Full Version: Single Payer Healthcare in California
We had a really good debate going about Universal Healthcare last year. I wanted to re-open that debate and go in a slightly different direction with it, but I would highly encourage everyone to review the old one because there is some very good information there.
An article in the SF Chronicle lays out a few facts:
- 44 Million Americans are uninsured
- The Independent Institute of Medicine, affiliated with the prestigious National Academy of Science, urged the United States to adopt universal health coverage by 2010.
- HMO's (widely regarded as the cheapest option) eat up roughly 35% of their revenue with administrative costs, advertising and profits.
Also another fact which comes from a recent announcement by GM about mass layoffs is that employers are feeling the burn from increased health care costs. GM blames a lot of their woes on health care, I don't necessarily agree with that but that is a subject of another debate.
Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) has been working on a single payer plan for California for over a year. At the end of May, 2005 it passed the Senate and it is currently under consideration in the Assembly. It is called the California Health Insurance Reliability Act (SB 840). You can find the web site devoted to it here and a summary (pdf) here.
There is a lot of information to absorb here, but here are some of the selling points:
It is widely believed that this plan will not only save healthcare consumers money, insure that all Californians are covered, and improve medical services and infrastructure, but also save businesses money and make the state much more competitive. Every business that offers healthcare currently pays thousands of dollars per employee for health coverage (depending on their size and benefits package). Under this plan that cost would go away at no additional cost to the state or employees.
Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe that Keuhl's plan is a good solution to the Healthcare problem? Why or why not?
2. If this is passed in California and is successful, given the benefits do you believe other states might adopt similar systems?
3. If you don't support a federal single payer system, would you support such a system at the state level?
An article in the SF Chronicle lays out a few facts:
- 44 Million Americans are uninsured
- The Independent Institute of Medicine, affiliated with the prestigious National Academy of Science, urged the United States to adopt universal health coverage by 2010.
- HMO's (widely regarded as the cheapest option) eat up roughly 35% of their revenue with administrative costs, advertising and profits.
Also another fact which comes from a recent announcement by GM about mass layoffs is that employers are feeling the burn from increased health care costs. GM blames a lot of their woes on health care, I don't necessarily agree with that but that is a subject of another debate.
Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) has been working on a single payer plan for California for over a year. At the end of May, 2005 it passed the Senate and it is currently under consideration in the Assembly. It is called the California Health Insurance Reliability Act (SB 840). You can find the web site devoted to it here and a summary (pdf) here.
There is a lot of information to absorb here, but here are some of the selling points:
QUOTE
RELIABLE COVERAGE
# Eligibility is based on residency.
# No California resident will ever again lose his or her health insurance.
AFFORDABLE
# NO NEW SPENDING - The system will be paid for by monies already being spent on health care and by insurance premiums.
# Replaces all premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket payments and co-pays now paid by employers and consumers.
EFFICIENT
# ELIMINATES WASTE - Consolidates the functions of many insurance companies into one comprehensive insurance plan.
# SAVES BILLIONS EACH YEAR. Currently, HALF of every dollar spent on health care is squandered.
# California will use its purchasing power to buy Rx drugs and DME bulk.
HIGH QUALITY
# Consumers have total freedom to choose their personal primary care provider.
# Health care providers and facilities will receive fair reimbursement.
# CHIRA utilizes proven financial incentives.
# The plan invests in needed health care infrastructure.
# Eligibility is based on residency.
# No California resident will ever again lose his or her health insurance.
AFFORDABLE
# NO NEW SPENDING - The system will be paid for by monies already being spent on health care and by insurance premiums.
# Replaces all premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket payments and co-pays now paid by employers and consumers.
EFFICIENT
# ELIMINATES WASTE - Consolidates the functions of many insurance companies into one comprehensive insurance plan.
# SAVES BILLIONS EACH YEAR. Currently, HALF of every dollar spent on health care is squandered.
# California will use its purchasing power to buy Rx drugs and DME bulk.
HIGH QUALITY
# Consumers have total freedom to choose their personal primary care provider.
# Health care providers and facilities will receive fair reimbursement.
# CHIRA utilizes proven financial incentives.
# The plan invests in needed health care infrastructure.
It is widely believed that this plan will not only save healthcare consumers money, insure that all Californians are covered, and improve medical services and infrastructure, but also save businesses money and make the state much more competitive. Every business that offers healthcare currently pays thousands of dollars per employee for health coverage (depending on their size and benefits package). Under this plan that cost would go away at no additional cost to the state or employees.
Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe that Keuhl's plan is a good solution to the Healthcare problem? Why or why not?
2. If this is passed in California and is successful, given the benefits do you believe other states might adopt similar systems?
3. If you don't support a federal single payer system, would you support such a system at the state level?
1. Do you believe that Keuhl's plan is a good solution to the Healthcare problem? Why or why not?
I'm not sure. Looks good on paper...but saying it won't cost anything and it actually costing nothing are two different things.
2. If this is passed in California and is successful, given the benefits do you believe other states might adopt similar systems?
Sure, why not? As the article says, California would consider it (correctly, if successful) a competetive advantage. I would add that if it is adopted in California and is not successful, other states will shun it like the plague, and it will be a large competetive disadvantage.
3. If you don't support a federal single payer system, would you support such a system at the state level?
Hey....I'd support almost everything being done at the state level (or lower) rather than the federal level.
I don't see anything about this plan that would except it from that norm.
As I stated in the other thread you referenced, my objection to National Health Care is primarily financial. While I see the potential for cost savings...I also see the potential for a large, bloated system which does me little extra good and costs me more money. If CA (or any other state) comes up with a way to actual realize the potential cost savings, and uses that savings to give me a benefit that doesn't cost me any extra money, then, yes, I'm all for that. I'm not against governmental health care...I'm against higher taxes to pay for it.
I'm not sure. Looks good on paper...but saying it won't cost anything and it actually costing nothing are two different things.
2. If this is passed in California and is successful, given the benefits do you believe other states might adopt similar systems?
Sure, why not? As the article says, California would consider it (correctly, if successful) a competetive advantage. I would add that if it is adopted in California and is not successful, other states will shun it like the plague, and it will be a large competetive disadvantage.
3. If you don't support a federal single payer system, would you support such a system at the state level?
Hey....I'd support almost everything being done at the state level (or lower) rather than the federal level.
I don't see anything about this plan that would except it from that norm.As I stated in the other thread you referenced, my objection to National Health Care is primarily financial. While I see the potential for cost savings...I also see the potential for a large, bloated system which does me little extra good and costs me more money. If CA (or any other state) comes up with a way to actual realize the potential cost savings, and uses that savings to give me a benefit that doesn't cost me any extra money, then, yes, I'm all for that. I'm not against governmental health care...I'm against higher taxes to pay for it.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.