California getting major econ advantage

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-12/californ…

A single payer system in California would substantially reduce the costs of medical care in the state. Giving California another leading advantage of most the rest of the states in the union.

snippet:

“Study after study has shown that a single payer system, like CalCare, is the only solution that would provide universal, compraehensive benefits to all while also reducing overall health care spending,” said Carmen Comsti of the California Nurses Assn., which sponsored the bill. “We would get more, cover everyone, and pay less.”

14 Likes

The problem, of course, is all the welfare states will promptly send ALL their people who need medical care to CA–and that is where the system breaks down. It has to be (effectively) all states–or none-- implementing a universal health care system across the US. The red states, by choice, do not cover much medical care for anyone. That is not their politics, that is their economics. Of course, employers do not have a choice. They either have decent/competitive health care plans or they have a hard time hiring people.

4 Likes

Jerryab2

If we get good legislation it will guard against this by requiring membership in MediCal in order to qualify for treatment, and not just current residency in California. The delay from establishing residency, applying, and getting approved might be enough. And might not.

Many people miss the plain fact that this not only radically reduces paperwork and skimming my so-called job creators, more importantly it lets medical personnel focus on their profession rather than endless accountancy and legalism. Crucial improvement.

David fb

16 Likes

California getting major econ advantage

I think you have a typo there. This bill is a LONG way from becoming law - and it would still require 2/3rds of the legislature as well as the votes of the citizens of the state to get it passed - and that is a long shot at best.

2 Likes

If we get good legislation it will guard against this by requiring membership in MediCal in order to qualify for treatment, and not just current residency in California.

This would be contrary to federal law, specifically the right to live where one chooses.

Of course, the red states would happily pay to support their welfare groups in California for a number o months–until they qualified for health care and other benefits. Why? Because they are then no longer a cost to the red state. There is nothing more promising to the right than being able to be on welfare themselves because “somebody else pays”.

“A single payer system in California would substantially reduce the costs of medical care in the state. Giving California another leading advantage of most the rest of the states in the union.”

they tried to pass that in Vermont but it didn’t succeed when they realized they would have to double the taxes on people to pay for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/why-v…

additional info from MA, CO and VT ‘single payer’ attempted systems

https://www.thirdway.org/report/single-payer-health-care-a-t…

I’m sure ‘federal workers’ in CA would have something to say about it, too…as well as workers working ‘remotely’ to other states.

Of course, you’d likely also have the issue of ‘undocumented’ illegal aliens, and of course, folks who never qualified for Medicare but now would demand ‘single payer’ CA health care.

It would be the #1 destination for illegal ‘migrants’ who get free health care for themselves, spouses, and their 8 kids.

Might also be the haven for low income folks who want to retire early and haven’t reached Medicare eligibility.

t

2 Likes

Jerry,

People who are indigent end up on the state either way.

It is a non argument that poor people would not get care.

This heart of this is the working poor. Covering them in larger part makes the pool larger and the process of insurance more efficient.

People who are indigent end up on the state either way.

True. But the red states have a history of not paying for public health care and much more. If they could move the poor to another state where they could get care, they would do it. Not out of altruism but rather because that frees up land and other resources to be used to further subsidize businesses.

“A single payer system in California would substantially reduce the costs of medical care in the state. Giving California another leading advantage of most the rest of the states in the union.”

they tried to pass that in Vermont but it didn’t succeed when they realized they would have to double the taxes on people to pay for it.

IIRC, way back in the early 90s Oregon proposed something similar. It was popular until the details came out about what they would and would not cover. The nashing of teeth about not covering pediatric heart transplants and various other “lifesaving” procedures was interesting to watch. Create a million dollar baby or vaccinate thousands? The idea of cost-benefit analysis turned many off. The idea was soon dropped.

JLC

2 Likes

Create a million dollar baby or vaccinate thousands? The idea of cost-benefit analysis turned many off. The idea was soon dropped.

JLC,

Yep. Possibility and feasibility are not always congruent.

“Covering them in larger part makes the pool larger and the process of insurance more efficient.”

If you read the proposal, workers would still have to pay a monthly ‘subscription fee’ and their employers a significant hit to fund this. Likely sales taxes would go up too…as well as income tax rates but working poor probably don’t pay income taxes.

If they didn’t pay into the system, they wouldn’t get benefits.

Folks working ‘off the books’ wouldn’t be covered.

t.