Message 17 of 18 (810381)
05-29-2017 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coyote
05-28-2017 9:36 PM
Re: Californian Lt Governor (running in 2020 for Gov) for single payer! Legislature favs.
You assume that the only type of person who will come is someone who can't contribute to the state?
Why not make an assumption that the state will attract all types of people?
It isn't clear that giving poorer people health care security won't have larger economic benefits anyway.
It must be pointed out that there is a distinction between an entire nation adopting a health care system, based on funding primarily from the taxpayers being directly taxed upfront, and a narrow section alone adopting the specific policy - while the larger body of the nation remains under the older ( better or worse ) system.
There comes a risk of a race-to-the-bottom when the latter is the situation one looks at. The feared race isn't the certain situation. The certain situation is a more productive economic climate as the certain change (before the race to the worst part of the world factors in ).
When California is part of a nation that employs 1.5 million workers in the fundamentally unproductive health insurance industry, then you have an amazingly high (1%) percentage of the workforce choking Californians and Americans at large.
We hear alot about the diminished wage gains of nonmanagerial private sector workers and the lack of keeping up with the growth in the national average per person yearly income. The general economic theory is that the wages in the group will tend to rise a certain amount which will be proportional to the combination of the inflation rate PLUS productivity rate. Low productivity growth will suggest smaller non inflation adjusted wage growth.
Do you want your tax and/or consumer dollars going to medicine or insurance bureaucrats ?
Do you want your dollars going to nurses or insurance company execs?
To Doctors or some pencil pusher in Delaware?
And Doctors can spend at least 60% more of their PAID TIME taking care of patients with a switch to single payer so how could you fear a population increase of ( highly unlikely to rise by anywhere near ) that amount?
I will take investment in health related technology over the anti-technology, anti-research insurance companies any day of the week. Any such day will be alot more productive than today's anti-science moment (a sorry moment with longer momentum which hurts our future badly )
Californian will lower its bill per person in a single payer healthcare system.
Californians will live in a more productive state .
But will the taxes be higher than the current health insurance requirements and standard business expenses?
What will happen when taxes cause an overall higher upfront cost?
Will the more productive overall economic dynamic handle the competing tension of the taxes which are an economic force in their own right?
Healthcare has been rising as a percentage of GDP. But our national per capita income has never been $50,000 higher than the per capita healthcare cost as it is about to be. The simple fact is that there is a larger and larger economic pie brought about by growth. The economic growth comes from higher productivity for one (major ) thing.
We have to be aware of the macroeconomic forces and make sure that the benefits of the policy changes are explained.
Long term benefits being understood are a key part of the health of the economy because CONFIDENCE is a fundamental reality in the economic climate and the actual conditions - both in the here & now AND ( naturally ) the future.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 14 by Coyote, posted 05-28-2017 9:36 PM|| ||Coyote has not yet responded|