31–40 of 468 posts
> It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would establish a comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage program and a health care cost control system for the benefit of all residents of the state.
This is literally the meat of the bill. The actual changes would still have to be voted on in separate bills, right? What is the point of this?
[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-1...
[2] http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-d...
[3] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/26/californias-revenue-picture-d...
We are doomed.
How so?
I think this is great. California gets to experiment with a single payer system and I, as a Utahan, get to watch and see whether it works or not. Unless it completely fails, then we'll all need to bail Cali out. Can we try this in North Dakota first? ;)
Worked for many other countries. Seems to be quite a bit cheaper for individuals and nations as well. Not sure if it will work on a state level though.
A well-executed single-payer system would make California even more attractive for entrepreneurship and increase labor mobility for everyone. Life would be much easier if we could start companies or switch jobs without worrying about healthcare.
https://journal.dedasys.com/2017/02/22/entrepreneurship-and-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of its residents.
In theory they could have a problem with really sick people moving to California for the healthcare, raising their costs. But that takes time, so maybe before it becomes a big problem, other states will do similar things.
In practice, I wonder if there'd be a grace period, e.g. your insurance doesn't kick in until you've lived in California a year. However, since so many jobs start your insurance benefits on day 1, I'd expect this would have to as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of its residents.
In theory they could have a problem with really sick people moving to California for the healthcare, raising their costs. But that takes time, so maybe before it becomes a big problem, other states will do similar things.
On the other hand it could still work if the benefit is only available to Californians who have lived there for X years. Not sure about the legality of this though -- states can discriminate this way for in-state University tuition, but in Zobel v. Williams the Supreme Court ruled that Alaska couldn't pay out Permanent Fund dividends based on how long you had lived in Alaska (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund).
We are doomed.
Unless you mean "It's going to be designed by the California legislature, therefore we're doomed to a horrible and expensive failure", in which case, yeah, that seems likely.