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

441–450 of 468 posts

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

#441

Post by 824ueirwfjd »

jpobst wrote: post #299
acdha wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-20... “The five states with the highest average combined state and local sales tax rates are Tennessee (9.46 percent), Arkansas (9.30 percent), Louisiana (9.0 percent), Alabama (8.97 percent), and Washington (8.90 percent).”

Tennessee has no income tax, so I'll gladly take 9.46% sales tax and no income tax over California's 8.48% sales tax plus 1% - 13.3% income tax.

on top of 40% federal tax rate for highest bracket... why would anyone want to start a business in CA?

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

#442

Post by MagnumOpus »

luckydata wrote: post #268
maxerickson wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several of those countries implement universal coverage using a private insurance model.

All the best systems are single payer. Italy, France, Spain, the UK. The countries with private insurance like Germany are middle of the pack. Clearly single payer is the superior option.

Back that up with numbers please. At best, the former four are better in terms of value-for-money, but with experience living in both the former and the latter, the German system is superior in terms of outcomes, waiting times, choice.

(Yes, mediterranean countries have a higher life expectancy due to diet and physical activity, but that wouldn't change much with a different health care model.)

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

#443

Post by ClassyJacket »

mullen wrote: post #373
ThomPete wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can pay out of pocket. The second you get into free healtcare you need to suddenly track things on federal and state level to make sure budgets are kept. I am a fan of single payer but its a very different beast and i am not sure its possible in a US context.

Oh ya, Illegal immigrants totally pay their medicals bills after going to the emergency room.

Most countries just deny them public healthcare in the first place. You know, like happens already in the US right now.

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

#444

Post by ClassyJacket »

ThomPete wrote: post #115
ClassyJacket wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this stop illegal immigrants getting treated the same way they do now?

You can pay out of pocket. The second you get into free healtcare you need to suddenly track things on federal and state level to make sure budgets are kept. I am a fan of single payer but its a very different beast and i am not sure its possible in a US context.

So, right now, they have to pay out of pocket. With a public system, they can also pay out of pocket. So no difference.

I don't know why Americans pretend that a public heathcare system necessarily means the sudden end to all private services overnight. Here in Australia you're more than welcome to have your own private insurance or pay out of pocket for treatment.

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

#445

Post by sobani »

piedpiper_ wrote: post #408
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's starting to sound like civilization. When we live together, I don't want to subsidize your poor decisions. If you want to live your life alone in a forest somewhere, you can pay no tax and make all your own decisions.

What does this have to do with healthcare? Is it a right or a privilege? Your answer to that question makes it clear why we likely disagree. Healthcare is a SERVICE that someone PROVIDES to you for MONEY. It has a tangible COST. It is not a RIGHT which is something that WE as a COLLECTIVE have determined WE individually possess (liberty, right to bare arms, freedom of press, right to assemble, etc) That is the bedroc…

To add on to the comment of seanmcdirmid

Adding up the population[1] (in millions, rounded down) of all countries in Europe with universal healthcare[2], except the 144 million from Russia, which is mostly asia anyway, I get to 484 million people covered by universal healthcare.

This includes countries like Germany (81M), France (66M), the UK (65M), Italy (60M) and Spain (46M), which should alleviate the fear of 'small European countries can do that, but not a state as big as California'.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_univers...

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

#446

Post by ThomPete »

ClassyJacket wrote: post #444
ThomPete wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can pay out of pocket. The second you get into free healtcare you need to suddenly track things on federal and state level to make sure budgets are kept. I am a fan of single payer but its a very different beast and i am not sure its possible in a US context.

So, right now, they have to pay out of pocket. With a public system, they can also pay out of pocket. So no difference. I don't know why Americans pretend that a public heathcare system necessarily means the sudden end to all private services overnight. Here in Australia you're more than welcome to have your own private insurance or pay out of pocket for treatment.

The number of illegal immigrants in the US is around 11 million.

Healthcare is one of the most expensive posts in any society. The US system is not built for single payer model which means many other areas will have to change too.

What normally happens when you make a public healthcare system and allow for private enterprise (which I am a fan of having) is that the primary burden (cancer, long term illness, major surgeries) are put in the hands of the public hospitals while the private ones deal more with things like cosmetic plastic surgery and other treatments which are lucrative.

Most public healthcare systems with a single payer model have to heavily prioritize how man can get treatment, for what, with what kind of technology etc.

It's not just a matter of switching from one kind of insurance model to another it's about turning hospitals into places who can't make money but have to adhere to a budget. It's a very very different kind of system that comes out of that and in a country like the US with that many illegal immigrant I am not sure it can work financially.

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

#447

Post by ThomPete »

ClassyJacket wrote: post #443
mullen wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh ya, Illegal immigrants totally pay their medicals bills after going to the emergency room.

Most countries just deny them public healthcare in the first place. You know, like happens already in the US right now.

The US system is more complex than that. There are plenty of illegal immigrants who get treated in the healthcare system today. As long as you have money you can get treated. In a public healthcare system you have to be identified as legal citizen in order to get access to the system. The system are going to have quotas of how many people are allowed to get treated with what etc. How do you think the general taxpayer is going to react to that?

It's as simple as you try to make it sound like.

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

#448

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

refurb wrote: post #379
toomuchtodo wrote: post #361

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.

In a "freely competitive market" (to use Adam Smith's original phrase) you can. In a market without that competition you can't. Sadly many markets in practice don't have free competition.

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

#449

Post by jartelt »

ThomPete wrote: post #364
jartelt wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just treat them like anyone else and the cost gets rolled into the cost of coverage for everyone. Hospitals and ERs are already required to treat people who come in regardless of whether they are legal/illegal or have/don't have insurance. So... we pay for their (and citizens who can't afford their coverage) care anyways. With single payer that cost would just be spread across everyone in the state rather than sp…

In a single payer system thats not going to work. Keep in mind that you don't make money anymore you have a taxpayer paid budget. Thats not going to leave room for that. That they are required to treat is even worse for a budget it wouldnt hold long.

I do not understand your argument. You just price a new tax high enough such that the system is paid for, no? I think everyone agrees that you need a new tax to pay for the system, and you are not going to take the current tax revenue and pay for single payer plus everything else the government pays for. Instead of paying for insurance premiums or getting a lower salary because health insurance is part of your compensation, you would just pay a new tax. As a result your life would be simplified since you no longer would need to worry about insurance networks, levels of coverage, out-of-network doctors in in-network-hospitals, etc.

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

#450

Post by dang »

Frondo wrote: post #312
mcbruiser wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sure as shit happy to pay more in taxes for a universal single single-payer. I Great, you can opt in to that, but don't force everyone else who doesn't agree with you to subsidize everyone else's poor decisions

Ok, well, as a cyclist who doesn't own a car, and as a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat, and as a childless infertile dude, I'm sure tired of subsidizing you cow-eating motorist parents. Oh, wait, that's what society is--we all pay for communal stuff because we're all ultimately in this together.

It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political arguments. That's not what this site is intended for, so please don't do that.
Post reply on HN