PDA

View Full Version : California Moves Toward Universal Health Care



DLR'sCock
12-19-2007, 07:31 PM
California Moves Toward Universal Health Care
By Kevin Sack
The New York Times

Tuesday 18 December 2007

Sacramento - California moved significantly closer to enacting a broad expansion of health insurance coverage Monday when the Democratic-controlled Assembly passed legislation that has the backing of the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

But it is far from certain that the Legislature will give final approval to the measure, which would provide coverage to an estimated 70 percent of the 5.1 million persistently uninsured Californians.

The bill must first gain passage in the Senate, also controlled by Democrats, where there are deep concerns about the measure's impact on the state's widening budget gap. And even if the Senate ultimately joins with Mr. Schwarzenegger and the Assembly, state leaders then must persuade California voters to support billions of dollars in new taxes and fees in a November referendum.

The Senate president pro tem, Don Perata, has said he will not bring his members back to Sacramento until the 2008 session begins on Jan. 7.

Though Mr. Perata, a Democrat from Oakland, has endorsed the plan's general concept, he is worried that the state's budget problems make it impractical. On Monday, he asked legislative fiscal analysts to study the Assembly bill's long-term fiscal implications, particularly in light of any cuts in social services that may be made to bring next year's budget into balance.

Nonetheless, Monday's passage by the Assembly, on a party-line vote of 46 to 31, culminated nearly a year of negotiation that began in January, when Mr. Schwarzenegger proposed an audacious plan to insure all Californians. Three other states - Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont - had passed similar plans in recent years, but all are significantly smaller than California, which is the country's largest state, and have lower proportions of uninsured residents.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, in the floor debate Monday afternoon, called the bill "truly a historic effort" and rejected Republican assertions that its passage was "more for public relations than for policy," as it was put by the Assembly Republican leader, Michael Villines.

"There is hope through this bill," Mr. Nuñez said, "that never again in California will someone be kicked to the curb by an insurance company."

The plan created by Mr. Schwarzenegger and Mr. Nuñez, first during the regular legislative session and then in a special session called by the governor in September, draws from both Democratic and Republican ideas.

Its fundamental structure mimics the plan adopted last year by Massachusetts and embraced by several Democratic presidential candidates. Like that state, California would force insurers to offer policies regardless of a consumer's age or health status, and it would require most individuals to obtain basic health coverage. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Senator John Edwards support such a mandate, and Senator Barack Obama has proposed mandatory coverage for children.

As in Massachusetts, some Californians would be granted exemptions if their income is too low to afford premiums but too high to qualify for heavy government subsidies. Assembly aides said that about 15 percent of those left uninsured by the plan would be illegal immigrants, though children in the country illegally would be offered coverage.

A major sticking point in the negotiations, and a major concern for the labor unions that provide California Democrats with their most reliable support, has been whether the mandated policies would be affordable for middle-income workers. The California plan would offer state subsidies to purchasers with incomes below 250 percent of the federal poverty level, or $51,625 for a family of four.

A number of large unions ultimately supported the bill, including the state's largest, the Service Employees International Union, whose president, Andrew L. Stern, attended a buoyant news conference after the vote with Mr. Schwarzenegger and Mr. Nuñez.

But the plan also would use tax credits, a concept backed by President Bush and the leading Republican presidential candidates, to make policies more affordable for the middle class. Those earning between 250 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level ($82,600 for a family of four) would be able to deduct premium costs that exceed 5.5 percent of their incomes.

The cost of the plan, which would take effect in 2010, is pegged at $14.4 billion. But none of the financing mechanisms were included in the bill passed Monday. California requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers to approve tax increases, and it became apparent last summer that the Republican minority would not provide the votes needed to reach that threshold.

That left Mr. Schwarzenegger and Mr. Nuñez, a Democrat from Los Angeles, to devise a two-step approach: legislative approval of the mechanics of the health care plan, followed by a November 2008 referendum with voters asked to approve tax increases to pay for it.

Among the taxes is a $1.50 increase in the 87-cent levy on tobacco products, which would raise about $1.5 billion, and a 4 percent levy on hospital revenues, which would raise $2.3 billion. The hospital dollars are one component that would help the state leverage an additional $4.6 billion in federal financing.

Mr. Schwarzenegger has promised repeatedly not to raise taxes, but he has said that passage of the referendum would equate to voters raising taxes on themselves.

In addition to the tax changes, employers would either have to spend a fixed percentage of their payrolls on health coverage for employees or pay a comparable amount into a state insurance pool that would provide subsidized coverage.

During negotiations over the bill, Mr. Nuñez dropped his initial opposition to Mr. Schwarzenegger's insistence that individuals be required to have insurance. The governor, meanwhile, demonstrated flexibility concerning revenue sources, dropping proposals to tax doctors and to use lottery proceeds before agreeing to the tobacco tax increase.

Because it can take months to collect the more than 700,000 signatures needed to place the revenue measures on the ballot, aides to Mr. Schwarzenegger and Mr. Nuñez said it was critical that the bill win Senate approval quickly.

But Mr. Perata poured cold water on the emerging health care compromise last week by announcing that "it would be imprudent and impolitic to support an expansion of health care" before the state addressed a wide gap that has opened in next year's budget.

The governor's office projects the budget gap, which has worsened because of the housing slump, could reach $14 billion, or nearly 13 percent of the state's estimated $111 billion general fund for 2008-09.

Mr. Schwarzenegger argues that the health plan is intended to bring down costs by encouraging healthy habits, better management of chronic diseases and electronic record-keeping. That, he says, should help California fix its structural budget problems.

-------

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/us/18care.html)

Nitro Express
12-20-2007, 11:24 AM
The problem is California was $50 billion in debt when The Govenator took office and has continued to increase it's deficit to over $60 billion. The state had to issue $10 billion of junk bonds just to keep the police in the state paid.

Universal health care sounds great but the state has zero money to finance the program. It's all pie in the sky BS.

Blackflag
12-20-2007, 06:21 PM
Yet people want the federal government to do the same thing while it's in the hole just as bad.

Somehow people think if the government takes over health care it will be free...doctors will donate their time to your wellbeing or the government will print money to pay for your care. Because everybody knows the government runs things more efficiently than anybody else...:rolleyes:

FORD
12-20-2007, 06:34 PM
The article seems to be comparing this plan to what Mittens did in Massachusetts and what Hillary wants to do nationally, which is more like mandatory corporate healthcare than true universal health care as it is in every other so-called civilized nation on the planet.

But at least they're talking about SOMETHING, which is an improvement.

Still, if you want the REAL deal, vote for Dennis Kucinich!

Nitro Express
12-21-2007, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Blackflag
Yet people want the federal government to do the same thing while it's in the hole just as bad.

Somehow people think if the government takes over health care it will be free...doctors will donate their time to your wellbeing or the government will print money to pay for your care. Because everybody knows the government runs things more efficiently than anybody else...:rolleyes:

The federal hole is bigger that Sammy Hagar's stretched out sphincter. The Federal Govt. can print more money and states can't. So California can't play the deficit game like Uncle Sammy can.

Blackflag
12-21-2007, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by Nitro Express
The federal hole is bigger that Sammy Hagar's stretched out sphincter. The Federal Govt. can print more money and states can't. So California can't play the deficit game like Uncle Sammy can.

There you go - that's my point. "Just print more money and I can have a free ride, too!" :uck:

Health insurance really isn't that expensive, if people had their priorities straight. But why get your shit together when we can just print money for you? Fuck! :rolleyes:

FORD
12-21-2007, 01:03 PM
If the money we have wasted on Iraq was instead spent on health care, we could have cured the fucking common cold by now.

LoungeMachine
12-21-2007, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Blackflag
Yet people want the federal government to do the same thing while it's in the hole just as bad.

Somehow people think if the government takes over health care it will be free...doctors will donate their time to your wellbeing or the government will print money to pay for your care. Because everybody knows the government runs things more efficiently than anybody else...:rolleyes:

Well those "some people" are fucking IDIOTS who shouldn't be allowed to breed then :rolleyes:

I am so sick to fucking death of this stupid frame.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MOVING TO A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM.

The "system" we use now, is CORRUPT.

Can you name another industry where it is their SOLE PURPOSE to deny you services????

The BILLIONS in profits of these insurance companies is outright THEFT.

What we're talking about here, is cutting out the middle man, plain and simple. It should NOT be a profit generating industry that decides if you get the care you need.

And this whole "socialized" "government run" argument is utter BULLSHIT.

We have no problem with "socialized" medicine for our armed forces.

We have no problem with "socialized" medicine for our elderly.

And why should your healthcare be tied to where you work?

The solution is really very simple.

CUT OUT INSURANCE COMPANIES.

You are taxed for your healthcare based upon your ability to pay, just like your income taxes. The more you make, the more you pay into the pool.

The government then pays the HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, cutting out the BILLIONS in profits. And no one is denied based on "pre-existing condidtions", or any other BULLSHIT games the industry uses to deny you.

Don't think the government [us,really] can handle that?

BULLSHIT

We have socialized military and defense. So we can pool our money to KILL, but not to HEAL? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No one is denied fire fighting services based on income.

No one is denied police services based on whom they work for.


LOOK AT THE SSA Haven't missed a monthly check in 70 years.

And if it's not working, we can fix it by FIRING the people runing it, which we CANT do with the insurance industries. It's collusion.

It's certainly NOT a free-market system we're in now by any stretch.


BUT, before this could happen, we would need ELECTION REFORM, AND LOBBY REFORM.

Because as long as the insurance lobby is pumping millions into the coffers of incumbents, we aint getting anywhere.



Would this be perfect? Of course not.

Would it be better than what we have now? fuck yes.



OUR HEALTHCARE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE HANDS OF CORPORATIONS WHO ONLY WANT TO DENY US SERVICES, AND THUS LIFE.

IT SHOULD BE IN OUR HANDS.

[end of rant]

:gulp:

LoungeMachine
12-21-2007, 04:24 PM
Health Insurer To Be Charged With Teen's Murder
California Family Will Sue Medical Insurer for Delaying a Potentially Lifesaving Surgery

Natalee Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old from Glendale, Calif., died Thursday just a few hours after Cigna Health Care, her medical insurer, approved what they previously had described as "too experimental" a procedure and the same day that dozens of Sarkisyan's supporters protested at the insurer's headquarters. (ABC) Dec. 21, 2007

The family of a California teenager who died awaiting a liver transplant say they will sue the insurer who they blame for their daughter's death.

Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old from Glendale, Calif., died Thursday just a few hours after her insurer, CIGNA HealthCare, approved a procedure it had previously described as "too experimental."

Attorney Mark Geragos said that CIGNA "maliciously killed her" and that he hopes to press murder or manslaughter charges against CIGNA HealthCare for the death of Sarkisyan.

"They took my daughter away from me," said Nataline's father, Krikor, who appeared at a news conference with his 21-year-old son, Bedros.

CINGA appears to have reversed its decision to deny the transplant after about 150 teenagers and nurses protested outside their Glendale office on Thursday. "Protestors are here, the war is here," Hilda Sarkisyan, the girl's mother, told the group hours before her daughter's death. "We have a war here."

The Sarkisyan family claims that CIGN first agreed to the liver transplant surgery and had secured a match weeks ago. After the teen, who was battling leukemia, received a bone marrow transplant from her brother, however, she suffered a lung infection, and the insurer backed away from what it felt had become too risky a procedure.

"They're the ones who caused this. They're the one that told us to go there, and they would pay for the transplant," Hilda Sarkisyan said.

Geri Jenkins of the California Nurses Association said the Sarkisyan had insurance, and medical providers felt comfortable performing the medical procedure. In that situation, the the insurer should defer to medical experts, she said.

"They have insurance, and there's no reason that the doctors' judgment should be overrided by a bean counter sitting there in an insurance office," Jenkins said.

Doctors at the UCLA Medical Center actually signed a letter urging CIGNA to review its decision. Nataline Sarkisyan was sedated into a coma to stabilize her as the family filed appeals in the case.

During the middle of Thursday's protest, Hilda Sarkisyan fielded a call from CIGNA alerting her that her daughter's procedure had been given the green light. CIGNA released a statement announcing the company "decided to make an exception in this rare and unusual case and we will provide coverage should she proceed with the requested liver transplant."


continued at

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=4038257&page=1

Ellyllions
12-21-2007, 04:51 PM
Health insurance companies, hell all insurance companies take their business model from the mafia's business model.

LoungeMachine
12-21-2007, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
Health insurance companies, hell all insurance companies take their business model from the mafia's business model.

Actually, I'd take the mob's version any day.

At least when you pay them protection, they don't come back at you after you file a grievence and claim it was a "pre-existing" condition, and too experimental for them.

And at least with our homeowner's policies, and auto insurance, you can read what's covered, and what's not.

With the Health Thieves, they can arbitrarily deny you anytime they feel like it.

And you can literally DIE trying to fight them.

Happy Holidays, to you and your's, Ell. :xmas:



:gulp:

Blackflag
12-21-2007, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine

We have no problem with "socialized" medicine for our armed forces.

We have no problem with "socialized" medicine for our elderly.


You are taxed for your healthcare based upon your ability to pay, just like your income taxes. The more you make, the more you pay into the pool.


1. How is that not insurance? How are you going to set what that payment is? Based on the assumption that everybody gets brain cancer next year?

2. Military health care - blows. Medicare - blows. Are you kidding?

3. Agree the structure of the insurance industry blows, but the solution is not to the put government in charge of the insurance. That doesn't change the price of anything, that just introduces tax and spend.

And that's what people want here - a free ride. They're looking for a magic bullet that makes it all free. Doctors are always going to be highly paid. Nurses are always going to be highly paid. Drugs are always going to be expensive.

It's the insurance part you want to fix. Ellyllions post is right - but putting the government in the insurance company role doesn't change that.

LoungeMachine
12-21-2007, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Blackflag
1. How is that not insurance? How are you going to set what that payment is? Based on the assumption that everybody gets brain cancer next year?



You set the payment based on income, like I said.

I pay for more bombs every year than others, but they dont protect me any more or less than the guy making $30K

What assumptions are needed? :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Blackflag


3. Agree the structure of the insurance industry blows, but the solution is not to the put government in charge of the insurance. That doesn't change the price of anything, that just introduces tax and spend.




Bullshit.

If you can't see how taking BILLIONS IN PRIVATE PROFITS out of the equation doesn't lower cost, then I cant help you.

It will ALWAYS cost to ADMINISTER any plan. But why should HMO's make billions in profit????


Originally posted by Blackflag

It's the insurance part you want to fix. Ellyllions post is right - but putting the government in the insurance company role doesn't change that.

Duh, and again....bullshit.

We're NOT putting the government in the insurance business :rolleyes:

We're having them collect the money, and pay the providers, keeping JUST ENOUGH TO COVER ADMIN COSTS.



Fuck it. I really dont care if I ever get you to see it anyway.

Happy Holidays, Flag.

:gulp:

Blackflag
12-21-2007, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You set the payment based on income, like I said.

I pay for more bombs every year than others, but they dont protect me any more or less than the guy making $30K

What assumptions are needed? :rolleyes:


Ok, how much are you going to charge somebody who makes 75k a year? $100? $500? $10000?

You can't answer that until you've calculated the probability of how much he's going to claim, and how much everybody else is paying. Oh wait - that's insurance isn't it?




Originally posted by LoungeMachine


If you can't see how taking BILLIONS IN PRIVATE PROFITS out of the equation doesn't lower cost, then I cant help you.

It will ALWAYS cost to ADMINISTER any plan. But why should HMO's make billions in profit????


Agree that's outrageous. You're talking about billions to administer spread over trillions in costs, right?

So there is a legislative solution to result in an incremental efficiency improvement...some small percentage.

If some slacker currently will not pay the $300/month cost for insurance, and you eliminated the administration costs completely...so it cost him $200/month...do you think he would pay that? Do you think it's that incremental $100 that will really make the difference?

No, a slacker won't do the responsible thing until his cost is $0, which is really what this is about. People pay more for their cars and pay nothing for insurance because they're irresponsible.



Originally posted by LoungeMachine


We're NOT putting the government in the insurance business :rolleyes:

We're having them collect the money, and pay the providers, keeping JUST ENOUGH TO COVER ADMIN COSTS.


This should be obvious to you, but: can you point to any aspect of government that is more efficient and cost effective than the private sector? Anything? See your lack of response to military health care above.

Plus, the 'admin costs' that you're talking about needs to cover: figuring out what's covered, what's not, what's fraudulent, what everybody's payment needs to be next year...everything that the insurance company currently does.


Originally posted by LoungeMachine

Fuck it. I really dont care if I ever get you to see it anyway.

Happy Holidays, Flag.

:gulp:

Totally. I've been sick a few days, but I'm taking off to somewhere warm in a few days, so that should be good. Have a good Christmas.

letsrock
12-28-2007, 05:34 AM
California has tons of money, its just in the citizens hands right now. Sounds like more taxes to me.

WACF
12-28-2007, 11:18 AM
Lounge pretty much as said alot of what I would throw in.

Do not let the word "Socialized" scare you.

Universal Health Care needs to start somewhere...why not Cali.

In Canada the whole thing started in my Province...it was later used as a model for the rest of the country.

Our system sucks at times too but the fact is...when big business is looking at profits your health is not a priority.

For those of you that can afford your current system...good for you...but here you need to think about everyone...alot of people can not afford it.

For a country that can put a carrier group off any coast this seems like a hard thing to get people to realize.

WACF
12-28-2007, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by letsrock
California has tons of money, its just in the citizens hands right now. Sounds like more taxes to me.

Bingo...but I bet you can think of alot of other things your tax dollars pay for that are questionable.

Angel
12-28-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by WACF
For those of you that can afford your current system...good for you...but here you need to think about everyone...alot of people can not afford it.

Think too, of those who would be denied, or whose premiums would be out of this world due to current health conditions.

I have a pacemaker, I highly doubt any insurance carrier in the US would accept me as a client.

letsrock
12-29-2007, 07:39 AM
Healthcare should be for all. But in a nutshell the working people will pay for it.

Enjoy it California.

Learn to vote better.