411–420 of 468 posts
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.
It would be good as a baseline, then companies can offer supplement plans for additional coverage or a wider network, similar to Medicare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't they still pay extra and get it? Can't you do that in Canada?
Nope! Physicians either have to be a part of the public system 100% or 0%. No doing both. As a result, there are very few private options for healthcare in Canada.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No.
Ok so I am curious about the "collectivism" story. I mean, we as species have been talking care of our elderly and injured for like what, 50,000 years or 100,000 years or whatever? Seems to be working well. And, if we all chip in, we can have nice things. Roads, water, electricity, museums, libraries, courts, police, etc. Is that bad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He can afford it. Others can't. Why should he pay for them just because they have a lower value?
So these 'lower value' people should just die when they get cancer? I find the idea that not being able to earn a high enough salary means you are unworthy of basic medical care repugnant.
If you want everyone to have the "Cadillac" health plan and education plan, you need to tell me how society will pay for it? And lets talk sustainable plans .. no more kicking down the can to our kids and grand kids.
Finally, to all the negative commentators on my post, please read up on the difference between wealth and income. At current rents, factoring current child care costs, lack of pensions and existing tax rates, someone who makes 200K in California is worse off than someone who owns a detached house in Mountain View and a few other properties (by virtue of being here from the Orchard days), and then hides his/her income. I've seen too many people like that at this point in my life. Enough is enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great insights - never considered this. I can't imagine that insurance not being available for purchase across state lines is helping here, either.
There are several states where health insurance sells across state lines. It does not lower the price of health insurance.
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.…
In a single payer system, there wouldn't be an insurance company sitting between a patient and the medical provider, extracting rent. The middleman and associated overhead would not exist (or be centralized), which could make the market more efficient.
Bureaucrats don't work for free.
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…
Interesting tidbit from the 3rd article: "Ultimately, Thornberg believes California would be better served with a Texas-style tax revenue system where there's less reliance on personal income taxes and capital gains tied to the stock market, and more of a focus on property taxes and sales taxes." So long as high priced real-estate are exchanging hands, CA will reap the benefit.
Prop 13 incentivizes homeowners to stay put until they die. In other words, it puts tremendous downward pressure on the housing supply which results in a self-reinforcing feedback loop whereby the more real estate prices grow the greater the tax incentive to stay put.
Changing this state of affairs is near impossible. Nobody is going to trade increased mobility and a more efficient housing market for a precipitous drop in the paper value of their primary asset, even though on the whole it'd probably be better for everybody.
Why precipitous? Because locking in, under Prop 13, your first year property valuation is a huge part of the calculus for determining affordability and your bidding price. If a new home owner doesn't get the benefit of Prop 13, he's going to pay far less for a house. Which means you can't even ease California out of the cycle by grandfathering existing homeowners in the hopes of avoiding their ire.
Repealing Prop 13 just isn't politically viable. It's a fascinating state of affairs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 remember these arguments made when Jerry Brown first proposed the newer upper income tax bands in 2009. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it would require the consent of Congress, per the Constitution: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." I don't see that happening.
IANAL, but the wikipedia page on Interstate Compact states that "Not all compacts between states require explicit Congressional approval - the Supreme Court ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee that only those agreements which would increase the power of states at the expense of the federal government required it." I'm not sure this would cause the federal government to lose any power, especially if the ACA was repealed. A…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can vote out government representatives; I cannot vote out unregulated companies doing damage in a marketplace. Government provided services provide the opportunity for total transparency; this is not the case in the private sector. EDIT: @refurb: You're confusing a free market with what the United States has. A free market it ain't (especially regarding healthcare).
In a free market you can chose to go with another company.