341–350 of 468 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because for hundreds of years collectivism has been accelerating and it's become nearly, if not entirely, out of control at this point.
Ah yes, "collectivism." What you call that, the masses of humanity call civilization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's GDP per capita. CA is the largest state in terms of overall GDP. Overall population/economy size matters, not just per-capita.
Per capita GDP matters more in determining whether Vermont or California can better afford this. In fact, CA can better afford this than Vermont. By comparison, Mississippi cannot afford this. They're basically supported by states like California; their economy is trivial and they're propped up by defense spending.
Why do you think Apple gets better prices than, e.g. Logitech for component parts? Because they order massively more, up-front, and with strict timetables for delivery.
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.
I don't think anyone disagrees that single payer requires higher taxes than we currently pay. so given that, you're trying to tell me that a state with the highest taxes (much much higher than #2) in the nation, with the lowest housing affordability will attract more entrepreneurs than before? why? because the young and invincible will be choose cheaper healthcare over being able to live comfortably? I highly doubt i…
Considering, for a very long time, California's taxes have been the highest in the country (to be fair, definitely not "much much higher" than NYC,) last I checked it was adding jobs at a higher percentage rate than any other state.
Do you really think there's been an entrepreneur exodus from the Bay Area and LA since 2009?
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.
I don't think anyone disagrees that single payer requires higher taxes than we currently pay. so given that, you're trying to tell me that a state with the highest taxes (much much higher than #2) in the nation, with the lowest housing affordability will attract more entrepreneurs than before? why? because the young and invincible will be choose cheaper healthcare over being able to live comfortably? I highly doubt i…
I don't think anyone disagrees that single payer requires higher taxes than we currently pay
The first problem is, how could the government simply take over? Eminent Domain? Constitutional amendment?
The problems with your last argument are that almost nobody is actually a utilitarian, and utilitarianism is wrong.[1][2][3] edit: full disclosure; I am an ethical intuitionist.[4] [1] http://degreesofclarity.com/writing/utilitarianism/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism
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 st…
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…
Anyway, there's no reason it's a financial funding problem. No matter what it's some kind of tax. Either it's a government tax for a government operated health care system (single payer); or it's a tax on the business vis a vis employer based insurance where they are the true customer not those who are insured; or it's a tax on the employee getting a plan on the market place if the employer doesn't provide one.
The number one problem is that it's simply too profitable for doctors, hospitals, clinics, and insurance companies right now, to have system that incentivizes pay per procedure per per visit, rather than paying for health. It is not health care, it's sick care. Very little of our system incentivizes health. A miniscule number of insurers pay if you actually show up at a gym, not merely pay for the gym; or pay you to lose weight by actually getting weighed at an approved clinic, and so on.
It's presently politically untenable that we have for-profit education to become a doctor, and salaried doctors.
And there probably isn't a way to make this work on a scale like Vermont. It's probably possible to do it on the scale of California, but deeply depends on the politics.
Democrats basically took a dump on ACA. They tried to get Republicans on board, which is why they went with the Heritage Foundation plan. But then Republicans didn't go for it anyway. So what they should have done, hindsight being 20/20, is offer Americans a way to buy into Medicare rather than set up all these stupid state exchanges to expand a busted for-profit system. Oh well!
Note that this bill, in its current form, has no substantive effect; it would only "make findings and declarations with regard to the availability and affordability of health care coverage and would state 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 t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, "collectivism." What you call that, the masses of humanity call civilization.
Exactly, that's the problem.
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…