Cost of single payer in Cali would be more than entire general fund budget

[Matty]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.html

.....wow

[Yank2133]

No shock there, the cost is a real problem.

[ApatheticAustrian]

somehow the us healthcare system seems to be amazingly expensive for a comparably small outcome.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Matt Bruenig posted a good response to this:

http://mattbruenig.com/2017/05/22/californias-surprisingly-cheap-single-payer-plan/

[Mr. Reactionary]

If creating a new program is too expensive then nationalize existing insurance companies and convert them into state charity agencies providing free health care.

How would that work? Insurance companies arent the ones who own the hospitals, they just have contracts with provider networks to provide X customers at Y reimbursement. Nationalizing insurance companies would just get you lists of customers and providers, its not like the feds can unilaterally void millions of contracts, and expect the parties to just shrug and fully perform as though you didnt just rob them blind. Plus the feds would need to amend the constitution to get away with stealing that much property without due process.

[mvd10]

Tbh the US should just copy the Swiss model. Single-payer isn't going to work in the US, but you don't need single-payer for universal healthcare anyway. And don't forget that universal healthcare is the endgoal, not single-payer.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

This is deeply unsurprising. Americans spend a ton on healthcare. The point is that bringing it into the public domain will make sure it costs less *overall.* Californians might pay a lot more state taxes, but they'll still be spending less money than they would otherwise because they won't be paying premiums, co-pays, out of pocket expenses, &c &c.

No one is claiming that this can be done magically for free. The point is that it will work better this way, and ultimately cost less.  

[Yank2133]

Tbh the US should just copy the Swiss model. Single-payer isn't going to work in the US, but you don't need single-payer for universal healthcare anyway. And don't forget that universal healthcare is the endgoal, not single-payer.

Agreed.

The problem is alot of people, especially on the left, think single payer and universal coverage are the same thing.

[Sumner 1868]

If creating a new program is too expensive then nationalize existing insurance companies and convert them into state charity agencies providing free health care.

How would that work? Insurance companies arent the ones who own the hospitals, they just have contracts with provider networks to provide X customers at Y reimbursement. Nationalizing insurance companies would just get you lists of customers and providers, its not like the feds can unilaterally void millions of contracts, and expect the parties to just shrug and fully perform as though you didnt just rob them blind. Plus the feds would need to amend the constitution to get away with stealing that much property without due process.

I was somewhat distracted when I wrote that.

[KingSweden]

Tbh the US should just copy the Swiss model. Single-payer isn't going to work in the US, but you don't need single-payer for universal healthcare anyway. And don't forget that universal healthcare is the endgoal, not single-payer.

I'm inclined to agree with this

[dead0man]

There are way too many people in the industry making a lot of money that have nothing at all to do with practicing medicine.  Any solution we come up with should put the vast majority of those people out of work.

It won't of course.  We'll just add new layers of inefficiencies and bureaucracies.  That'll be sure to fix it!

[Adam Griffin]

Not surprising. Every state's budget compared to the cost of healthcare in that state is tiny.

[publicunofficial]

Like the article Alpha posted says; California currently spends about $200 Billion on healthcare, with employers spending another $100-150 billion. This single payer plan would only add another $50-100 billion (Which would total about 15% of California's GDP) and would offer complete and total coverage with no premiums.

I still prefer a national plan rather than state-based systems, but who knows when the stars will align for that.

[7,052,770]

They should add some light premiums, deductibles, and copays to lower costs and steer behavior.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They should add some light premiums, deductibles, and copays to lower costs and steer behavior.

That wouldn't be single payer.

[Santander]

They should add some light premiums, deductibles, and copays to lower costs and steer behavior.

That wouldn't be single payer.

Many healthcare systems that are considered single-payer, including Medicare, include modest premiums or other out-of-pocket expenses.

Technically, deductibles and copays would make it not single-payer, but in that case, there would be no such thing as a truly single-payer healthcare system. That's like saying people with insurance that include deductibles and copays are partially uninsured. As long as they are measures for financial viability rather than barriers to participation, you can call it universal, public, and single-payer healthcare.

[publicunofficial]

Both California Senators on the proposal

Feinstein:


Harris:


Feinstein recently used the phrase "Government take over of healthcare" to describe single payer at a recent town hall. The audience was not pleased.

[Matty]

a 15% payroll tax is absolutely massive. Single payer simply cannot work on the state level. It would need to be done nationally, and even then it's probably never going to happen.

[Santander]

Dianne is a great public servant. We need 44 more like her.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Democratic leadership are more comfortable running anti-abortion Democrats in hostile territory than they are running pro-single-payer Democrats in safe states. Feinstein's comments are typical.

So they tolerate the occasional Democrat who isn't 100% in-step with NARAL on a few races per year they probably won't win anyway.   If it were a question of being 1/10th as strong as single-payer supporters are right now among viable candidates, the party leadership would be freaking out about upsetting their donor base.

[tallguy23]

Tbh the US should just copy the Swiss model. Single-payer isn't going to work in the US, but you don't need single-payer for universal healthcare anyway. And don't forget that universal healthcare is the endgoal, not single-payer.

I've always thought this was the most rational path for the US.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Always glad to see Socialism failing to be enacted.

[7,052,770]

They should add some light premiums, deductibles, and copays to lower costs and steer behavior.

That wouldn't be single payer.

Sure it would be, and even if you were right, who cares?

[kyc0705]

Tbh the US should just copy the Swiss model. Single-payer isn't going to work in the US, but you don't need single-payer for universal healthcare anyway. And don't forget that universal healthcare is the endgoal, not single-payer.

[DrScholl]

That's the same reason why it didn't go through in Vermont. If it takes up the entire state budget and then some, it isn't going to be implemented.  The best idea is to offer Medi-Cal to those beneath a certain income threshold and then offer a public option with a reasonable premium for people who don't qualify for Medi-Cal, but can't afford private insurance.