Posted on 01/08/2007 1:42:34 PM PST by libertarianPA
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday proposed to extend health coverage to nearly all of California's 6.5 million uninsured people, promising to spread the cost among businesses, individuals, hospitals, doctors, insurers and government.
The plan contains elements that are likely to provoke opposition from a wide range of powerful interests, including doctors, hospitals and insurers, as well as employers and unions. But it also contains incentives for each of them.
All children, regardless of their immigration status, would be covered through an expansion of the state and federal Healthy Families program.
"I don't think it is a question or a debate if they ought to be covered. ... The federal courts have made that decision — that no one can be turned away," Schwarzenegger said. "The question really isn't to treat them or not to treat them. The question really is how can you treat them in the most cost-effective way."
Under Schwarzenegger's plan, all Californians would be required to have insurance, although the poorest would be subsidized. Businesses with 10 or more employees would have to offer insurance to their workers or pay 4 percent of their payroll into a state fund. Smaller businesses would be exempt.
Also, insurers would no longer be allowed to deny coverage to people because of their medical problems.
Business groups and Republican legislators are likely to object to the extra costs imposed on businesses.
The state would subsidize the estimated 1.2 million poor people who do not currently qualify for state health coverage. They would be able to buy insurance through a state-run pool and would have to make a small contribution toward their premiums.
Schwarzenegger is betting that his plan will save $10 billion a year by cutting health care costs. He says the savings would offset the new fees he is asking doctors and hospitals to pay — 4 percent of revenue for hospitals and 2 percent for doctors.
The state also would increase what it pays doctors and hospitals through Medi-Cal, the state insurance plan for the poor.
The governor was supposed to give his address in person to a panel of health care officials. Instead, he spoke via video link since he is still recuperating from broken leg suffered in a skiing accident.
"Yes, but you are talking about individual centers of treatment not a healthcare "system"
No, I wasn't. I was speaking of the overall quality of healthcare provided in this country, not just that at our universities.
"But the American healthcare system is an overpriced piece of junk in comparison to the rest of the rich world."
That's a pretty broad claim, and one not based in reality. But keep spouting your euro-centric bilge. Everybody knows it's a bunch of BS.
That was a total non sequitur. You make statements out of your personal wishfulness and then can't base them in anything remotely resembling reality.
In a perfect world, the people who claim they can't afford health insurance or even an occasional series of doctor visits for a specific illness would save their discretionary income for meeting their own needs besides crap. But in your world, they buy the crap and we provide for their needs.
You are a complete communist.
There's some truth to that. But I think if there was a free market surrounding health care, there would be levels of coverage available as there is in other areas of insurance.
I don't believe you answered my question about the current system.
Are we going to tell hospitals to let people die or what?
Complete, huh? No wonder we can't solve anything. If you think out loud trying to solve the health care crisis, you are accused of being a commie.
Just for fun, I have pinged a few of my "comrades".
What's your point?
I didn't claim 41 million people claim millions in benefits every year.
If one person has a complicated life threatening condition that costs a hospital 200k.. where do you think those costs get passed on to?
What about the young adult with no health insurance and breaks a leg?
The higher spending per student was before the left took over public education and started skimming large sums off the top and providing schooling for illegals, although I don't remember CA ever being at the top of the spending-per-student list.
We, and other people we talk to from time to time, are leaving because of the leftist philosophy that dominates the state in too many aspects to list, not because they can't afford to buy a home. They're all home owners, as are we.
That doesn't mean they can't send them an astronomical bill. But if they can never pay it, then it's blood from turnip time.
We need a medically caused bankruptcy clause in our bankruptcy laws that permits folks to keep their houses, cars, etc.
That's sad to hear, to be sure. I hope things get better for you. But I was actually speaking of the woman Marlowe was making claims about.
Wonderful. That socialist plan goes well with Uncle Teddy's massive immigration plan! Looks like his influence on Arnie paid off for 3rd worlders. Another screw job for the American working class.
I know marlowe. He's not a communist. And your logic doesn't follow in arriving at that conclusion.
I understand that you want folks to care for themselves, and that's the ideal.
Unfortunately, some can't. In fact, in this current cost system in medical care, most can't. I know a person whose heart surgery and complications thereafter ended up with a bill in the neighborhood of a quarter million when all was said any done....doctors, hospitals, therpy, etc.
In our area, I think an overnight at the hospital costs about 2500 bucks.
We have to deal with:
1. What is in front of us.
2. What should be.
It is immoral to let someone die when it can be prevented and the person restored to a reasonable level of health. Therefore, the person must be treated.
Where the money comes to pay for it is an entirely different issue.
SOME of it should come from the patient. If they can afford to pay for all of it, then they should.
The problem with this issue is that there are so many problems that it is impossible to come up with a reasonable solution. The problem has been aggravzted by the governments failure to secure the borders and the failure to prosecute people for defrauding hospitals and doctors and employers by the use of fraudulent ID and other documents.
The cost of this fraud is generally not passed on to insurance companies as they have all managed to work sweetheart deals with providers and generally get a discount of anywhere from 25% to 90% off the usual and customary bills. But the poor schmuck who goes in without insurance and has any assets at all and is honest enough to give his real name is bound to lose everything as he is not going to be able to claim any of the discounts if he can convince anyone to treat him in the first place.
Finally the emergency rooms in California (and most border states) are being used as the general practitioners for the poor and the illegal alien crowd, so if you go in for a coronary there is a possibility that your care may be delayed just enough to ensure your early departure into the hereafter.
The taxpayers are currently footing the bill for all the illegal aliens, but we don't seem willing to elect anyone who is willing to tackle that mess so we are stuck with a broken system and no viable cure. And when anyone suggests that adopting some kind of system where those who are benefiting from the illegal alien crowd (i.e., employers) pay for the cost of insuring some of these people, they get accused of being a "complete communist".
Well I've been thinking out loud on this thread. I mentioned a real life case where a young mother probably died because she postponed medical treatment because she could not afford it and was not dishonest enough to go to the emergency room and give a fake name. I suspect that happens a lot. But I have learned not to expect sympathy from this crowd.
Thank you, Comrade X.
:-)
the non-producers and the lazy will flock there though...
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
they already have.
"And when anyone suggests that adopting some kind of system where those who are benefiting from the illegal alien crowd (i.e., employers) pay for the cost of insuring some of these people, they get accused of being a "complete communist"."
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and they will be hit the hardest by such a requirement, and they can least afford it. They also typically don't hire illegals.
In CA, we can't elect enough people to put a halt to illegal immigration or paying for the illegals already here because of rat gerrymandering of congressional, state senatorial and assembly districts.
You haven't answered any of my posts about the case of the young woman you posed. You simply keep repeating the same claim in broad, sweeping posts to buttress your position about the need for universal coverage. I submit that your story is fictitious, and that you are, at the very least, a socialist. You certainly aren't a conservative.
LOL
In CA, we can't elect enough people to put a halt to illegal immigration or paying for the illegals already here because of rat gerrymandering of congressional, state senatorial and assembly districts.
then we deserve the problems we have and the government we have.
I submit that your story is fictitious,
Noted.
and that you are, at the very least, a socialist.
Gosh, just one post and I've gone from "Complete Communist" to mere "Socialist." At this rate I should be a full blown Right Wing Extremist before morning.
What you propose is a commie position, of which socialism is a part.
Trust me, you won't make it to conservative by morning or any other time with your views.
One of the reasons why small businesses typically don't hire illegals is because they have to hire all illegals or none because of the impact it has on the non-illegals already working there.
Well, you had me til "recall". I don't like illegals and universal coverage either, but do a recall and you get the lefty hoards pouring in. We have enough to fight without further empowering the left. The strategy you suggest is what got us Nancy Pelosi. Here's another sobering thought, Robert Byrd is third in line for the presidency.
Show your displeasure by faxing and calls. Get involved!
In 1969, California spent about $400 over the national average per student; in 2000 California spent About $600 below the national average per student, according to the Rand Corporation study, California K-12 Public Schools. How Are hey Doing?.
Providing education to the children of illegal immigrants is a federal mandate imposed on the states, not a state choice.
The federal government has established a program that provides incentives for undocumented immigrants to violate U.S. immigration laws. As a result of federal mandates, states are required to provide health care and education services to illegal immigrants and their children. Further, the federal government confers citizenship to children of parents residing illegally in the state, guaranteeing them education, welfare, and health care. The federal government has failed to fully reimburse states for costs associated with its immigration policies.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/teaching/literacy/summaries/immigrants.asc
We, and other people we talk to from time to time, are leaving because of the leftist philosophy that dominates the state in too many aspects to list, not because they can't afford to buy a home. They're all home owners, as are we.
Most California homeowners I know reject the idea of leaving the state because as long term homeowners, their property taxes are comparatively low. Its their children who can't afford to buy.
In other words, the taxpayer. As always, in the world of socialism and liberalism, the productive are forced to carry the deadwood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.