Universal Health Care ! CA (corporate, paid, places)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Hey lighten up on the Cheetos, I love them. I never buy them because I will eat them until they're gone same with Cheez-its but I lust for them, sometimes I wake up at night thinking about them.

You still think it's marketing mysticaltiger or do you concede that people are just undisciplined about their diets?

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

lol that's good! I don't buy them but if they're laying around..well then eating them is the right thing to do because they could attract ants or something

LOL.

What a fantastic response .

[CA4Now]

According to this study, "enacting a single-payer system would yield considerable savings overall by lowering administrative costs, controlling the prices of pharmaceuticals and fees for physicians and hospitals, reducing unnecessary treatments and expanding preventive care. We found that Healthy California could ultimately result in savings of about 18%, bringing healthcare spending to about $331 billion, or 8% less than the current $370 billion."

Single-payer healthcare for California is, in fact, very doable - LA Times

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

According to this study, "enacting a single-payer system would yield considerable savings overall by lowering administrative costs, controlling the prices of pharmaceuticals and fees for physicians and hospitals, reducing unnecessary treatments and expanding preventive care. We found that Healthy California could ultimately result in savings of about 18%, bringing healthcare spending to about $331 billion, or 8% less than the current $370 billion."

Single-payer healthcare for California is, in fact, very doable - LA Times

From the article

The state would still need to raise about $106 billion a year to cover the cost of replacing private insurance. This could be done with two new taxes.

First, California could impose a gross receipts tax of 2.3% on businesses, but with an exemption for the first $2 million of revenue. Through such an exemption, about 80% of all businesses in California — small firms — would pay nothing in gross receipts tax, and medium-sized businesses would pay an effective tax rate of less than 1%.


Second, the state could institute a sales tax increase of 2.3%. The tax would not apply to housing, utilities, food purchased for the home or a range of services, and it could be offset for low-income families with a 2% income tax credit.

In other words hit the middle class again.



Now how valid is the study, note the source.


According to research I conducted with three colleagues at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the answer is yes.


Has anyone sen the study? How did they arrive at the idea that CA could lower costs? Sounds nice and if doable, why was it not doable under Obama Care which in effect made the same claims?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

According to this study, "enacting a single-payer system would yield considerable savings overall by lowering administrative costs, controlling the prices of pharmaceuticals and fees for physicians and hospitals, reducing unnecessary treatments and expanding preventive care. We found that Healthy California could ultimately result in savings of about 18%, bringing healthcare spending to about $331 billion, or 8% less than the current $370 billion."

Something that has never ever been done by a state run health agency in the U.S or the entire world. It's counter-intuitive to have a state run agency do all those things.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Something that has never ever been done by a state run health agency in the U.S or the entire world. It's counter-intuitive to have a state run agency do all those things.

That is why the study is of no value.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by expatCA

That is why the study is of no value.

True.

Any study that claims "We can accomplish everything we want IF GOVERNMENT can lower administrative cost, and lower prices" is probably a study that is as based in reality as Dr. Seuss.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

True.

Any study that claims "We can accomplish everything we want IF GOVERNMENT can lower administrative cost, and lower prices" is probably a study that is as based in reality as Dr. Seuss.

You mean you do not think Government, particularly the CA Government can't reduce cost on such a mammoth project?

I am sure there are many examples of CA doing so on major projects like ......................................
.................................................. ....................... Humm does anyone know of one?

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

So how do you explain the people who aren't chubby overweight people who don't eat sugar/salt by the spoonful?

You're trying to excuse people for being fat, and lazy. Let the market handle it.

And while you're at it, remove food labeling, right? Let them eat cake...
Trump's answer to the obesity epidemic: Here, have a cookie - LA Times

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

And while you're at it, remove food labeling, right? Let them eat cake...
Trump's answer to the obesity epidemic: Here, have a cookie - LA Times

Fake news hit piece from LA Times.

"Planned changes include a larger type size for calories and disclosure of “added sugars” in grams and as a percentage of recommended daily allotment."

Do fat people really need 100 point font to know that eating 20 Chocolate Cookies is going to be a lot of calories and a lot of sugar?

The current labels are already fine. I read them for every item I purchase. Fat people don't, that's why they are fat.