Schwarzenegger: Everyone must have health insurance

San Jose Mercury News ^ | 8 January 2007 | Steven Harmon

[lowbridge]

I also want a pony :-)

[Jack Hammer]

They'll do what all good communists have done since before the days of Stalin - they'll repeal your anatomy. Funny that now the Iron and Bamboo Curtains are down, communism has arrived on American shores.

[whenigettime]

Universal Health care = socialism

Comes out of taxpayers wallets. There will be a cap on physicians and any other health care worker's income. Patients who are bed-bound will end up waiting in line to see doctors just like the rest of the population who are visiting the doc at the hospital. Only the sickest or those deemed most important will get the first dibs on healthcare.

I really hope California does not capitulate to this insanity.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Never mind Hillary, that socialist phony Mitt Romney pushed for and got a mandatory health insurance law in Massachusetts.

Romney's health plan wasn't socialist.

[TheDon]

Question now is, are the same folks that tossed out Gov. Dim Bulb ready to throw out the Freedom Terminator?

[TheDon]

So much for a woman's right to control her body. Isn't that the liberal's line? And they are pushing for the state to control their medical care, i.e. their bodies?

[EternalVigilance]

Romney's health plan wasn't socialist.

Of course it was, and is.

[CounterCounterCulture]

I must have a hot babe at my side... maybe that's just me. :-)

[calcowgirl]

From the LA Times:

"It is disappointing that just 72 hours into his [second term] he's shattered the central campaign pledge upon which he won reelection — not to raise taxes," said state Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), who ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor last year with the governor's support.

"I think it's ironic," McClintock continued, "that a governor who just proclaimed himself a centrist would come up with a proposal well to the left of the one presented by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata," a Democrat from Oakland.

[goldstategop]

Its not insurance, its a tax. Its quasi-socialized medicine. If you loved HillaryCare, you'll love Arnold's version of it.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[bruinbirdman]

U.S. spending on health care hit nearly $2 trillion in 2005. . .

yitbos

[ArmstedFragg]

Proposal details here:

http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/Governors_HC_Proposal.pdf

(I swear, this one's not behind a wall)

[IrishRainy]

The reason they closed was because the federal government refused to reimburse the states for the care they had given to the illegal immigrants without insurance. It's the feds problem but they ignored their responsibility (sending additional pork to W. Virginia is obviously more important), forcing the states to pick up the tab.

[Mojave]

Its not insurance, its a tax.

Four percent of payroll. So much for the promises of Arnold and his groupies.

[calcowgirl]

Proposal details here:

Thanks for the link! I saved that one yesterday and scanned through it. So much to not like! What's your take?

(I swear, this one's not behind a wall)

ROFL!

[ArmstedFragg]

What's your take?

I've been participating for the last few months in a policy discussion group, and the first thing we had to come to terms with was that, thanks to the courts, those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves have the ability to make the rest of us pay their bills. Almost all of the comments I've read here are complaints about that situation, but it's a situation that's the reality, and it drives any policy you might come up with.

I like the fact that the freeloaders will have to pick up some of the costs. I like the fact that the state isn't getting into the practice of medicine. I like the fact that the minimum requirement is a cheap catastrophic care policy.

I'm not enamored of the employer 'fee', but I think it'll have less of an impact on economics than some here believe. And, a few weeks back, when some of the details were released, there was a discussion of the 'wellness' discounts and the Governor's office said that those who met the lifestyle standards would get a discount, but nobody would have to pay a higher premium because they didn't meet the standards. I asked at that time whether having a discount for some didn't mean that the others, by definition, were paying more, but I didn't get an answer. Some of that sort of wishful thinking is endemic in the proposal. I liked the comment above regarding A giving to B, B giving to C, and C giving back to A and we'll all get rich. I thought that captured the administration's argument very effectively.

All in all, I think it's in line with the political realities, and a long way from being as bad as it could have been. Morally, I hate the thing, but realistically, I think it minimizes the damage to as great an extent as possible.

Fabien Nunez immediately rushed in front of a microphone yesterday and claimed the Democrats had the idea first. He's pretty crafty when it comes to figuring out what's to his political advantage, so I take that as an indication that he thinks the proposal will make it through. And that's a big issue, because another of their 'all or nothing at all' proposals means two more years of gridlock.

[calcowgirl]

Thanks a lot for your input.

Compared to you, I know very little about this industry but reading through the proposals and articles it just sickens me. I understand about the courts ruling that emergency care must be provided to illegal aliens, but I think that is a far cry from having to pay for insurance for anyone who chooses to set foot on California soil.

I see things like mandating that every person have insurance (along with the state enforcement actions) as an assault on freedom. The state mandating what is considered a "healthy" lifestyle (while most legislators endorse homosexuality) is also ridiculous. The state mandating what private companies can make as profit is against everything I believe in. I need to read a lot lot more to know what bothers me the most. But I know my stomach is turning watching what our state and our nation is becoming. It saddens me greatly and I believe there were 100 simpler and better ways to deal with the realities, without this monster.

[ArmstedFragg]

Early on, there was a lot of discussion about how everyone had to do his/her share, and particularly that the government had to do its share. That became a mantra, and you still see it repeated all the time in the press. It got dropped in the group discussion, though, shortly after someone pointed out that the government doesn't have any money it didn't take from us.

The whole 'goodie two-shoes' aspect of the wellness section irritates me no end. Particularly since the state of the art regarding knowledge about connections between life-style and health outcomes changes on an almost daily basis. I doubt that I'll be the first in line to go get my 'voluntary' life-style assessment done.

[calcowgirl]

This opinion piece by Richard E. Ralston, Executive Director for Americans for Free Choice In Medicine is informative. I snipped a few of his comments:

California Focus: Bad medicine, at higher costs

• Mandating that individuals buy insurance is as simplistic as mandating that everyone buy the food they need or the houses they live in. Income tax penalties are unlikely to force people who do not think they need insurance or want to pay for it to do so. There would still be many uninsured.

• Government-provided health care to all children necessitates both higher and unmanaged spending. Who will determine the exact nature of the health care that every child really requires – including every child of illegal immigrants? The parents, who pay nothing? Or the doctors or the providers or the insurance companies billing the government? Or the government itself? However implemented, it will entail a lot of new spending.

• Although prevention is very important, insurance companies should not be required to provide "wellness" coverage. That means they must pay your gym membership. And your bills from Weight Watchers. And your stop-smoking clinic. On top of the huge list of specific treatments currently mandated for health insurance, will "wellness" coverage bring the cost of insurance down?

• Government-funded clinics in elementary schools would put schools in the health care business, which is infinitely beyond their competence. It would distract the schools from what they are already finding to be a very challenging job – education. Such clinics would be a bonanza for public employee unions. They would most likely be less convenient and less available than the new in-store health care clinics at some Target and Wal-Mart stores. And who could doubt that they would be more expensive to operate?

[joebuck]

And Arnold will be long gone from the Governor's office by the time they realize they have underestimated the costs of this program by 900% and Ca. is once again non the verge of bankruptcy.