California’s New Single-Payer Proposal Embraces Some Costly Old Ways

[whell]

The bill moving through Cali's Senate is likely going nowhere due to hefty cost estimates. But its also a reflection of the fact that the State is willing to promote a plan that is built to be costly.

A state Senate analysis released last week warned that fee-for-service and other provisions in the legislation would “strongly limit the state’s ability to control costs.” Cost containment will be key in persuading lawmakers and the public to support the increased taxes that would be necessary to finance this ambitious, universal health care system for 39 million Californians.

Several health experts expressed skepticism about the bill’s prospects in its current form.

“Single-payer has its pros and cons, but if it’s built on the foundation of fee-for-service it will be a disaster,” said Stephen Shortell, dean emeritus of the School of Public Health at the University of California-Berkeley. “It would be a huge step backwards in delivering health care.”

Paul Ginsburg, a health economist and professor at the University of Southern California, agreed and said the legislation reads like something out of the 1960s in terms of how it wants to reimburse providers.

No new ideas here.

[CarlV]

“Our system of government may mean single-payer is much less successful than in other countries,” Ginsburg said. “We are so open to lobbying it means we can’t count on some of the very strong actions other countries have taken to keep costs down.”

Yep, says it fairly well.

[whell]

Lobbying isn't part of our "system of government". It has crept in due to politicians who are willing to be bought. Campaign contributions are nothing more than legalized bribery.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Lobbying isn't part of our "system of government". It has crept in due to politicians who are willing to be bought. Campaign contributions are nothing more than legalized bribery.

Actually, it's enshrined in the First Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_..._United_States

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Actually, it's enshrined in the First Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_..._United_States

Yes, the interpretation of the 1st Amendment regards campaign contributions as speech. But if you look at this in such black / white terms, then why does the left hate the Citizens United decision? Anyway, the topic of money in politics has been beaten to death here, and doesn't need to resurface in a discussion about single payer in Cali.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Yes, the interpretation of the 1st Amendment regards campaign contributions as speech. But if you look at this in such black / white terms, then why does the left hate the Citizens United decision? Anyway, the topic of money in politics has been beaten to death here, and doesn't need to resurface in a discussion about single payer in Cali.

I'm not talking about money as speech. I'm saying that the constitution guarantees the right of citizens to petition (i.e., lobby) their government.

[Chicks]

What interest does someone in Metro Detroit have in a bill in the CA legislature? Seems like Detroit and Michigan have far too many issues of their own to worry about. Certainly worse than anything in a far more progressive, enlightened state like CA...

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Actually, it's enshrined in the First Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_..._United_States

Only because back a few years the members of SCOTUS were unfamiliar with the English language, for example;

Redress means that an action has already taken place and that a citizen has the right to ask (petition) the government to change the result.

Lobbyists petition the government before action is taken, also lobbyists represent corporations and even foreign governments who are NOT citizens.

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by Chicks

What interest does someone in Metro Detroit have in a bill in the CA legislature? Seems like Detroit and Michigan have far too many issues of their own to worry about.

Amazing, the effects of lead poisoning.

If Gavin Newsom can implement a city wide health plan in SF while mayor he should be able to do the state likewise as Governor on his way to becoming POTUS.

The law known as Healthy San Francisco, created in 2007, has not only endured but has been strengthened under Obamacare. It covers undocumented San Francisco residents and poor people who don’t qualify for Medi-Cal, the state’s low-income health care program. It also provides financial assistance for those who qualify for subsidies through Covered California but still can’t afford to purchase health insurance on their own.

“Part of what we got people to understand, through Healthy San Francisco, is if we don’t cover undocumented people and others regardless of their income, we collectively are going to shoulder the expense of these exorbitant health care costs,” said Mitch Katz, who now heads one of the nation’s largest county health agency in Los Angeles but in 2006 was advising Newsom on how to create a universal health care system.

“We said, ‘Shouldn’t we provide care in a sensible way that gets them into primary care, rather than the emergency room and waiting for them to develop advanced diseases?’ These are the most expensive ways to care for people.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-...#storylink=cpy

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by CarlV

Amazing, the effects of lead poisoning.

If Gavin Newsom can implement a city wide health plan in SF while mayor he should be able to do the state likewise as Governor on his way to becoming POTUS.

Lt. Gov. Newsom for POTUS. I like that idea.