Single-payer healthcare bill introduced in California

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

San Francisco Chronicle

Will be interesting to see where this goes.

[Famous Mortimer]

I wish them luck but this will end in disaster. You can't support a healthcare system for everyone in California, including an unlimited number of undocumented people, based on a tax base of less than half the population.

[ApatheticAustrian]

ofc you can, if everyone is able to insure themselves for a modest price.

[Famous Mortimer]

ofc you can, if everyone is able to insure themselves for a modest price.

Everyone insuring themselves is the opposite of single payer.

[Virginiá]

Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for a state with this kind of healthcare system to deny it to people from other states who just go there to take advantage of it? Because that is what will eventually happen. Aside from the high costs of establishing it for Californians, having only a handful of states that offer such generous programs will only result in other people flocking there for free coverage. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a neighboring state made policy to encourage such behavior, so as to reduce the burdens on their own state. Knowing CA/liberals, they'd probably insist on covering undocumented immigrants too, which would encourage people from south of the border to come and take advantage as well, no?

Healthcare reform like this must be done nationally, or not at all. It's really tempting for liberals to want to push this at the state level since reform seems to be impossible in Congress, but if we start doing these kinds of programs and they keep failing, it only makes it much harder to do nationally if and when we get the chance.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for a state with this kind of healthcare system to deny it to people from other states who just go there to take advantage of it? Because that is what will eventually happen. Aside from the high costs of establishing it for Californians, having only a handful of states that offer such generous programs will only result in other people flocking there for free coverage. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a neighboring state made policy to encourage such behavior, so as to reduce the burdens on their own state. Knowing CA/liberals, they'd probably insist on covering undocumented immigrants too, which would encourage people from south of the border to come and take advantage as well, no?

Healthcare reform like this must be done nationally, or not at all. It's really tempting for liberals to want to push this at the state level since reform seems to be impossible in Congress, but if we start doing these kinds of programs and they keep failing, it only makes it much harder to do nationally if and when we get the chance.

Saskatchewan and other provinces had pilot programs before Canada made national healthcare a reality in the country.  Implementing something like this in California will be difficult, but not necessarily impossible.  I'm willing to bet they have the resources to do so, unlike Vermont or Colorado.

I will be amazed if they're able to do this successfully, though.  If they are and it works, expect national Democrats to start campaigning for a federal program based on California's model.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Hopefully this doesn't end up as Vermont's failed Green Mountain Care program. Cali's larger tax base would be an advantage, but that would be more than cancelled out by the much greater number of people who would have to be insured. States in general aren't the best place to implement universal coverage; a lot of them are already facing large deficits (though I think California's in a better position than most).

I still wish them the best of luck, though!

[Virginiá]

Saskatchewan and other provinces had pilot programs before Canada made national healthcare a reality in the country.  Implementing something like this in California will be difficult, but not necessarily impossible.  I'm willing to bet they have the resources to do so, unlike Vermont or Colorado.

I will be amazed if they're able to do this successfully, though.  If they are and it works, expect national Democrats to start campaigning for a federal program based on California's model.

If you could mitigate the issues I was talking about - namely restricting this program to CA citizen residents, making it a crime to establish residency solely for the purposes of obtaining free coverage, and also making the costs manageable, then it might not be a bad idea to do it as a pilot program first. However, like I said, those restrictions might not be constitutional, and that immediately blows a big hole in its feasibility.

For a large state like California, or even places like IL/NY/etc, it is important that such a system actually pan out and not end up failing / bankrupting the state. If it does, you'll just give conservatives a plethora of ammo for opposing it nationally.

[KingSweden]

We all know I'm no liberals liberal, but I applaud Cali for having this discussion. States should have broad discretion to experimenting with providing services to their citizens. I'm skeptical this can work, but they should try. This is what we have 50 states for after all

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Great news!!

[krazen1211]

Just wait until the left finds out it has to pay for all the dead weight.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Saskatchewan and other provinces had pilot programs before Canada made national healthcare a reality in the country.  Implementing something like this in California will be difficult, but not necessarily impossible.  I'm willing to bet they have the resources to do so, unlike Vermont or Colorado.

I will be amazed if they're able to do this successfully, though.  If they are and it works, expect national Democrats to start campaigning for a federal program based on California's model.

If you could mitigate the issues I was talking about - namely restricting this program to CA citizen residents, making it a crime to establish residency solely for the purposes of obtaining free coverage, and also making the costs manageable, then it might not be a bad idea to do it as a pilot program first. However, like I said, those restrictions might not be constitutional, and that immediately blows a big hole in its feasibility.

For a large state like California, or even places like IL/NY/etc, it is important that such a system actually pan out and not end up failing / bankrupting the state. If it does, you'll just give conservatives a plethora of ammo for opposing it nationally.

I think if California had a residency requirement and required you to live in the state for a certain number of years before being eligible for the program, it wouldn't be unconstitutional.  I think that's something that will end up in the final package should the legislators decide to embrace the program.

I'm not sure if they would be willing to let undocumented immigrants into the program.  That's something that would likely be fought in court if it came down to that, but it wouldn't break the program and constitutionality shouldn't be that much of an issue.  If the program doesn't hold up to actuarial scrutiny (or if Brown doesn't put his support behind it), then it probably won't be pursued much further.

[Famous Mortimer]

Hopefully this doesn't end up as Vermont's failed Green Mountain Care program. Cali's larger tax base would be an advantage, but that would be more than cancelled out by the much greater number of people who would have to be insured. States in general aren't the best place to implement universal coverage; a lot of them are already facing large deficits (though I think California's in a better position than most).

I still wish them the best of luck, though!

It will actually be much harder to establish single payer in CA than in VT. In VT, 12% live below the poverty line, and thus likely won't be paying much in, if at all. In CA, it's 20%. In Vermont, 31% don't make enough to need to pay federal income taxes. In CA, that's 37%. That's not THAT much of a difference but then again that only includes citizens. VT doesn't have a lot of undocumented immigrants, CA does. If the government wants to cover them (and how could they not, they wouldn't want to make immigrants "second class") it will be very very hard.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for a state with this kind of healthcare system to deny it to people from other states who just go there to take advantage of it? Because that is what will eventually happen. Aside from the high costs of establishing it for Californians, having only a handful of states that offer such generous programs will only result in other people flocking there for free coverage. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a neighboring state made policy to encourage such behavior, so as to reduce the burdens on their own state. Knowing CA/liberals, they'd probably insist on covering undocumented immigrants too, which would encourage people from south of the border to come and take advantage as well, no?

Healthcare reform like this must be done nationally, or not at all. It's really tempting for liberals to want to push this at the state level since reform seems to be impossible in Congress, but if we start doing these kinds of programs and they keep failing, it only makes it much harder to do nationally if and when we get the chance.

Saskatchewan and other provinces had pilot programs before Canada made national healthcare a reality in the country.  Implementing something like this in California will be difficult, but not necessarily impossible.  I'm willing to bet they have the resources to do so, unlike Vermont or Colorado.

I will be amazed if they're able to do this successfully, though.  If they are and it works, expect national Democrats to start campaigning for a federal program based on California's model.

If I remember correctly, when Saskatchewan created it's universal health care system, they were able to do so because the Federal Government picked up half the tab with the province paying the other half.

I dont know how you could pull that off in the US...without cost controls and regulation of pharmaceuticals, it's just too expensive

The federal government started paying for some of it after Saskatchewan and Alberta created their programs.  But keep in mind that California's large enough to sustain its own economy.

[Famous Mortimer]

Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for a state with this kind of healthcare system to deny it to people from other states who just go there to take advantage of it? Because that is what will eventually happen. Aside from the high costs of establishing it for Californians, having only a handful of states that offer such generous programs will only result in other people flocking there for free coverage. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a neighboring state made policy to encourage such behavior, so as to reduce the burdens on their own state. Knowing CA/liberals, they'd probably insist on covering undocumented immigrants too, which would encourage people from south of the border to come and take advantage as well, no?

Healthcare reform like this must be done nationally, or not at all. It's really tempting for liberals to want to push this at the state level since reform seems to be impossible in Congress, but if we start doing these kinds of programs and they keep failing, it only makes it much harder to do nationally if and when we get the chance.

Saskatchewan and other provinces had pilot programs before Canada made national healthcare a reality in the country.  Implementing something like this in California will be difficult, but not necessarily impossible.  I'm willing to bet they have the resources to do so, unlike Vermont or Colorado.

I will be amazed if they're able to do this successfully, though.  If they are and it works, expect national Democrats to start campaigning for a federal program based on California's model.

If I remember correctly, when Saskatchewan created it's universal health care system, they were able to do so because the Federal Government picked up half the tab with the province paying the other half.

I dont know how you could pull that off in the US...without cost controls and regulation of pharmaceuticals, it's just too expensive

The federal government started paying for some of it after Saskatchewan and Alberta created their programs.  But keep in mind that California's large enough to sustain its own economy.

Size of a polity has absolutely nothing to do with the viability of single payer. It's a matter of the tax base being proportional to the number of people being covered.

[Famous Mortimer]

Hopefully this doesn't end up as Vermont's failed Green Mountain Care program. Cali's larger tax base would be an advantage, but that would be more than cancelled out by the much greater number of people who would have to be insured. States in general aren't the best place to implement universal coverage; a lot of them are already facing large deficits (though I think California's in a better position than most).

I still wish them the best of luck, though!

It will actually be much harder to establish single payer in CA than in VT. In VT, 12% live below the poverty line, and thus likely won't be paying much in, if at all. In CA, it's 20%. In Vermont, 31% don't make enough to need to pay federal income taxes. In CA, that's 37%. That's not THAT much of a difference but then again that only includes citizens. VT doesn't have a lot of undocumented immigrants, CA does. If the government wants to cover them (and how could they not, they wouldn't want to make immigrants "second class") it will be very very hard.

Here's my solution to creating Universal Health care in America...and I think It's one you could get Republicans on board with: Every person in America receives a 5000$ tax credit to "buy" health insurance. That $5000 tax credit is then sent to the state with the state establishing it's own system and levying any additional taxes needed to cover the full cost per person capital (which would probably be 10k). You could create a tier system in which everyone that makes under 20k pays no deductibles, then everyone from 20k to 50k pays minimal deductions, and so on...

Terrible Moderate Hero plan. What is the purpose of maintaining private healthcare insurance companies? Just have national single payer.

[7,052,770]

If set it up like a health insurance company (or just give a contract to an already-existing insurance company) charging premiums and everything, and there's no reason that this would fail as long as its mandatory and there's no mass sabotage effort from Republicans.

Want to cover illegal immigrants? That's fine if they pay their premiums. Want to cover Nevadans and Arizonans who move to California for the healthcare? No problem, as long as they pay their premiums.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Everyone insuring themselves is the opposite of single payer.

not necessarily.

people who are working are automatically insured and other people through other means but without fear of premiums and stuff.

here in austria, most people are insured through single-payer and many people still need to insure themselves....if they are able to, otherwise it's just redistribution.

[Famous Mortimer]

If set it up like a health insurance company (or just give a contract to an already-existing insurance company) charging premiums and everything, and there's no reason that this would fail as long as its mandatory and there's no mass sabotage effort from Republicans.

Want to cover illegal immigrants? That's fine if they pay their premiums. Want to cover Nevadans and Arizonans who move to California for the healthcare? No problem, as long as they pay their premiums.

Again, this is not single payer. This is the system we have now.

[Blue3]

About time.

California is probably the place to get this started, as the failures in Vermont and Colorado show.

[7,052,770]

If set it up like a health insurance company (or just give a contract to an already-existing insurance company) charging premiums and everything, and there's no reason that this would fail as long as its mandatory and there's no mass sabotage effort from Republicans.

Want to cover illegal immigrants? That's fine if they pay their premiums. Want to cover Nevadans and Arizonans who move to California for the healthcare? No problem, as long as they pay their premiums.

Again, this is not single payer. This is the system we have now.

It's ... literally one payer. I'm only suggesting how to fund it.

[Deblano]

I support greater autonomy for states within the United States, so I applaud California for making the decision to try and implement a healthcare system that may not be popular in every other state.

[jojoju1998]

Do we have to go Single Payer though if we want Universal Health Care ?

http://www.expatica.com/ch/healthcare/Getting-healthcare-in-Switzerland_103130.html

As you can read, We can have a Universal Health Coverage System using Private Insurers !

Switzerland is basically Obamacare. Every Citizen is required to purchase a Basic Health Plan that covers all the basic needs. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans. This System is administered by the Individual Canons which are like US States.
 

[Sir Mohamed]

This is why I love California and its great spirit. I hope we can get this done.