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

Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

sacbee.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#31

Post by threeseed »

tuxracer wrote: post #14
jlarocco wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the headline is sensationalist. With the current spending factored in, it's really not that bad. A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it, with the added bonus of decreasing the amount needed. If that doesn't work, then there are a lot of programs they can cut that are less important than healthcare.

> A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it Exactly this kind of statement is what worries some about universal healthcare. I highly support single payer, universal healthcare. But statements like this undermine the cause by feeding fuel to the idea universal healthcare will inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions.

> inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions

People wouldn't care except that your "personal" decision affects them.

(1) Everyone pays for the public health care system e.g. hospitals. So if you're increased risk of serious disease results in increased visits or treatments then that's my problem as well.

(2) Everyone pays for insurance. So if you're making premiums more expensive then that affects me too.

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#32

Post by tanderson92 »

gzuki wrote: post #8
aphextron wrote: post #4

This headline is really misleading and clickbaity. It makes it seem as if the state is facing a budget shortfall. The cost they are referring to is a hypothetical number crunching of possible future healthcare systems.

And even further, they are misrepresenting that somewhat. They admit further down the article that after offsetting from the existing employer based tax that "total new spending to implement the system would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year". They make it sound like it's $400b more, rather than total. There is also no discussion of the kind of external savings this might create. Usually that kind of t…

More good analysis here too: http://mattbruenig.com/2017/05/22/californias-surprisingly-c...

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#33

Post by mtgx »

sologoub wrote: post #5

TLDR; $400 billion total, $200 billion is currently spent on subsidies and medi-cal, $150 billion is already spent by employers. The state would need to "find" ~$50 billion or ~$1,300 per resident more to fully fund this. Personally, this seems like a relative bargain and some modest extra taxes should offset the difference. Article reads pretty poorly and sensationalist. Not to mention that the missing amount is les…

Indeed. An alternative view on this:

> The state would pay for almost all of its residents’ medical expenses — inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health, and nursing home care — under the plan, and Californians would not have any premiums, copays, or deductibles.

> That’s an incredible deal for just 15% of GDP, which again is lower than the US as a whole already spends on health care.

http://mattbruenig.com/2017/05/22/californias-surprisingly-c...

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#34

Post by [deleted] »

sologoub wrote: post #5

TLDR; $400 billion total, $200 billion is currently spent on subsidies and medi-cal, $150 billion is already spent by employers. The state would need to "find" ~$50 billion or ~$1,300 per resident more to fully fund this. Personally, this seems like a relative bargain and some modest extra taxes should offset the difference. Article reads pretty poorly and sensationalist. Not to mention that the missing amount is les…

[deleted]

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#35

Post by threeseed »

wtbob wrote: post #21
jlarocco wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not, it's already done with cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, gasoline, and a ton of other stuff. These type of taxes are the only way I'm in favor of government healthcare programs. Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs.

> Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs. They also, of course, decrease other costs due to the deaths of the beneficiaries. Is that a net win or a net loss, financially speaking? And are you so sure of your analysis that you would use violence to take your fellow citizens' mon…

The scientists and public policy professionals who formulate these policies aren't doing this for a laugh. There are significant benefits to taxing things that make people sick.

And these policies have been pioneered in other countries e.g. Australia first where they have been wildly successful in reducing overall health care cost.

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#36

Post by therealmarv »

carsongross wrote: post #9

Few know this: The United States currently spends more money per capita on socialized medicine than any other country except Norway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... In fact, the US spends more on socialized medicine than Japan, the UK and Finland spend in total , private and public spending. The US healthcare system is totally out of control. Nothing will fix it until there is a collap…

Wow, I'm surprised. So doctors/hospitals are extremely expensive in USA? What is spend monthly very roughly on health care in USA (if you're have one)? I'm originally from Germany and I always assumed we pay more for health care generally.

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#37

Post by threeseed »

ryanx435 wrote: post #30
jernfrost wrote: post #22

Really weird talking about how expensive this is. Whether you pay through it out of pocket or through taxes what difference does it make? Why do Americans think there is somethink inherently more difficult with paying taxes than paying other expenses. Weird how these people talk about health care as unaffordable but somehow there are always money for wasting trillions in wars like Iraq and Vietnam.

You should look into how much the federal and state governments pay to Medicare and Medicaid and other medical programs than compare it to the budget for the various military expenditures. Also, although iraq and Vietnam were failures on the surface, I challenge you to put a dollar value on the pax Americana that American military spending has enabled in the last 70 years, a dollar value on the various technologies d…

No one is disputing that the US needs a military. What everyone is questioning (and rightly so) is whether the levels of investment are warranted. Especially when the US has such a pitiful social safety net compared to other Western countries.

And let's be serious here. The rest of the world has done more to save the world from fascism and communism than the US has. And entrepreneurship has done far more for innovation than military spending has.

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#38

Post by threeseed »

flukus wrote: post #6
chipperyman573 wrote: post #2

Isn't that a given? I mean, do people not realize that the money has to come from somewhere? Of course it's going to be insanely expensive to insure everybody. Edit: I'm not arguing against Single Payer, I'm just surprised that this is something so shocking an article was written (and then upvoted) about.

> Of course it's going to be insanely expensive to insure everybody. The entire rest of the western world would indicate that it's cheaper than the current system, better too.

Actually let's be clear here. The rest of the Western world does not have a pure single payer system. In fact almost all of them don't. What we have e.g. in Australia is a mixed system closer to Obamacare.

If you don't pay for private health insurance you get public coverage (but you have to pay an increased tax).

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#39

Post by eecc »

Well, signle player, universal health care provider also means one powerful actor with the weight and leverage to aggressively pursue economies of scale and optimizations and preventive care.

As an individual you're just a sucker, a sitting duck to be plucked one feather at a time

Re: Cost of universal health care in California bigger than state's budget

#40

Post by anovikov »

Why all discussions about healthcare reform revolve around money to pay for it? I am sure this is the wrong side of it. Whatever money you pay, you have a limited supply of doctors. So in the end, more money just raises prices, redistributing who gets which care, anyway.

Why not start with supply side? Automatically recognize diploma of doctors from all developed countries (you may start with a limited list - very rich countries with life expectancy higher than U.S. - start with UK, France and Germany, add a few more if it's not enough - no one can say that their doctors are not 'good enough') - and make them instant immigration papers - literally, hand out green cards right at the airport on arrival. Millions will flock and quickly saturate the market. Then you will not have a problem with either new single-payer, or old system.

Post reply on HN