Calif. gov calls for universal coverage

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.

Oh. Just one more point. I think the efficacy of a government program also has to do a lot with the culture of a society. I know that the socialist systems in the Scandanavian region seem to work relatively well as socialist systems go.

But I think that the reason they might work in certain European countries and wouldn't work here is because of the culture. The Scandanavians have always been passive people. You can tax 70% of their income and make them wait for medical procedures, but still they don't complain. Not because they're not upset, but they're just not complainers. I think there's a little of that in Germany. In a film history class I took, we studied German Neo-modernism (or some intellectual BS name like that) and the professor maintained that after WWII, there was a deep sense of guilt in Germany and it took decades before they were ready to present themselves as a significant nation once again - culturally, economically, technolocially, etc. I think a generation or two being raised under that type of mindset also nurtures a sense that no matter how crappy the service might be, you shouldn't complain. It's what you deserve.

Again, my theory. I don't claim to know the German system apart from what I read in economic articles.

The point is - Americans would not put up with that kind of system. When universal health care becomes law here, you will probably find that it just might not last. Try telling a New Yorker that they have to wait 6 months for an operation and you'll see Hell raised on Earth.

How do you equate the decision of women to limit their reproduction to physical health?
==> It seems that you believe that "mental health" is not related to "physical health". I disagree. A woman who fears to bring her own children into the world has problems that will not be solved by repressing those fears.

I mean, there may be an argument about the social health of the system...
==> There is. Depopulation is VERY big problem for all of Europe. Over-regulation and over-taxation have always brought social ruin. ALWAYS. Europeans need to wake up to that danger and demand more economic freedom from their governments. The principle of "entropy" applies to civilization as well as to physical matter. On the other hand, Paris might be more pleasant if there weren't any "Parisians"...

...but lifespan seems a better measure than population growth.
==> I wonder if the "lifespan" statistics you rely upon include the all the pre- and post-birth abortions in Germany? Or the "honor-killings" of your Germany-born "non-Germans"? In any event, fewer children born MUST mean fewer childhood deaths to report, thus skewing the statistical average towards an "older" life expectancy. Big whoop...

To the contrary, I could argue that the world might be a better place if human population was declining.
==> Uh, please don't. That is soooo... "Club of Rome". Why is it that, whenever you defrock a "Green", you always find a "misanthrope"?

Realistically the Earth doesn't have the natural resources for 6 billion people to live like Americans do.
==> Of COURSE it does. Those little atoms of carbon, iron, oxygen, etc. don't leave the Earth simply because we "use" them. To my comment about the long-passe "Club of Rome", please add a Bronx Cheer for the discredited doom-mongers Malthus and Paul Erdman. I really don't understand why Europeans are unable to see the difference between propaganda and facts. O.K. O.K. I guess one explanation might be that those Europeans with the highest IQs have been escaping to America from rigid "Old Europe" for many years now. This depletion of Europe's gene-pool would also explain the dumbed-down musings of Europe's present-day "intelligentsia".

But it does have them for about 2 billion people or so.
==> A completely unsubstantiated conclusion, coated with this glib veneer of "plausibility": "To do less is easier than to do more".

Therefore, you should be thankful that not all of the world is growing its population.
==> It is indeed wonderful that the number of infant deaths has decreased.

By the way, without immigration, the US population is just about stable (2.1 births per woman) but also border-line declining.
==> Stand-by for a big increase in US fertility rates as the children of our baby-boomers enter their child-bearing years.
==> Surely, you are not suggesting that there is some "equivalence" between a U.S. birth rate of 2.1/1000 and a German birth rate of 1.4/1000.

Check your facts.
==> ...said the pot to the kettle...
==> Did you ever independently confirm that NASA report about the melting ice-caps of Mars? Didn't think so...

If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's 'free'- PJ O'Rourke

In the first place, I don't think anyone believes that any system that provides access to health care universally is free.

In the second place, countries that do have universal health care, and there are a whole lot of different plans out there, spend less as a percentage of GDP on health care than we do and have longer life expectancies.

Third, just because we don't have universal health care doesn't make us more free or mean that we don't support a massive bureaucracy. Insurance companies are massive bureaucracies. They collect monthly premiums, employ people to deny service, and dictate what doctors we may see.

But I think that the reason they might work in certain European countries and wouldn't work here is because of the culture. The Scandanavians have always been passive people.

How do you account for the Vikings?

You can tax 70% of their income and make them wait for medical procedures, but still they don't complain. Not because they're not upset, but they're just not complainers.

It is true that Scandinavians are not complainers, that doesn't make them passive.

I think their form of government works for them because they have a high regard for personal integrity, are respectful of the rights of others, and they took the message of the Bible seriously.

For instance, one has the freedom to camp, fish, hunt, gather berries, and mushrooms anywhere one pleases, even on another's property. The rules are that you have to stay a respectful distance away from the property owners house, stay out of his fields, and do no damage.

That would never work here because campers would leave behind a mass of beer cans, use a farmers livestock for target practice and tear up property with ATVs.

Try telling a New Yorker that they have to wait 6 months for an operation and you'll see Hell raised on Earth.

The way it works in the US is that you go to your doctor in considerable pain. The doctor orders x-rays, prescribes pain medication, and makes an appointment for the following month. You keep the appointment, tell the doctor the medication helps, but you're still in pain. He orders an injection and makes another appointment. This goes on for more than a year. You finally make an appointment with another doctor, and ask for your x-rays. The second doctor (you pay out of pocket for the appointment) Takes one look at the x-rays, taken more than a year before, and says you need a hip replacement. You take the written diagnoses back to the first, in plan doctor, and surgery is scheduled.

So, how long did you have to wait for treatment? The month after the out-of-plan doctor made the diagnosos or more than a year that it took you to go to another doctor.

BTW, that is a real life example and happened to my father.

I wrote that in response to the PJ O'Rouke quote. The point was that the truth of the quote doesn't seem to be born out in the real world.

Socialism is Slavery by Givernment.. exactly, specifically, always..Even now (SSA) Social; Security is PURE socialism.. PURE...

So is government handouts to specific "free market" business, like farmers.

Are YOU a socialist?.. Do you even know what socialism means?..

I'm not inclined to be anything that tells me I must kiss my brains goodbye and replace thought with slogans.

I know what hypocrisy means.

That's a shame. And I'm sure there's more to the story than what you're telling.

What are you saying? There are flaws in the American system? Who said there weren't? But again, a socialized system isn't the answer. You're going to get the same results. Only under socialized health care, you wouldn't have the opportunity to seek that second opinion. You'd get your one option, and that would be that.

I know you're trying to make a point, but your point is ridiculous because it relies on the premise that your father would have received better treatment under taxpayer-funded health care. That's not the case at all.

I guess if you want to present this isolated incident as proof that the whole system needs to be replaced by socialism (as most liberals and socialists do whenever they perceive a "crisis), then I guess you proved your point to those who have no cognitive logic. You haven't proven it to me. I'm afraid I have the ability to reason.

That's a shame. And I'm sure there's more to the story than what you're telling.

Oh, there is a good deal more, but I suppose you haven't read or heard about doctors getting bonuses for treating patients minimally or doctors being fined because the deliver more than average treatment (by average, I mean more treatment than the average for doctors with a similar patient load [numbers]).

Look up capitation.

But again, a socialized system isn't the answer. You're going to get the same results. Only under socialized health care, you wouldn't have the opportunity to seek that second opinion. You'd get your one option, and that would be that.

As I said, countries with universal health care coverage do it in a variety of ways, you only assume they are all socialist. Switzerland, for example, is consumer driven - free market. France is single payer with doctors and hospitals independent of the government. The UK has a mix. In socialist Sweden, one can go to any doctor or hospital one chooses in the country (can you say that about your insurance plan?).

You really ought to do a little research before you make blanket statements. It makes you look like you're parroting.

As I said, countries with universal health care coverage do it in a variety of ways, you only assume they are all socialist

What do you call government programs funded by taxpayer money? Is that not the very definition of socialism: government facilitated, citizen funded? Or do I not understand the concept? Even we have socialist programs: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. That's why you can't compare the effectiveness of America's "free" system, because the fact is, we don't have one. In one way or another, the government has it's hand in on every form of health care here.

Believe me, I've done my research. While you laud these systems (and even the citizens might like them for the most part), there is a price to pay. Whether it's financial or physical. I'm not making up the fact that tens of thousands wait in pain for months for treatment. I'm not making up the fact that these European countries you love so much tax their citizens a majority of their incomes to keep their INEFFICIENT systems afloat. Meanwhile, they have double-digit unemployment and GDP growth of 1 and 2 percent.

Do these systems work? Some of the countries don't complain, like Switzerland. So perhaps for socialist cultures, a socialist system works. But all acknowledge (even Switzerland) that the financial costs are mighty. Again, WHY do this to the citizens? Why make them pay for government programs, whether they are the only option or not? Why not take the government out of it completely and let the free-markets handle it? What is there to lose? Lower taxes? More insurance companies created from de-regulation? More choice? More freedom? Isn't that what America was founded on? The American government was never meant to be your nurse.

Again, I'm glad you admire socialism. But it's not upon what America was founded. As a U.S. citizen, it is not my role to provide for those what they will not provide for themselves.

Believe me, I've done my research. While you laud these systems (and even the citizens might like them for the most part), there is a price to pay. Whether it's financial or physical. I'm not making up the fact that tens of thousands wait in pain for months for treatment. I'm not making up the fact that these European countries you love so much tax their citizens a majority of their incomes to keep their INEFFICIENT systems afloat. Meanwhile, they have double-digit unemployment and GDP growth of 1 and 2 percent.

If you would cease the hyperbole and get your facts straight, it wouldn't appear that I was defending socialism.

Ireland, for instance, has universal health care, lower unemployment and higher growth rate than the US. The Heritage Foundation ranks it 7 on its Index of Economic Freedom. Singapore (not European) gets the number 2 spot, has universal health care, a GDP growth rate of 8.9% in 2004 and an unemployment rate of 3.4%, lower individual and corporate tax rates. Government spending is 14.6% of GDP compared to government spending for the US at 36.4% of GDP.

Perhaps you can provide an example of a country that has, what you would call, free market health care and does so successfully in terms of access to health care for its citizens, outcomes, and costs.

Most European countries have a higher income tax rate than the US, however, most also have a lower corporate tax rate. Some do, indeed, have a growth rate between 1 and 2 percent, and some exceed that of the US.

Why not take the government out of it completely and let the free-markets handle it? What is there to lose? Lower taxes? More insurance companies created from de-regulation? More choice? More freedom? Isn't that what America was founded on?

Some founding fathers admired the freedom of American Indians and then other Americans rounded them up and confined them to reservations. Certainly the concept of personal, political and economic freedom for women has changed since the establishment of our country. It would be interesting to know how the founding fathers would weigh in on universal health care if they were around today. Of one thing I am certain, they would have a lively debate. We sometimes forget that the Constitution is a product of compromise reached by men whose overwhelming common goal was to establish a functional stable government while protecting certain individual freedoms, they sought a revolutionary workable balance.

Perhaps you can provide a time period when American markets function with the freedom you imagine the founding fathers had in mind.

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.