Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8801 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2017 5:06 AM
328 online now:
frako, PaulK (2 members, 326 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,604 Year: 27,210/21,208 Month: 1,123/1,714 Week: 331/525 Day: 6/67 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   California will rock (economically speaking) with single payer. Gavin Newsom in 2018!
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1 of 22 (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)?

http://www.latimes.com/...thy-california-20170621-story.html

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)

http://www.latimes.com/...advances-1496361965-htmlstory.html

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/...-ca-medicare-all-bill

http://www.mercurynews.com/...-cover-more-people-study-finds

https://www.peri.umass.edu/...er-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.


    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1824
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 2 of 22 (822478)
10-25-2017 5:49 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the California will rock (economically speaking) with single payer. Gavin Newsom in 2018! thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-25-2017 6:05 PM AdminPhat has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 3 of 22 (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 yet responded

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

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 4 of 22 (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 yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 5 of 22 (822490)
10-26-2017 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by LamarkNewAge
10-25-2017 6:05 PM


Expanding this especially monumental issue.
New York has a similar program btw.

I would like to see a consortium, with NY, MA, RI, CT, ME, NH, VT, etc all working together with a single payer plan

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-25-2017 6:05 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 6 of 22 (822493)
10-26-2017 11:56 AM


Influx of Sick People?
If this plan goes into effect, could we see a massive influx of sick people into California to take advantage of the system? How is California going to handle this? Countries that have single payer systems also have borders that they can control, but California won't have those controlled borders. Are you a retiree in Arizona that was just diagnosed with cancer? Move across the border to California and get free cancer treatment.

It is also interesting to note that California has the world's 7th or 8th largest economy. Countries with a smaller GDP than California are able to fund a single payer system, so it shouldn't be a problem from that standpoint.


  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10026
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 7 of 22 (822494)
10-26-2017 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by LamarkNewAge
10-25-2017 6:28 PM


Show Me The Money
Nice if a Homeless Bill of Rights could happen too.

Human rights for all from the Golden State.

The only detail is who is going to pay. If its not the rich people, it ain't gonna be anybody.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-25-2017 6:28 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 10-26-2017 12:42 PM Phat has responded
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 10-26-2017 1:42 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2017 4:26 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13864
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(2)
Message 8 of 22 (822497)
10-26-2017 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
10-26-2017 12:23 PM


Re: Show Me The Money
Phat writes:

The only detail is who is going to pay.


Since Americans pay twice as much as other nations for healthcare, the real question is: What are you going to do with all of the extra money?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 10-26-2017 12:23 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 10-26-2017 5:35 PM ringo has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 9 of 22 (822499)
10-26-2017 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
10-26-2017 12:23 PM


Re: Show Me The Money
Phat writes:

The only detail is who is going to pay. If its not the rich people, it ain't gonna be anybody.

Looks like it is going to be a combination of sales tax and a progressive income tax. It isn't going to be just the rich who are paying.

The better question is who is paying for health care right now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 10-26-2017 12:23 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 10 of 22 (822504)
10-26-2017 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
10-26-2017 12:23 PM


Re: Show Me The Money -- the return on investment
The only detail is who is going to pay. If its not the rich people, it ain't gonna be anybody.

We already pay for healthcare, in a weird way -- through your employer via deductions from your paycheck (unless you are self insured). Why should your employer have a say in what kind of health insurance you get?

We already pay more for healthcare than a single payer system would cost.

(total taxes plus healthcare) > (total taxes including single payer healthcare)

In other words you will have more disposable income.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 10-26-2017 12:23 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 10-27-2017 5:13 PM RAZD has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10026
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 11 of 22 (822506)
10-26-2017 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ringo
10-26-2017 12:42 PM


Re: Show Me The Money
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.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 10-26-2017 12:42 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 10-27-2017 11:36 AM Phat has responded
 Message 22 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-01-2017 5:31 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13864
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 12 of 22 (822546)
10-27-2017 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Phat
10-26-2017 5:35 PM


Re: Show Me The Money
Phat writes:

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.


I pay nothing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 10-26-2017 5:35 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 10-27-2017 11:40 AM ringo has responded
 Message 16 by xongsmith, posted 10-27-2017 12:59 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10026
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 13 of 22 (822548)
10-27-2017 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by ringo
10-27-2017 11:36 AM


Re: Show Me The Money
See? Why can't the US model their healthcare after Canadas? Would it work here or do we have too many sick old fogies like myself?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 10-27-2017 11:36 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 10-27-2017 11:44 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 10-27-2017 11:47 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 14 of 22 (822550)
10-27-2017 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Phat
10-27-2017 11:40 AM


Re: Show Me The Money
Phat writes:

See? Why can't the US model their healthcare after Canadas? Would it work here or do we have too many sick old fogies like myself?

It would probably require slashing the salaries of doctors and administrators, but yes, we could do it. Salaries for doctors (and probably adminstrators) in the US are about twice what they are in other first world countries. There is also the problem of the ratio between general practioners and specialists which is way out of whack in the US leading to higher health care costs.

The baby boom happened in Canada as well, so I would suspect that their demographics are similar to ours here in the US.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 10-27-2017 11:40 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13864
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 15 of 22 (822551)
10-27-2017 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Phat
10-27-2017 11:40 AM


Re: Show Me The Money
Phat writes:

Would it work here or do we have too many sick old fogies like myself?


It works everywhere else in the civilized world. It even works in Cuba.

(One of the things we're doing is welcoming a lot of new immigrants to pay the taxes.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 10-27-2017 11:40 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017