Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about single-payer healthcare

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 468 posts

Re: Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about single-payer healthcare

#121

Post by jbhatab »

df3 wrote: post #5

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.

Here's the only thing I'm confused about. Do we have examples of the government running a service better than the private sector?

I'm not 100% on this, but it seems all of the best aspects of American services come from competition and letting capitalism thrive.

Would love a counter opinion.

Re: Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about single-payer healthcare

#122

Post by stvswn »

mahyarm wrote: post #110
brutus1213 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will likely be funded from income tax. As a mid-30s person who earns a decent tech salary and has zero hope of buying a house in the decent parts of the SF Bay area, I think this is another case of taking from the young to feed the old. We should totally do this single-payer thing and pay for it via a wealth tax (that takes the current price of your home into account). Lets make it tiny .. say 0.5% a year.

Your workplace probably pays $500/month for your health insurance. If the employer has to stop paying that and you pay $500/month in taxes instead, it will be about break even anyway. Or even less, since I more forsee a %1-%2 tax increase vs. the current %4-6+ tax that is health insurance.

I think you're assuming that there won't be over-the-top optional healthcare that we'd all (as in, people w/ good insurance at the moment) have to buy in order to meet the same quality we currently have.

Re: Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about single-payer healthcare

#123

Post by hprotagonist »

__realtime wrote: post #93
mmanfrin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[2] is about CalPERS, which is separate from the budget of the State. There may be a current budget shortfall, but CalPERS is fine (it is the largest non-country pension fund in the world; and comes in the top 10 when listed among countries). [3] mentions that tax revenues will fall because of the end of temporary tax increases; those increases are likely to be renewed. Categorizing these as 'severe budget issues' is…

> as a Californian...I'd rather that people like me... There is crux of the issue: not everyone shares the same opinion and belief, so should the government force those people to spend their earned income on healthcare for others? Personally I think it won't end up how you anticipate but that's just me. Right now the working people of America are already subsidizing healthcare for the masses and all I ever hear is pe…

>not everyone shares the same opinion and belief, so should the government force those people to spend their earned income on healthcare for others?

Yes. Ideally, that's what governments should do: require citizens to act in our collective and long-term best interests, not only their own.

In the case of healthcare: a healthy population is a productive, happy, and peaceful population. All of those things are good for the economy, not to mention any one particular person's soul -- you can make a completely utilitarian argument for it and largely sidestep thorny issues of morality.

Re: Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about single-payer healthcare

#124

Post by df3 »

dsmithn wrote: post #103
pmoriarty wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vermont is one of the poorest states in the nation as well, while California's economy is one of the biggest in the world.

In what way is Vermont one of the poorest states?

There are a lot of very poor communities in Vermont, though I doubt Vermont is poor by median household income. I don't have the numbers in front of me but in terms of corporate tax base, Vermont is probably quite poor compared to NY or CA.

Ben and Jerry's can only foot so much of the tax bill.

Re: Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about single-payer healthcare

#125

Post by AYBABTME »

Keverw wrote: post #69

Seems like an interesting idea. With California being the only state in the country doing this, I wonder what is there to stop people from other states using it. Someone from Washington or Texas driving up and getting a short term apartment/changing their ID just so they are covered for a really expensive surgery. It seems like if they're the only state doing it, it'd be a target for the entire nation to go to when t…

Same way as it's solved in Canada - each province manages it's own healthcare system and provides health insurance cards to its residents. You get health insurance IFF you're resident, and you're resident IFF you pay taxes in that province. So that lines up

Re: Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about single-payer healthcare

#126

Post by FT_intern »

amluto wrote: post #68
ThomPete wrote: post #48

Here is the problem. How do you deal with illegal immigrants? At least in the current system there are ways for them to get treated, but in a single payer system? Single-payer works great in countries were everyone have a ssn. Not sure its feasible in the US as much as i think it would be great.

By giving them healthcare? There aren't actually a large number of illegal immigrants sitting around contributing nothing to the CA economy.

I did a quick search and an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion in taxes, so $1,000 per person.

It's a huge net loss. Not to mention the fallout from stolen SSNs and creating demand for stolen SSNs

Re: Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about single-payer healthcare

#127

Post by ThomPete »

michaelchisari wrote: post #86
ThomPete wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has very little effect if any. denmark have a true single payer system and social wellfare program you can only dream of in the us. Yet the number of startups created are declining just like ine the us. It creates a very different mindset.

It creates a very different mindset. Danes aside, are you saying that single payer healthcare would convince Californians to be more conservative towards entrepreneurship?

No i am saying that its not going to change anything and that longer term it changes how people think of risk.

Re: Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about single-payer healthcare

#128

Post by jbhatab »

rdmcfee wrote: post #72

A single payer system is a step in the right direction, however, there are deeper issues with the American healthcare system. The unit cost of healthcare is so much higher than in other developed countries. In British Columbia, physicians bill at total of around $31 CAD ($23 USD) for a standard office visit. They pay all their overhead out of this fee. Typically doctors keep 65% of their billings and the offices take…

Why is single payer better? Genuinely curious. I just don't have any solid proof of the American Government doing a better job than the private industry enabled by competition.

Re: Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about single-payer healthcare

#129

Post by anonymid »

gavman wrote: post #32

Vermont tried this a few years ago, they had to cancel it since in the end it wasn't financially feasible [1]. CA is already dealing with severe budget issues [2][3], so while it sounds nice in theory I'm hesitant to believe the finances actually work out. [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/201…

I wouldn't mind paying more taxes in order to provide others with something I consider a human right.

Under single-payer, CA employers will no longer need to provide insurance for their employees. That money could in some way pay for this. It also makes the idea of a 'gig economy' much more palatable, since people working in short-term / part-time situations will no longer have to go without employer-provided insurance. It could be a source of further economic growth since that makes CA a much more friendly place to start a business.

More centralized healthcare systems also have two arguments for driving down cost - one being that such a system is more effective at promoting timely / preventative care (which is a lot cheaper than emergency care). The second is that such a system can negotiate prices with providers more effectively, and invest in long-term projects to reduce the cost of care, driving down the cost of healthcare overall.

Re: Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about single-payer healthcare

#130

Post by michaelkeenan »

old-gregg wrote: post #41
marcell wrote: post #27

I can't get over the cognitive dissonance of these two points: > (2) Californians, as individuals, employers, and taxpayers have experienced a rise in the cost of health care and health care coverage in recent years > (4) Individuals often find that they are deprived of affordable care and choice because of decisions by health benefit plans guided by the plan’s economic needs rather than consumers’ health care needs.…

Yes you can. As a 6th largest economy in the world [1] California can negotiate prices down by 50-60% to be comparable to Canada/UK. [2] Besides, the existing state program (medi-cal) already covers over 1/3 of CA residents [3]. So it looks like if we lower the cost by 60% we can get pretty close to normal healthcare situation using the existing budget. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states…

I don't think California will negotiate prices down by 50%, and I would bet on that (conditional on this bill passing). Anyone - old-gregg? - want to take that bet at even odds? I suggest using the total cost of one each from the list of medical services in old-gregg's second footnote - angiogram, office visit, angioplasty, etc. I'm also open to other terms.

(Studies show[0] that people answer politically-charged questions more accurately when paid for accuracy, so I think we'd have better debates if people bet on their predictions.)

[0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/17/political-vi...

Post reply on HN