancer treatment centers in the world. Does Canada have one?
<
p>
Second, I’m in the real estate development business, and I saw our Michigan and Ohio commercial brokerage affiliates helping local hospitals and clinics expand facilities to house routine diagnostic functions, like MRIs and CAT scans. I was personally involved in some of those transactions. Perhaps this is anecdotal, but if Canada’s system is so great, should we be going there for our health care?
<
p>
The single reason for this expansion is proximity to Canada where because of the wait for diagnostics can stretch into many weeks and even months, patients seek services in the US. Here, if you need an MRI, CAT, xray or other high-tech diagnostic it’s almost a walk-in event. Not in Canada.
<
p>
[Incidently, there are many Canadian patients who visit Mayo’s Scottsdale, AZ satellite facility as many Canadians, especially from the western provinces, vacation or retire there.]
<
p>
You watch if CA passes a strict single-payer plan. Facilities in AZ and NV will open up to serve patients seeking out-of-state medical care.
<
p>
Lastly, I could never move to Canada because their national health plan excludes Lipitor from their Rx formulary … its the only statin which works for me but Canada is too cheap to include it.
Mayo is somewhat special, as are the Harvard Hospitals, but let me put this in perspective. I was having dinner with a German physician who’d spent several years practicing and doing research in the US. I asked him where he’d rather be treated if he got sick – the US or Germany. He said that if he had certain rare diseases then he’d prefer to be in the US.
<
p>
I pressed him – “but what if you needed to have a gall bladder out, or give birth, or a bypass?” He chuckled – “Oh Germany of course – the care for those procedures is much better there!”. German hospitals are, on balance, nicer than US hospitals, there are more physicians per patient, and they allow much longer stays for convalescence.
<
p>
The US health care system is generally ranked towards the bottom of the first world. There are some procedures available in the US that are not available elsewhere – but these are almost always unproven, and usually turn out to be harmful to patients but highly profitable for physicians. A number of back and knee procedures come to mind here, along with hormone replacement therapy… and who can forget the 50,000+ killed by Vioxx?
<
p>
Where did you here that Lipitor is not available in Canada? A quick Google indicates that Lipitor does a thriving business in Canada – more than a half-billion in sales. I suspect that you’ve been stung by more of the abundent misinformation promulgated by those who stand to lose money if the US improves its healthcare.