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

171–180 of 468 posts

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

#171

Post by abalone »

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…

The article you cite points at resistance to tax increases as the culprit. No state can afford single payer without a tax increase to fund it, so the talk of "budget issues" is misleading. It's simply a matter of convincing everyone to trade paying private insurers for a tax increase. Vermont got pushback from the business community saying it would hurt the economy, but that seems suspect to me considering they would not have to pay private premiums anymore. That and the economic benefits of a healthy population.

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

#174

Post by k-mcgrady »

narrator wrote: post #151
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…

For one, doctors educational costs are astronomical in the U.S compared to other countries. The amount of people able to become doctors is artificially limited. Drug prices are unregulated. The cost of developing drugs is high and has been getting higher. Hospitals have little price transparency and the cost of same procedures at different hospitals is wildly different. The same bag of saline can cost 10x more at one…

>> For one, doctors educational costs are astronomical in the U.S compared to other countries.

Doesn't this apply to all US educational costs (at the college level)? On the other hand doctors in the US seem to get paid a lot more than in, say, the UK.

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

#175

Post by mindcrime »

so should the government force those people to spend their earned income on healthcare for others?

Absolutely not. Pretty much any question that starts with "should the government force ..." can be answered "no". You earned your income, it's yours and it should be up to you how to spend it.

Using force / aggression (aka the government forcing you to do something) is a violation of your most fundamental rights, and strips you of your agency and dignity as a human being. And while the end may sound noble ("everybody should have free health care") the truth is that nobody is in a better position to determine how your income should be spent than you, and nobody other than you has any standing to decide what kind of charity (if any) you should engage in.

Rather than stealing from Bobby to pay for Suzy's health-care, it would be better to enact policies that A. reduce the cost of health-care, and B. encourage general economic welfare, job creation, etc., such that both Bobby and Suzy can pay for their own health-care from the get-go.

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

#176

Post by chaostheory »

mmanfrin wrote: post #120
chaostheory wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is about CalPERS, which is separate from the budget of the State. There may be a current budget shortfall, but CalPERS is fine It's 'separate' from the state budget, but doesn't California still ultimately pay for pensions? How is this fine when there's a huge difference between the projected costs and the actual costs? Doesn't 70% of CA tax revenue go towards paying pension obligations? Current CA pension debt is…

Doesn't 70% of CA tax revenue go towards paying pension obligations Not even close . The article linked by the comment I replied to states that CA will chip in $5.4bil -- last years budget was $122bil. Maybe you got the 70% figure from where CalPERS gets its funding? Currently yearly contribution is ~70% from the state, but there was a bill passed that is shifting some of the requirement on to those who will benefit…

I'm not sure why both of our comments got downvoted, but thanks for the clarification.

Yes there was a new bill and there was a shift, but most of the burden is still on the state of California which makes sense since CALPERS is an agency of the state of California. Isn't CA still ultimately responsible for CA pensions?

I just felt that CALPERS was in trouble years ago when they were selling their members an advancement in years for the pension if they paid a fee upfront (which could be deducted from their paychecks) in order to meet current pension obligations.

Current CA pension debt is $965 Billion. It'll become $1 Trillion soon.

http://www.pensiontracker.org/index.php

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

#177

Post by feld »

darkstar999 wrote: post #42
wjossey wrote: post #30

I'm excited to see this show up on hacker news. As a Santa Monica resident, I'd gladly pay more in taxes for universal coverage. The only way that we are going to achieve federal universal coverage is via states paving the way. Just as "Romney care" was a predecessor to the ACA, so can healthy California pave the way for the US to join the rest of the modern world with guaranteed access.

Just curious why you would gladly pay more? Can you elaborate?

Because I don't want my friends and family and neighbors to suffer and die

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

#179

Post by pvelagal »

TheSageMage wrote: post #57
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'm very new to the single-payer idea, but Vermont rates 49th for population in the US, California ranks 1st. I thought one of the strengths of a single-payer system was to leverage the power of large numbers to help drive costs down. Would this not make it more viable?

I have an common sense observation and questions. Apple, Microsoft etc you name it, all get their hardware products manufactured in china & Asian countries mainly to drive down costs (People blame CEOs but really ? do they have a choice ? Will wall street show mercy on them ? It is easy to forget that US consumers are the primary beneficiaries, and Wall street is happy - means - 401ks, IRAs of regular US citizens grow ! ). How come pharma companies dont follow that model and drive down the prices of drugs/medicines ? How come healthcare providers dont use "globalization" for cutting health care costs where apparently it matters the most ? One can live without iphones or electronics, but cant live without necessary medicines or proper healthcare. Without driving down drug prices or hospital costs, how can healthcare problem be solved, no matter what system is used ?

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

#180

Post by acdha »

darkstar999 wrote: post #42
wjossey wrote: post #30

I'm excited to see this show up on hacker news. As a Santa Monica resident, I'd gladly pay more in taxes for universal coverage. The only way that we are going to achieve federal universal coverage is via states paving the way. Just as "Romney care" was a predecessor to the ACA, so can healthy California pave the way for the US to join the rest of the modern world with guaranteed access.

Just curious why you would gladly pay more? Can you elaborate?

Just agreeing with what others have said: I'd prefer not to live in a world where bad luck means easily avoidable pain and suffering, or where many people live in semi-constant fear that a malicious or incompetent company will prevent them from getting vital care or create an acute financial crisis.

If you only care about yourself, ask what would happen if you developed a serious illness or were in a bad accident: very few people have the millions of dollars needed to survive something like that and you have no way to know if that's going to happen or avoid it even if you did.

I'd say I'd gladly pay more in taxes not to have to worry about that except that the experience of every other developed nation suggests it'd be a massive price reduction.

Post reply on HN