Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calif. gov calls for universal coverage
Yahoo! News ^ | 1/8/07 | LAURA KURTZMAN

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: bigtentrino; california; gummintgiveaways; healthcare; illegalaliens; kalifornia; rino; schwarzenegger; socializedmedicine; universal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-256 next last
To: lucysmom; xzins; blue-duncan; spunkets
No. Would it help me resolve the identity crisis finding out I'm not a conservative, but a communist has precipitated?

Probably not. In fact, I suspect you will find your identity crisis will be exacerbated after you go there and then find out you are also a member of a religious cult.

221 posted on 01/09/2007 10:16:41 PM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Jezebelle
Comrade X

:>)

BUT (and this is far worse for some) ...

He IS a Christian. And they've been accused of all kinds of things.

222 posted on 01/09/2007 10:37:12 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: libertarianPA; Jezebelle

Could one you please explain to me how you can claim that the US is system is the world's best when the absolute facts are the following:

- The American system does not cover between 10% and 15% of its citizens at a given time although every other industrialized nation covers all of its citizens.
- The American health care system is the world's most expensive by at least 3% of GDP
- The American life-expectancy is among the lowest of the world's industrialized nations.

Apparently you either chose to ignore these facts and are so caught up in the rhetoric from Health care lobbyists who have the most to lost (that 3% goes to their bottom line duh) or you are, in fact, lobbyists for the health care industry.

I have been at doctors and hospitals in both the US and in Germany. In terms of care it is equal. In terms of efficiency the latter is far superior. And, by the way, my wife will get 3-5 days in a hospital once our 1st child comes to the world in May. In the US she would only get 24-48 hours - and that stay would be 2-3 times as expensive.

In terms of number of doctors per thousand people Germany has the most. And all for the bargain price of 13% of GDP (which by the way is still too expensive).

The clouded minds are not on this side of the Atlantic. Your press spends too much time looking at other Anglo-systems like in Cananda and the UK.

If you would like to actually learn how we do it in German y (yes there is private insurance) rather than keep your head in the sand while the healthcare providers have their hands in your pocket, feel free to ask.


223 posted on 01/10/2007 12:06:44 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

" We, in California, will never be able to elect enough people to put an end to illegal immigration because immigration is a federal issue. CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, FLORIDA, or any other state, does not have the Constitutional power!

Obviously if we have not been able to do much about immigration with a Republican dominated House, Senate, and President, there are some very powerful forces at work and they ain't all liberal."

Yes, the entry is a federal issue, but providing illegals with services is a state matter. Remember prop. 187? Gray Davis managed to get it overturned through some fast and loose manipulations of the judicial system, but the point is that that aspect of it is a state matter. So your second point is moot/irrelevant as far as this aspect goes.

"If small business employs people and either does not provide the benefits or pays less than it takes for the employee to purchase the benefits, they are a burden and not backbone."

I see. So it would be better if there were no small businesses and the employees of small businesses are unemployed and/or on welfare. Good plan. Makes sense.

Sheesh. Another socialist. I don't know how you can reconcile the need to complain about congress not doing anything about illegal aliens and in the same breath you want to foist government-mandated, taxpayer-funded universal health care on us.


224 posted on 01/10/2007 2:17:05 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle
Yes, the entry is a federal issue, but providing illegals with services is a state matter. Remember prop. 187? Gray Davis managed to get it overturned through some fast and loose manipulations of the judicial system, but the point is that that aspect of it is a state matter. So your second point is moot/irrelevant as far as this aspect goes.

Prop 187 was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge and Davis dropped the appeals process in favor of mediation.

But please explain why the same problem exists in Texas and Florida. Those are conservative states - why do they comply if medical care and education for illegals is a state issue?

BTW, hospitals may refuse to treat illegal immigrants and the indigent, but they give up federal money in doing so. Is it possible that feeding from the government trough is more profitable for Texas and Florida than taking a conservative stand.

I see. So it would be better if there were no small businesses and the employees of small businesses are unemployed and/or on welfare. Good plan. Makes sense.

For the employee who works without benefits and earns too little to provide them for himself, welfare would give him a state provided medical plan. Do you think its smart to not provide medical coverage for low wage earners? Do you want to encourage work or welfare?

The point is, that if a business is not profitable enough to pay a sufficient wage so that his employees can purchase medical care for themselves in the free market place, or provide medical insurance as a benefit, then the state (tax payers), by picking up the slack, is subsidizing his business. Please explain why the low wage worker is a bum and the business paying poverty wages is respectable.

Being a pragmatic person, I think it would be rational, and better, to recognize and accommodate reality - that low wage earners also need medical care from time to time. Further, that small businesses with low profit margins NEED low wage workers to stay in business and that the low wage worker does play a necessary roll in the economic life of the US, just as small business does. Rather than regard the low wage earner as a morally defective bum, we should give him the same respect we give to the low wage employer.

225 posted on 01/10/2007 7:16:57 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle
Sheesh. Another socialist. I don't know how you can reconcile the need to complain about congress not doing anything about illegal aliens and in the same breath you want to foist government-mandated, taxpayer-funded universal health care on us.

Makes just as much sense as capricious enforcement of our immigration laws by this Republican administration. IMHO, government should be congruent, law should match policy and enforcement.

226 posted on 01/10/2007 7:28:27 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Just what I need, another conflict and deeper crisis!


227 posted on 01/10/2007 7:32:37 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Mein Furher

You didn't mention the fact that America spends more on health care than any other industrialized nation.

The reason the American system does not cover between 10% and 15% of the population is because our system is still voluntary - people don't HAVE to have insurance if they don't want it. And many choose not to. With the exception of a few of our states, we don't force people to have insurance (though that will probably change).

The life expectancy of our citizens is probably lower than Europes for a number of reasons: most glaringly that your culture has basically outlawed stress to the point where people are working 35 hour weeks and taking 6-consecutive-week vacations. Yes. We work harder and we die younger, but our unemployment rate is lower, our taxes are lower, and our GDP is higher.

And I've already listed the reasons WHY our system is so expensive. I suggest you read a book on economics (not socialism) to truly grasp the concept.

I've done plenty of research and read lots of articles that tell the truth about your wonderful system. Perhaps it's better in Germany, but your European counterparts are in dire financial situations while the elderly wait months for vital procedures. Perhaps you've received such wonderful treatment because your still young and not expendable yet. You're not a burden on the system... yet.

The simple truth is that there are Canadians flooding hospitals in the northern states in order to gain access to treatments they have to wait for in their country.

I don't think that's the result of a socialized system that's "working."


228 posted on 01/10/2007 10:59:50 AM PST by libertarianPA (http://www.amarxica.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Incidentally, my girlfriend's best friend lives with her husband in England. They are planning to have a child soon and the wife wants to move back to America because she doesn't want herself or her children to be cared for under England's NHS.

... as long as we're trading personal stories, here.


229 posted on 01/10/2007 11:22:04 AM PST by libertarianPA (http://www.amarxica.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: libertarianPA
India's medical tourism business is growing at an estimated 30% a year attracting medical and dental patients from around the world, including the US. Cuba attracts patients from South America and Europe. Thailand, the Philippines, Costa Rica, Hungary, Israel, Jordan, Lithuania, Malaysia Belgium, Poland, South Africa, and Singapore are also getting in on the action. The US is nolonger THE destination of choice for quality medical care.

If we don't wake up and smell the coffee, we are going to find the world has past us by.

230 posted on 01/10/2007 4:40:57 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: libertarianPA

Headline + AS A RESULT OF PAIN MEDS???


231 posted on 01/10/2007 4:41:44 PM PST by NordP (America Votes: So sad to find out the majority is self-centered, short-sighted, and impatient.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertarianPA
We work harder and we die younger, but our unemployment rate is lower, our taxes are lower, and our GDP is higher.

As long as you recognize these as trade-offs and are happy I suppose we are ultimately in agreement. I can totally accept that Europe has a lower GDP (whatever that means) and we work less, live longer and enjoy life. Actually, all I should really do is thank you because you pay for my defense and the R&D on the drugs that let me enjoy my life. Doesn't seem fair though does it?

232 posted on 01/10/2007 11:45:12 PM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: libertarianPA

We all know that the English system is crap. I even specifically mentioned tha the debate in the US has been skewed by the inability of American reporters to speak languages other than English and therefore only to concentrate on Anglo-speaking countries as examples. Germany, Japan and France all have superior systems. If I were in England I would want to have my children elsewhere as well - probably Germany.

By the way, as for "voluntarily" not having healthcare, it is like voluntarily not wearing a seat-belt. It may seem like freedom, but ultimately it is a result of a poor ability to judge risk and cost/benefit. Moreover, society as a whole has a vested interest in the health of its individual members. It is like "voluntarily" not going to school - that would save taxpayer money too, but would be bad for society.


233 posted on 01/10/2007 11:49:15 PM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: libertarianPA

ANY government involvement in health care is basically opening up the coffers and letting them charge whatever they want.

$800 dollar toilets are cheap when you compare them to a $125 aspirin tab.

We should just transfer the Federal Reserve to the AMA and let them print whatever the heck they feel like.


234 posted on 01/10/2007 11:58:31 PM PST by djf (Democracy - n, def: The group that gets PAID THE MOST ends up VOTING THE MOST See: TRAGEDY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
As long as you recognize these as trade-offs and are happy I suppose we are ultimately in agreement. I can totally accept that Europe has a lower GDP (whatever that means) and we work less, live longer and enjoy life.

I wonder if that has anything to do with Europe's lower violent crime rate.

235 posted on 01/11/2007 7:30:28 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
I wonder if that has anything to do with Europe's lower violent crime rate.

Honestly, I think it is because of greater income equality - which is the result of wealth redistribution. Those things, in my opinion, are also a result of the high-density of the population. Cities are more socialist than the country-side. This plays true in the political persuasion of Europeans as well. For me the problem is not the socialism per se, but rather that socialism destroy freedom. The saying that a government large enough to give you everything is large enough to take it all away is true. Europeans have repeatedly fallen victim to dictatorships. Socialism breeds dependency and dependency eventually becomes slavery of one sort or another.

236 posted on 01/11/2007 7:47:48 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

First, congratulations to you and your wife!

Second, you wrote that:

"...Germany, Japan and France all have superior [health] systems..."

Well, if that chauvinistic assertion is true, then why-oh-why are the populations of those three countries in DECLINE (your personal contribution notwithstanding)? As an amateur gardener, I know very well that plants never stop growing because they enjoy superior "health". Indeed, Germany's low fertility rate is proof, in itself, that there is a serious health problem in Germany.

Could it be that, when you tax away 60% of the income of your young, healthy people to pay the health care costs of your older, less healthy people (and to pay for every other "worthy project" under the Sun), you also tax away their virility and puissance? Does any German care about this? Is any German even AWARE that Germany's slide into geopolitical irrelevance and demographic oblivion has already begun?

Or does the pied-piper's smug tune of "absolute moral superiority to America" create blindness as well as gullibility among "die deutsche Dickkoepfe"?

Certainly, watching the slow-motion suicide of a formerly great nation gives me no pleasure. On the other hand, your zeal for bashing America has become tiresome and deserves a direct response:

If you "think" that lobbing "cheap shots" at America will help to solve ANY of the problems that now portend Germany's demise, you need to "think again".




237 posted on 01/11/2007 8:50:03 AM PST by pfony1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: pfony1

How do you equate the decision of women to limit their reproduction to physical health? I mean, there may be an argument about the social health of the system but lifespan seems a better measure than population growth.

To the contrary, I could argue that the world might be a better place if human population was declining. Realistically the Earth doesn't have the natural resources for 6 billion people to live like Americans do. But it does have them for about 2 billion people or so.

Therefore, you should be thankful that not all of the world is growing its population.

By the way, without immigration, the US population is just about stable (2.1 births per woman) but also border-line declining. Check your facts.

And, thanks for the congrats.


238 posted on 01/11/2007 8:57:56 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: pfony1

Do you actually search for my posts or just happen to read the same things I do?


239 posted on 01/11/2007 8:58:45 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

No. Not really.

Exactly. I accept the trade-offs. I accept that in a free society, the repsonsibility is mine to look out for my own welfare; it is not that of other people. Now, if I choose to seek charity, or donate to a charity that I feel is worthy and will really help people, that should also be my choice. It should not be forced and facilitated by government.

Perhaps Germany has discovered the secret to running a government health system. Don't know, don't care. Over here, the government is fantastic and running absolutely nothing. Generally speaking, their costs far out weigh their output. For example, 70% of the tax money collected for our welfare systems goes to the operation of those systems. That's inefficiency... I don't care where you're from.

But what you said is exaclty the point - trade offs. That's what life is. In most cases, there are never concrete solutions. Perfection is rarely achievable. France is supposed to be a model of moral socialism, yet they just passed a law making it illegal to be homeless because their parks are filling up with tents and transients. Socialism and communism are, in theory, supposed to be the "solution" that provides for every single citizen. So how is it that they have a homeless problem at all?

Again, Germany could be a different situation, and if it is, then good for you. But here in America, the government has continuously made matters worse everytime it tries to impose a "solution" to a "crisis." Charles Murray wrote a wonderful book called "Losing Ground" that documented our social policy from 1950 - 1980. It was perceived that if the poor were just given more money and the laws were changed to give minorities more of an advantage in life, we could wipe out poverty in this country. Well, we all know that didn't happen. In fact, as Murray points out, things got worse for blacks in this country after the Great Society initiatives - even though statistically speaking, they were gaining social and economic ground every year since the mid 1940s.

In the end, what you're looking for are results. Socialism and capitalism have both proven the same results - inequity and poverty exist. After this is recognized, you have to look at which system makes the social situation worse. What system takes away more liberty, more choice?

Clearly, it's socialism.


240 posted on 01/11/2007 9:38:17 AM PST by libertarianPA (http://www.amarxica.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-256 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson