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

291–300 of 468 posts

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

#291

Post by CalChris »

r00fus wrote: post #262
CalChris wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vermont is 32nd in per capita GDP. Poorest would be Mississippi, dead last. California is indeed a massive economy and we're ranked 10th in per capita GDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per... One point about our size. When CA does something at the state level a lot of other states follow along. Minnesota can't dictate to manufacturers but CA can.

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.

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

#292

Post by mcbruiser »

hprotagonist wrote: post #123
__realtime wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as a Californian...I'd rather that people like me... There is crux of the issue: not everyone shares the same opinion and belief, so should the government force those people to spend their earned income on healthcare for others? Personally I think it won't end up how you anticipate but that's just me. Right now the working people of America are already subsidizing healthcare for the masses and all I ever hear is pe…

>not everyone shares the same opinion and belief, so should the government force those people to spend their earned income on healthcare for others? Yes. Ideally, that's what governments should do: require citizens to act in our collective and long-term best interests, not only their own. In the case of healthcare: a healthy population is a productive, happy, and peaceful population. All of those things are good for…

most likely what will happen is people will just leave CA, leaving a shortage and it will fail

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

#293

Post by jartelt »

ThomPete wrote: post #48

Here is the problem. How do you deal with illegal immigrants? At least in the current system there are ways for them to get treated, but in a single payer system? Single-payer works great in countries were everyone have a ssn. Not sure its feasible in the US as much as i think it would be great.

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 spread across only people with insurance.

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

#294

Post by enraged_camel »

refurb wrote: post #282
enraged_camel wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide any arguments (or, even better, empirical evidence) as to why the government has more waste, incompetence and corruption than the private sector?

I'm not arguing one is better than the other. Just that both system are run by humans so I wouldn't say you'd have less corruption or waste in one or the other.

Well, yeah, we aren't really disagreeing then.

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

#295

Post by refurb »

alexqgb wrote: post #280
refurb wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the major advantage of single-payer is massively reducing the costs of health care It's cheaper because less is offered. Of course one can argue the extra you get under the US system doesn't really add value. Keep in mind that single payer systems are struggling with costs as well. It's just easier for them to say "no one gets this new treatment".

No, this is demonstrably wrong. Cutting $87,000 in markups from the price of $1,700 off-patent drugs does not mean "less is offered". To the contrary, far more people get access to the drug in question. It may mean that the system as a whole offers far less opportunity to predatory rent-seekers, but that's a feature, not a bug. And yes, you can very easily argue that many other costs don't add value. That's why point…

To the contrary, far more people get access to the drug in question.

There are plenty of drugs you can get in the US that single payers systems simply won't cover. The Cancer Fund in the UK is a great example. NHS said "nope too expensive" to several drugs so unless the Cancer Fund pays for it, you're SOL. That's how single payer systems save money.

That's why pointing to the superior overall life-expectancy in other countries is part of the argument.

Life expectancy is a very blunt tool when you're looking at level of healthcare. There is too much intra-country variability.

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

#296

Post by gator-io »

neltnerb wrote: post #188
gator-io wrote: post #164

I simultaneously believe in universal coverage as a moral imperative, but also the efficiency of markets over government AND basic income as a necessity as automation displaces millions of workers. So, why not combine concepts - start off with basic income that has to be spent on health care insurance. Start with enough for coverage against major issues, but people can spend more for more coverage. Universal coverage…

I'm pretty confident that if you get rid of individual mandates while not disqualifying sick people or enforcing benefit caps, premiums will skyrocket. I'm not sure there's really a middle ground here, it's just unavoidable actuary math. So if it is, as you say, a moral imperative, what are your choices? Maybe the EBI will need to be ridiculously high to actually provide the coverage you agree is a moral imperative t…

And course no one should be disqualified. I don't think premiums would skyrocket, because as a major break with Obamacare, this is only enough for basic insurance.

Frankly, that's all we could possibly afford as a country. And maybe not even that.

The Obamacare concept of the young subsidizing the old via the individual mandate actually works in this scenario, because the young will all have insurance.

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

#297

Post by mozumder »

mcbruiser wrote: post #285
mmanfrin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[2] is about CalPERS, which is separate from the budget of the State. There may be a current budget shortfall, but CalPERS is fine (it is the largest non-country pension fund in the world; and comes in the top 10 when listed among countries). [3] mentions that tax revenues will fall because of the end of temporary tax increases; those increases are likely to be renewed. Categorizing these as 'severe budget issues' is…

> 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

That's the deal with citizenship - we allow you to live with us as long as you pay for other people. In particular, paying for people that don't make good decisions for themselves. Which is fine, since everyone is poorer than someone else.

No one is interested in allowing you to live in a country without paying for it. You live under the permission of others.

Them's the rules - take it or leave it.

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

#298

Post by robotresearcher »

mindcrime wrote: post #175

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…

> Using force / aggression (aka the government forcing you to do something) is a violation of your most fundamental rights, and strips you of your agency and dignity as a human being.

This is completely wrong. You have no rights except those guaranteed you by your fellows in a collective agreement. 'Rights' are exactly those things that the collective threatens us against violating in others.

Consider: if it's up to me to violently defend my 'rights' individually, then I am free to decide literally anything is my right. But the things your neighbors will fight others for on your behalf, these are your rights.

> the truth is that nobody is in a better position to determine how your income should be spent than you

Also plain wrong. How much of your income would you have chosen to spend on network protocol research in the late 1970s? Or on growing mold in dishes in 1910? We are much better at these decisions collectively.

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

#299

Post by jpobst »

acdha wrote: post #181
__realtime wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad you have that luxury, CA has some of the highest taxes anywhere and I would definitely be opposed to more.

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.

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

#300

Post by [deleted] »

gautamnarula wrote: post #243
stale2002 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh, no thanks. I'd rather be able to decide for myself what healthcare I buy, instead of being forced into a substandard single payer system. Ok, fine, create a public option. But don't force me to buy it. Let me buy my own healthcare.

This is what Australia does, I think. Single payer public option, but you can choose to buy private health care as well (though you still pay taxes for the public option regardless). I'm curious to hear from any Australians about how this system works for them.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN