Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   California will rock (economically speaking) with single payer. Gavin Newsom in 2018!
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1 of 29 (822476)
10-25-2017 4:20 PM


Look at the numbers.
Look at the facts.
California will pay 100% of health care bills with a single payer ( cost controlled or no cost controls) type of plan.
(Not even Canada and Europe have a plan with 100% of co-pays covered)
The doctor and drug costs will be 100% covered and it would be unprecedented.
The California health system gets around $200 billion already from the federal and state government, while the other $200 billion is paid by individuals, businesses and insurance companies. (I forget the exact amount but read the article)
A wavier from the feds can allow the $200 billion to be put into a giant single payer pot with the state covering the other costs(think "free stuff" as individuals won't pay a thing).
A $400 billion cost would require a 15% additional income tax if the state income tax is all that is considered open for an increase. (leaving out capital gains, sales taxes, property, hotel, snack, etc.)
But what if cost controls were implemented (plus other tax options were considered)?
The California Senate recently voted to pass a bill that would establish a single-payer healthcare system for the entire state.
quote:
Op-Ed Single-payer healthcare for California is, in fact, very doable
Robert Pollin
June 21, 2017, 4:00 AM
The California Senate recently voted to pass a bill that would establish a single-payer healthcare system for the entire state. The proposal, called the Healthy California Act, will now be taken up by the state Assembly.
The plan enjoys widespread support a recent poll commissioned by the California Nurses Assn. found that 70% of all Californians are in favor of a single-payer plan and with good reason. Under Healthy California, all residents would be entitled to decent healthcare without having to pay premiums, deductibles or copays.
But as critics of the bill have pointed out, a crucial question remains: Is Healthy California economically viable? According to research I conducted with three colleagues at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the answer is yes.
Enacting Healthy California would entail an overhaul of the state’s existing healthcare system, which now constitutes about 14% of California’s GDP. In particular, it would mean replacing the state’s private health insurance industry with government-managed insurance. Our study which was also commissioned by the California Nurses Assn. concludes not only that the proposal is financially sound, but that it will produce greater equity in the healthcare sector for families and businesses of all sizes.
California will spend about $370 billion on healthcare in 2017. Assuming the state’s existing system stayed intact, the cost of extending coverage to all California residents, including the nearly 15 million people who are currently uninsured or underinsured, would increase healthcare spending by about 10%, to roughly $400 billion.
That’s not the full story, though. Enacting a single-payer system would yield considerable savings overall by lowering administrative costs, controlling the prices of pharmaceuticals and fees for physicians and hospitals, reducing unnecessary treatments and expanding preventive care. We found that Healthy California could ultimately result in savings of about 18%, bringing healthcare spending to about $331 billion, or 8% less than the current $370 billion.
How would California cover this $331-billion bill? For the most part, much the same way it covers healthcare spending right now. Roughly 70% of the state’s current spending is paid for through public programs, including Medicare and MediCal. This funding totaling about $225 billion would continue, as is required by law. It would simply flow through Healthy California rather than existing programs.
The state would still need to raise about $106 billion a year to cover the cost of replacing private insurance. This could be done with two new taxes.
First, California could impose a gross receipts tax of 2.3% on businesses, but with an exemption for the first $2 million of revenue. Through such an exemption, about 80% of all businesses in California small firms would pay nothing in gross receipts tax, and medium-sized businesses would pay an effective tax rate of less than 1%.
Second, the state could institute a sales tax increase of 2.3%. The tax would not apply to housing, utilities, food purchased for the home or a range of services, and it could be offset for low-income families with a 2% income tax credit.
Relative to their current healthcare costs, most Californian families will end up spending less, even with these new taxes, and some will even enjoy large gains. Net healthcare spending for middle-income families would fall by between 2.6% and 9.1% of income. Most businesses would also see a drop in spending. Small firms that have been providing health insurance for their workers will see costs fall by 22% as a share of payroll. For medium-sized firms, costs will fall by an average of between 6.8% and 13.4% as a share of payroll. Even most large firms will see costs fall, by an average of between 0.6% and 5% of payroll.
At the moment, about 2.7 million of California’s residents, or about 8% of the population, have no health insurance. Another 12 million residents, or about 33% of the population, are underinsured. A large proportion of the remaining 60% of the population who are adequately insured still face high costs, as well as anxiety over President Trump’s proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare.
Healthy California is capable of generating substantial savings for families at most income levels and businesses of most sizes. These savings are in addition to the benefits that the residents of California will gain through universal access to healthcare.
(Robert Pollin is a distinguished professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a coauthor of Economic Analysis of the Healthy California Single-Payer Health Care Proposal.)
(I quoted the entire text incase it is somehow no longer available some day. The Wall Street Journal isn't required to show its Google hits for free anymore, and they now require a subscription to see any text.)
(There were 4 hyper links in the first three paragraphs)
This is Essential Politics, our daily look at California political and government news. Here's what we're watching right now: California lawmakers have tried for 50 years to stem the state's housing crisis. Here's why they've failed.Gov. Jerry Brown acted Tuesday to break up the scandal-plagued
New Poll - 70% of Californians Support CA Medicare for All Bill | National Nurses United
Study: Single-payer plan would save California $37 billion per year
PERI - Economic Analysis of the Healthy California Single-Payer Health Care Proposal (SB-562)
Now, what about that?
A plan that would cost about 13% (lower) of the California GDP?
Most funding come from the feds anyway.
The cost controlled plan would require an income tax increase of 9% (again - if NO OTHER TAXES are raised among the myriad of other taxes in California), which would save businesses money and especially individuals.
California is going to enter an economic golden age soon.
Out with Jerry Brown and in with the supportive Lt Governor who is running for governor (I hope) in 2018.
EDIT: I now think the cost would be lower than a flat 9% income tax as I think about the numbers. Been awhile since I had my actual issue of the paper, plus all the commentary in other big papers. Maybe more like 7%? (I hate many of the cost controls anyway, so whatever happens, I hope a national single payer bill lacks the controls)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 3 of 29 (822480)
10-25-2017 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
10-25-2017 5:49 PM


Thanks for promoting this especially monumental issue.
New York has a similar program btw.
17 Democrats (out of 48) in the U.S. Senate support the Medicare For All single payer plan (which is NOT a "free stuff" plan).
I have come around to supporting the 100% free coverage sort of plan.
It is just the right thing to do (then we have to figure out how to pay for it all).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 10-25-2017 5:49 PM AdminPhat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2017 9:42 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 4 of 29 (822482)
10-25-2017 6:28 PM


12.62% of the California GDP would be the total health care spending.
Way less than the almost 18% nationwide.
Heck.
California can "show the way" as far as I am concerned.
Nice if a Homeless Bill of Rights could happen too.
Human rights for all from the Golden State.
Time for an education from the left coast.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 10-26-2017 12:23 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 22 of 29 (822819)
11-01-2017 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Phat
10-26-2017 5:35 PM


Re: Show Me The Money
quote:
Well right now I have a $500.00 yearly deductable and pay $20.00 a month. If they mess with it, I will likely spend more money.
Don't forget the copays.
ObamaCare has a silver plan where you pay 12% of your income and get 80% of covered expenses in the coverage (minus the deductibles and assuming you go to an approved doctor in the network) with a certain amount of deductibles. The Bronze plan has a $6000 deductible and just 60% coverage after you pay the first $6000 out of pocket (plus the 6% tax or "premium").
Remember the co-pay issue.
20% (after premiums and deductibles) in the Silver plan.
40% in the Bronze plan. (only after you pay 100% of the first $6000 and EVEN IF THOSE ARE COPVERED EXPENSES)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 10-26-2017 5:35 PM Phat has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 23 of 29 (837852)
08-10-2018 12:44 AM


Americans make over $50,000 more per year than they spend on healthcare - record gap
U.S. health care spending grew 4.3 percent in 2016, reaching $3.3 trillion or $10,348 per person.
I am assuming it will be around $10,800-$11,000 in 2017.
Perhaps $11,300 to $11,600 this year. (2018)
Here was the 2015 situation
quote:
The United States spent $3.2 trillion on health care in 2015, up 5.8% from the year before, according to new data from the Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services.
That's faster than in 2014, when overall health spending rose 5.3%. And it's the fastest growth rate since 2007.
That $3.2 trillion represents the combined amount spent on health care by all players, including the federal government, individuals, businesses, and state and local governments.
Total U.S. health spending reached nearly $10,000 per person last year, up 5% from the prior year. And as a share of the economy, it rose to 17.8% of GDP, up from 17.4% in 2014.
U.S. health care spending rose nearly 6% to $3.2 trillion
The healthcare numbers aren't even in for 2017 yet.
The projected income per capita for the country in 2018 is still just a projection (and one from May 2018)
But here are the income per person stats.
Countries by Projected GDP per capita 2021 - StatisticsTimes.com
$62,152
It will be around $62,000 or more it seems.
Healthcare will be $12,000 per person or less.
So for the first time ever, American's average income will be $50,000 above the average health care cost per person.
Don't think single payer will do anything but help economic growth, and keep costs down.
An example about how good federal policy can enable ALL to share in the wealth gains.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2018 2:29 AM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 08-13-2018 4:19 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 26 of 29 (838207)
08-15-2018 11:57 PM


Higher GDP per person reflects wealth of a nation. It is helpful as a starting point.
Then we need to look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on health care (of course the quality of care is important
quote:
Don't think single payer will do anything but help economic growth, and keep costs down.
An example about how good federal policy can enable ALL to share in the wealth gains.
Single Payer can lead to better overall care (though cost controls can be a double edged sword for numerous reasons), and can control health care costs as a percentage of GDP.
I am not a radical on cost controls, I prefer (somewhat) higher costs over radical government suppression of prescription drug costs in addition to careful consideration of newer technologies being allowed profits.
If California adopts extreme cost controls, the costs can be as low as 12-13% of the state GDP.
I would prefer a federal Single Payer system that still allows health care to be (presently) 17% to 18% of GDP, THOUGH we have no idea what future costs should go up to. We just don't know what kind of advances and innovations will come about. We need to allow research and development to happen to its fullest extent. Right now, the government isn't making the necessary investments, so the private sector is vital. For NOW. Hopefully, there can be a much larger future Federal Government role in drug development (with funding being the main issue) and technological breakthroughs.
(EDIT We also need spending high enough that people actually can be covered - EVEN when technological breakthroughs are expensive. Plus we need people not to loose the ability to get screenings with the best of today's AND TOMORROWS methods. This a totally separate, BUT OVERALL RELATED, issue apart from the issue of the development and discovery of blockbuster drugs and devices)
The issue is economic growth, health care costs per GDP, and proper federal policy to make both things happen in a favorable way to all people.
California will be taking on quite a burden to try and make it happen there and there alone.
But a radical cost-control kind of plan can show us that it is possible to even have Single Payer w/ great economic growth at the state level, despite the higher taxes seemingly being an incentive for people to leave the state.
(very careful tax policy combined with an extreme cost control kind of Single Payer plan is vital in a 1-State Only Single Payer scheme)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 27 of 29 (838208)
08-16-2018 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
08-13-2018 2:29 AM


NoNukes: "That number ($62,152) is the per capita division of GDP"
My thing is that GDP MATTERS.
Look at China.
This nation had a GDP of about $1.2 trillion in 2000, which was about 1/8 of ours.
Now, in 2018, China is at $14.1 trillion while we are at $20.4
China will be at $21.6 trillion in 2023, while we are projected to be $24.5 trillion.
The world is at $87.5 trillion in 2018, with a projection of $114.3 in 2023.
China has wealth to use to make things happen. It would be difficult to have a western quality Single Payer system when income was just under $1,000 per person in 2000.
China will have a per capita income of $15,183 per person in 2023 (over $26,000 in PPP), though it is only $10,088 in 2018.
I would say that GDP is a vitally important factor when looking at health care programs.
Historical GDP of China - Wikipedia
Countries by Projected GDP per capita 2021 - StatisticsTimes.com
China contributes a lot to world’s economic growth: official | News Ghana
There is a wealth requirement before we can even look at reforms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2018 2:29 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by xongsmith, posted 08-16-2018 2:12 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 29 of 29 (838244)
08-16-2018 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by xongsmith
08-16-2018 2:12 PM


I think the numbers saying "2023" on the site should be 2022.
It looks like you are saying the top 10% make 96% of income.
See message 22 in the link below (World Inequality Report 2018 article)
EvC Forum: The economy needs a 3% GDP growth to function well
It isn't quite that bad in India (anyway).
quote:
Tetlow of the Financial Times described inequality as the "defining characteristic of the age" as The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.[14] The India Times article drew attention to the way in which "[d]eregulation and opening-up reforms in India since 1980s have led to substantial increase in inequality so much that top 0.1% of earners has continued to capture more growth than all those in the bottom 50% combined."[15] The WIR reported that, "Income inequality in India has reached historically high levels. In 2014, the share of national income accruing to India's top 1% of earners was 22%, while the share of the top 10% was around 56%."[11]:123
World Inequality Report - Wikipedia
I need to look at the numbers closer.
But there is still much higher TOTAL wealth to be taxed.
Look at India in 2018 where the per capita income is $2,135 now. (ppp $7,784)
India will be at $3,274 in 2022. (ppp $11,785)
China has $10,088 per capita income in 2018. (ppp $18,066)
China will be at $15,183 in 2022. (ppp $26,086)
The World is $11,727 in 2018. (ppp $18,089)
The world will be at $14,494 in 2022 (ppp $22,562)
The United States is $62,152 according to the 2018 projections.
Will be $71,805 in 2022.
In India and China, the wealth is going up 50% for the year 2022 (in both ppp and nominal U.S. dollar incomes), and that year is starting in just a bit more than 3 years and 4 months.
The world average (if one looks at PPP) per capita income will be 31.42% of the United States
China having a per capita income that is going to be 36.33% (PPP) of the United States is stunning, really. Just 3 years from now!
This is purchasing power (since real world purchases like haircuts, bus rides, health care are cheaper in poorer countries than the United States) mind you, but China will have some real $ to tax (if the government so chooses)for programs that benefit all. About $15,200 per capita income does mark the wealth of a society that can have near (modern) European style programs and services.
China really should be considered a developed nation when we get past 2025. With per capita incomes at about $30,000 a year (albeit PPP), it looks an awful lot like Italy to me, though the development is just getting started.
The wealth might be concentrated, but there is potential for newer policies everywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by xongsmith, posted 08-16-2018 2:12 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024