Live data from Hacker News

California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

taxfoundation.org

211–220 of 363 posts

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#211

> to fund a first-in-the-nation single-payer health-care system. This is key here. So instead of paying this out to a private insurance company I pay it in taxes, there by my actual change is net zero, in most cases. I have a feeling most reactions might be headline driven here. I think it’s worth doing the math on how much it costs you in healthcare coverage before really judging a book by its cover here. If my comp…

I hope Kaiser Permanente lobbies this or we can opt out. I've lived in many states and my exp with Kaiser in California is among the best. I don't see the state (especially bloated California) doing better. (I pay out of pocket via a side business, not from my current employer.)

Kaiser posted $3B in profits in a quarter.

All that money is overhead that can be removed from the costs if health care didn't have to funnel through a private company taking profits from it.

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/kaiser-permanente...

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#212
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typical the argument is that a single payer system is to avoid waste. California Government would be the perfect candidate for this since they are so fiscally responsible and do such an amazing job managing their finances. God Speed.

California had a $75 billion surplus last year.

That's thanks to the Federal Congress and Jerome Powell, not to California's supposed fiscal prudence.

California has benefited from the Federal spending bonanza and also has famously high tax rates, treats capital gains as ordinary income, and has a lot of rich people. The FTB seems to have screwed up the links[1] and I can't find later data for a complete fiscal year, but check out "Ordinary Dividends" and "Capital Gain" in exhibit A9 for FY2019[2] to get a sense of how important that is to the state budget.

[1]: https://data.ftb.ca.gov/stories/s/Other-Tax-Data/sgxz-494k#d... [2]: https://data.ftb.ca.gov/download/d6s8-gyup/application%2Fpdf

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#213
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at housing availability hard to believe there is an actual net outflow from CA

There's an outflow of people willing to produce value, and an inflow of people ready to consume it. It will work just great until suddenly there's not that many value left to feed all the hungry mouths. And then the mouths will take pitchforks and go raid the nearby granary because that's where they think the food is. Only to find it empty because the people willing to actually produce food left long time ago. USSR h…

So people buying 1-2mil+ houses in LA, SF OC etc are not value producers?

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#214
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when has California's government recently shown any capability to successfully implement big projects or spend tax payer money efficiently? How is the high speed train project coming along?

If you want an extreme example of how bad a single payer system can get, look at Canada. Not only do we have a single-payer system, we've actually banned private pay of any kind for "medically necessary" services. The net effect is predictable - Canada consistently ranks very poorly in international health system comparisons. We have far fewer ICU beds, doctors, imaging machines, etc. per capita than peer nations, an…

> The net effect is predictable - Canada consistently ranks very poorly in international health system comparisons.

Funny that despite this 'extreme example', Canadians have almost 3 years longer life expectancy than us in the US, are healthier throughout their lives, and have comparable or better outcomes with treatments. Where the US has better outcomes (e.g. - some forms of cancer, some organ transplants), it's only very marginally better (like 1% higher chance of surviving 5 years after colon cancer diagnosis when compared to Canada). And for that 1%, you're spending MUCH more money on your treatment.

Basically nearly every measured outcome is better in Canada rather than the US, despite US paying twice as much on healthcare costs per capita when compared to Canada.

> We have far fewer ICU beds, doctors, imaging machines, etc. per capita than peer nations, and the entire country is in varying degrees of harsh lockdown because our hospitals were already overwhelmed during a normal flu season.

That may all be true, yet it's still better care than what the average US citizen gets, despite paying twice as much per capita.

> What states should do is encourage more competition as a way to lower healthcare costs.

They've been trying to 'encourage more competition' for decades now with healthcare costs only continuing to climb while affordable access falls (ignoring the gains that came and went with ACA). "Competition" doesn't exist in industries that are nearly impossible to enter due to regulatory capture and the insane entrenchment of giant healthcare organizations. The few that succeed in making any progress at all get rapidly acquired.

Reality is that no-system is perfect, there will be complaints and tradeoffs. But the US system is broken for a huge proportion of residents, and it's not going to change without drastic measures. I'm all for torching the whole thing and trying single payer. There may be complains about single payer systems across the world, but according to most of the publications I've seen (probably all, but my memory is imperfect), the vast majority of those subject to it would never trade it for what the US has.

Basic healthcare access in 'the richest country in the world' should be a fundamental right, not a for-profit industry.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#215

As a taxpayer I don't actually have a problem with this. However, as a California resident who has seen this state's inability to think through regulations effectively or solve housing problems, I'm incredibly skeptical of California's ability to implement single payer healthcare effectively. I would likely leave the state because I assume California would fail to deliver, and taxes would get raised for nothing.

Exactly - no doctor who has his crap together is going to accept the government's insurance. Medicare has the same problem. My mother many times can't find a decent doctor that accepts Medicare and when she does, they take so few appointments it takes weeks to get seen whenever an issue pops up.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#216
post #93

> to fund a first-in-the-nation single-payer health-care system. This is key here. So instead of paying this out to a private insurance company I pay it in taxes, there by my actual change is net zero, in most cases. I have a feeling most reactions might be headline driven here. I think it’s worth doing the math on how much it costs you in healthcare coverage before really judging a book by its cover here. If my comp…

Yeah, the headline could easily be flipped with the subheading and most people's reaction would be drastically different. Overall I think a single-payer system is for the best. Having healthcare tied to your job creates another anchor to keep people tied to large, stable companies instead of taking risks with startups or small businesses. The main downside is that companies have started doing tiered healthcare costs…

But now it is tied to the government, which is way worse...You can't complain to the government.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've NEVER seen an employee denied (or asked) about their medical conditions ever. The enrollment paperwork to the carrier is like basic address / name / effective date for coverage. That is it.

The ACA prohibits pre-existing condition exclusions for all insurance plans, not just Obamacare plans.

And prior to the ACA rule taking effect, denial for preexisting conditions was common practice. See more here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existing_condition

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the preexisting injury part that jacked up the prices. They aren’t allowed to deny enrollment or charge significantly higher premiums if some was has cancer or something. And that totally makes sense morally, but that causes the risk burden to be offset on the aggregate of the subscribers resulting in higher premiums for everyone. It would be kind of similar to forcing auto insurance carriers to afford coverage…

I've NEVER seen an employee denied (or asked) about their medical conditions ever. The enrollment paperwork to the carrier is like basic address / name / effective date for coverage. That is it.

I've been at a small company (circa y2k) that looked at group insurance, and decided against it specifically because of one employee's pre-existing conditions would have made the plan more expensive. Boss was a little too forthcoming with that information, and sure enough, when the employee moved on, we all got insured. Thankfully, that's illegal now.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#219

California would increase taxes by $12,250 per household Let's take it at face value this is fact. For my healthcare plan I pay 6k a year on top of what the company pays (more that 20k). Then I pay copays on top of that. It seems perfectly plausible to me that I would come out ahead if the company and I switched from paying about 30k a year in healthcare costs to a single payer system with only 20k a year in costs to…

Also think about how providers won't accept lower rates, so your new discount plan will only give you access to bottom of the barrel providers willing to take any patient at any price.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#220
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the headline could easily be flipped with the subheading and most people's reaction would be drastically different. Overall I think a single-payer system is for the best. Having healthcare tied to your job creates another anchor to keep people tied to large, stable companies instead of taking risks with startups or small businesses. The main downside is that companies have started doing tiered healthcare costs…

But now it is tied to the government, which is way worse...You can't complain to the government.

> But now it is tied to the government, which is way worse...You can't complain to the government.

Elections have consequences. Try un-electing your group plan provider.

Post reply on HN