SB 810 CA Universal Health Care Bill will be heard in State Senate Health Committee on April 27th (Oakland: for sale, bankrupt)

[Reason42]

Years ago we hit a point where most of America, and the world in fact, can not understand the abilities of medicine, nor are we collectively willing to pay for these interventions, at least not directly...

...CABG, transplantation (heart, liver, lung, BM, pancrease, kidney), cardiac valve replacement, gastrectomy, bowel resection, chemo, dialysis, months/years on a mech vent...

As a nation, or as a state, we can not afford the quality of health care we are able to provide, for all...

We are the leader in "potential quality of health care" because of the disparity of medical care, because some have been willing to pay for top shelf care (the profit motive at its best).


What happened was "MEDICAL INSURANCE" a relatively recent abomination of medical care. "Fee for service" was and is the only functional form of medical care, at least the one that promotes the best outcome for both parties involved... Yes, I wrote it.


Regardless, if we assume that as a society we should provide some basic level of health care, what the discussion should be about is "what level of care should be provided, and how to affect this?". This is the issue. Lawsuits directed at enforcing the "standard of care" is what drives the health care costs so very high... ...defensive medicine.

Take away the lawyers enforcing "standards of care" we can't afford universally for all, and watch the price of "a basic level of health care for all" become affordable.

For some reason, like most endeavors that have become political, the actual problem is not discussed.

[tickyul]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Actually, what cracks me up is how partisan you are and how obvious. You help give your side a bad name. Every one of your posts reeks of it.

It's a bad bill. It wouldn't matter which side of the aisle it came from.

No, facts are fact......but liberals hate those darn things.

Madate that insurance companies must include more and more in their policies......well, do you think they will eat those extra expenses......no way, Bamstercare proved that.

[native56]

These clowns keep acting like nothing is wrong. Unemployment is sky high - so what, we government workers have jobs. State broke. No problem - squeeze more money out of the people with taxes and fees.

Pass a ridiculous green energy mandate. Electicity prices will go sky high. Who cares. Pass a health care mandate. Insurance costs will go sky high. No worries we're having a good time.

Are they insane?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by native56

Are they insane?

Of course. They're politicians. They don't live in the real world. That makes them delusional.

[Surftown831]

There is a few problems with the conservative argument against universal healthcare. First of all, they say that the government is slow, inefficient and frustrating to deal with. Going to the doctor would be like going to the DMV. But in a single payers system where are physicians are still private, like the healthcare system they use in Canada, you wouldn't ever even have to see a government official face to face or go into a government building for healthcare. All physicians are still private, and they simply send a bill to the government for services rendered to patients.

Secondly, conservatives paint a doom-and-gloom scenario about the universal healthcare system and act like we can only speculate how that system would actually work. However, most western European countries have some form of universal healthcare, so no speculation is needed. We can examine those countries and see exactly what the benefits are and what the problems are. And sorry to say, there isn't much doom and gloom. They pay half the cost for healthcare that we do and they have longer life expectancies. The problems are physicians complaining about not being compensated enough, and long wait times for services in some countries. Even still, for the people in Europe who don't want to deal with government healthcare, they can still opt out and choose a private health care provider, and some countries offer tax breaks to these people since they aren't using the government program.

Thirdly, conservatives say that people who don't work or contribute to society will be getting free healthcare paid for by those who do work. Now in France, the government healthcare system is directly related to your job. So if it was like this in the U.S., lazy bums who don't work still wouldn't be able to get healthcare, or at the least, not much more than basic services or emergency care.

I'm no flaming liberal but to really assess the healthcare problem we need to set aside political ideologies and look at what really works. Looking at other countries, government run programs have proven to be cheaper, they are able to cover more than 90% of their citizens, and in surveys the satisfaction is always much higher than those who live under semi-private systems like ours.

[NewToCA]

Though I don't completely disagree with much of your overall sentiment UNLV09, let me give you what I believe to be some of the legitimate conservative counterargument:

- Government being slow...if any type of cost controls are ultimately put into place a slow bureaucracy could result in significant delays in pre-approval for some critical procedures. Also, funding issues could result in denial of procedures at the end of the fiscal year, if accounts are drying up.

- Other countries paying less and having better care...better keep an eye on this issue because it has three problems that folks advocating universal healthcare avoid discussing, (1) we spend far more on the last couple of years of life trying to make folks viable and increase their longevity, vs "accepting the inevitable" and just making them reasonably comfortable (2) the genetic mix in many countries is significantly different than ours, as are the current lifespans of different races and/or ethnic origins (3) the amount of money spent on medical research (vs money spent on care) is far greater in the USA, and we are the country that really makes the most progress in significant new medical breakthroughs.

- Non contributors getting free healthcare...they already do today in the USA via emergency rooms, with the cost of non-payers accumulated throughout the year and then reallocated against the bills of those who pay.

Both sides of the argument have good points in my POV. However, I object to SB 810 right out of the box with the provision of full and comprehensive healthcare with no deductibles or co-pays. I also object to not having an option to "opt out" if I currently have health insurance provided by my employer.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Both sides of the argument have good points in my POV. However, I object to SB 810 right out of the box with the provision of full and comprehensive healthcare with no deductibles or co-pays. I also object to not having an option to "opt out" if I currently have health insurance provided by my employer.

If I was still in California, that would be my primary copmplaint. Somehow I made it to my mid-60s without needing government to totally regulate my life in such an invasive manner. This goes way to far. Not having any choice in the amount and quality of my healthcare is absolutely unacceptable.

I'm with you on the deductibles and copays as well; rather, the lack thereof.

[Surftown831]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Both sides of the argument have good points in my POV. However, I object to SB 810 right out of the box with the provision of full and comprehensive healthcare with no deductibles or co-pays. I also object to not having an option to "opt out" if I currently have health insurance provided by my employer.

I fully agree with this statement and that there could be problems with funding. However, as for your statement about high cost being related to research, I disagree. The higher cost is because unlike Europe's non-profit healthcare system, ours is for-profit, and profit cost money. Pharma companies spend %35 of their revenues on marketing and only %13 on research and development. Pharma and private insurance companies need money for advertising and marketing and executive salaries which are often tens of millions of dollars a year. The first time my wife got pregnant we were self employed and she was on an individual insurance plan with Aetna. They would'nt cover any of her maternity cost. That same year the CEO was compensated $34 million

In the U.S. medicine went from being a health oriented profession to a Wall Street industry solely focused on profits. Doctors are also at fault. The switch from an insurance reimbursement system for services to billing the insurance company directly caused doctors to increase prices because they know insurance companies can pay for it and the pressure to bill a fair competitive fee, which is often the case in face-to-face transactions, diminished. Doctors also sit on boards for insurance companies (conflict of interest?) and have worked up the rates.

In the U.S., 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills and %77 percent of those people were insured. The only solution I've ever heard a Republican politician offer to these problems is tax incentives for people who are insured. However this in no way would curb the rampant profiteering that is increasing cost and certainly wouldn't help cover more people.

[tickyul]

Originally Posted by native56

These clowns keep acting like nothing is wrong. Unemployment is sky high - so what, we government workers have jobs. State broke. No problem - squeeze more money out of the people with taxes and fees.

Pass a ridiculous green energy mandate. Electicity prices will go sky high. Who cares. Pass a health care mandate. Insurance costs will go sky high. No worries we're having a good time.

Are they insane?

You sound kinda like me, gasping at the insanity of this country. Well.......let me tell you, things look real bad for this country. More and more areas of this country will resemble places like Oakland, Newark, Detroit, Pittsburg......the degeneration of this country has been in motion since the 60's.

[.highnlite]

More and more areas of this country will resemble places like Oakland, Newark, Detroit, Pittsburg......the degeneration of this country has been in motion since the 60's.

Luckily, 50 million acres of California are by law, uninhabited, and resemble the following photo more than those cities you mention. It is helpful to realign your parameters, get out side, get a fishing pole or an ice axe, use it.