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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:15:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Cost of single payer in Cali would be more than entire general fund budget
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Cost of single payer in Cali would be more than entire general fund budget  (Read 2924 times)
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2017, 08:13:05 PM »

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.
... The public option was never intended to serve this non-existent group of people you are describing.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2017, 08:19:17 PM »

Just tax the rich.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2017, 08:35:20 PM »

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.
... The public option was never intended to serve this non-existent group of people you are describing.

You are quite ignorant.
Logged
TheSaint250
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,067


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: 5.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2017, 08:36:40 PM »

Until we have no more social classes: just poor.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2017, 08:42:25 PM »

It's not that easy.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 23, 2017, 08:43:07 PM »


It actually is.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 23, 2017, 08:47:01 PM »


There is only so far you can raise revenue before you run out of available sources. If one program takes up the entire budget and there are other programs to be funded, you're going to start swallowing up GDP.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 23, 2017, 08:50:18 PM »

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.

Or just have Medi-Cal for everyone, but only the poor get it without a deductible and/or copays. People would be free to have private insurance to cover the cost-sharing if they feel so inclined.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2017, 08:51:13 PM »

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.

Or just have Medi-Cal for everyone, but only the poor get it without a deductible and/or copays. People would be free to have private insurance to cover the cost-sharing if they feel so inclined.
That would work.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 23, 2017, 09:30:01 PM »


That's not what I said. You know I oppose TrumpCare with a passion. Don't put words in my mouth just because I'm not a liberal hack.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 23, 2017, 10:26:20 PM »

Cali's proposed system is also far more generous than the universal plans of most other countries. California proposal covers dental, for example, which a lot of countries don't cover for adults. It's no surprise the sticker price is high even compares to most people's idea of Single Payer.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 23, 2017, 10:29:42 PM »

It's funny how there are healthcare systems so much better practically everywhere else; yet, somehow in the US, it's impossible. Yeah, right.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2017, 10:32:01 PM »

It's funny how there are healthcare systems so much better practically everywhere else; yet, somehow in the US, it's impossible. Yeah, right.

It's always too expensive to change, you see, even though we have the most expensive system in the world.

Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2017, 10:47:23 PM »

It's funny how there are healthcare systems so much better practically everywhere else; yet, somehow in the US, it's impossible. Yeah, right.

It's impossible for path dependent reasons.  If the US had adopted a different system in the 60s, then we'd be in a very different place.  But because we've built up this infrastructure of an extremely expensive system, it's now impossible to unmake the system without creating major financial losers.  E.g., you want a health system in which doctors have salaries comparable to that of Belgium?  Great!  Who's going to tell them that they're getting a pay cut?  Or as Megan McArdle put it:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And of course, similar electoral logic applies to coverage.  The electoral incentives run against any changes that would result in any fewer procedures being covered by insurance compared to what people are currently used to.  And I think this is a bigger problem in the US political system, because power is more diffuse.  Angry citizens can wield leverage against a few members of Congress who aren't obligated to tow the party line a way that they would be in a parliamentary system.
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 23, 2017, 10:52:46 PM »

One state alone can'd to this--it needs done on a national level as well as regulation of healthcare costs, otherwise any state trying single payer on their own is of course going to be absurdly expensive.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 23, 2017, 11:11:30 PM »

Cali's proposed system is also far more generous than the universal plans of most other countries. California proposal covers dental, for example, which a lot of countries don't cover for adults. It's no surprise the sticker price is high even compares to most people's idea of Single Payer.

That's a good thing, though, because dental health is really important and underappreciated in America.

Obamacare should have just included it as the 11th essential health benefit.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 24, 2017, 04:59:07 AM »

Cali's proposed system is also far more generous than the universal plans of most other countries. California proposal covers dental, for example, which a lot of countries don't cover for adults. It's no surprise the sticker price is high even compares to most people's idea of Single Payer.

That's a good thing, though, because dental health is really important and underappreciated in America.

Obamacare should have just included it as the 11th essential health benefit.

"You're an adult. Wh..where's your toothbrush?"
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 24, 2017, 06:57:40 AM »


I almost never quote from the comments section in any on-line article for obvious reasons, but there was an insightful one here:

"The reports are being misquoted. The analysis says that we SPENT $367b overall in 2016. But our healthcare spending is going up 6% per year. This means we're currently on track to spend ~$389b in 2017 and ~$412b in 2018. So a $400b program would mean a $12b savings next year."
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2017, 07:32:56 AM »

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And of course, similar electoral logic applies to coverage.  The electoral incentives run against any changes that would result in any fewer procedures being covered by insurance compared to what people are currently used to.  And I think this is a bigger problem in the US political system, because power is more diffuse.  Angry citizens can wield leverage against a few members of Congress who aren't obligated to tow the party line a way that they would be in a parliamentary system.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx

If single-payer was a single issue presented to voters, it would pass fairly comfortably. The electoral argument is the least credible in any opposing viewpoint to a national healthcare plan.

It would clearly need to be accomplished at the federal level if we're talking about costs and setting in place regulations to ensure the system remain soluble, but the point stands that if we can scrounge together a budget with surplus room for endless defense spending, there is little doubt our wealthiest country in the world can spare the cost to cover everyone with essential health needs. Even if that means *shudders* a tax increase on the wealthy.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 24, 2017, 07:43:34 AM »

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And of course, similar electoral logic applies to coverage.  The electoral incentives run against any changes that would result in any fewer procedures being covered by insurance compared to what people are currently used to.  And I think this is a bigger problem in the US political system, because power is more diffuse.  Angry citizens can wield leverage against a few members of Congress who aren't obligated to tow the party line a way that they would be in a parliamentary system.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx

If single-payer was a single issue presented to voters, it would pass fairly comfortably. The electoral argument is the least credible in any opposing viewpoint to a national healthcare plan.

It would clearly need to be accomplished at the federal level if we're talking about costs and setting in place regulations to ensure the system remain soluble, but the point stands that if we can scrounge together a budget with surplus room for endless defense spending, there is little doubt our wealthiest country in the world can spare the cost to cover everyone with essential health needs. Even if that means *shudders* a tax increase on the wealthy.

No, what I'm saying is that even things that have majority support (like gun control) can be politically difficult if there's a determined minority of opposition who make it their #1 issue.

And I'm not saying that single payer itself would be the politically hard part.  I'm saying that a single payer system that contains costs and is as cheap as it is in other countries is politically hard, because spending less $ on health care means an economic hit for a large # of people making $ off the current system.  Yes, other countries have much smaller amounts of health spending, but they *always* had smaller amounts of health spending.  Taking money out of the system is difficult.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 24, 2017, 04:17:54 PM »
« Edited: May 24, 2017, 04:38:18 PM by shua »

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.

And how many Democrats have anything more than a symbolic interest in single-payer?

I don't know what politicians having a "more than symbolic interest" would mean. 

I'm confused here: are you upset about the Democrats not sufficiently supporting single-payer, even though you aren't totally convinced it's the way to go?  Or are you just upset that there are Democrats who oppose abortion?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 12 queries.