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.
I am supposed to say that because folks are sick and aren't covered that the government should have health insurance for all. That's the quickest answer, apparently. Let the Fed do it.
Insurance should be personal. My car insurance is personal. Why doesn't my employer pay for that?
This system is what makes it so doggone expensive.
You tell docs that there's a hundred companies out there with billions in coverage money, then the docs are going to increase their prices.
If the docs see all of us walk in and all we've got is our wallet and our savings account, then they will charge accordingly.
Universal health care will not make any difference. It will result in far lessened coverage. I saw it in Germany. I hear about what takes place in Canada.
In short, the person dies with that kind of plan, PM.
Therefore, it is better to have privately owned insurance with lesser coverage than it is to have a government program that allows people to die for refusal to cover.
See #81
It's niether. It's a market service. It's a service and product folks are engaged in selling. Too bad the govm't got involved and wrecked havoc in the market.
It's also part of an early warning and prevention system for the human eco-system. A nasty bug hits your community, access to a doctor can stop it fairly quickly.
Brilliant Arnie! Hospitals in my area of Calif. are barely hanging on due to low Medi-Cal reimbursements and he is going to tack on a 4% tax. Arnold was emasculated by the unions 2 elections ago in the Nov. 2005 Special Statewide Election. He is just a hollow-shell "go-along-to-get-along" Austrian Socialist now.
And makes it easy to reject people with pre-existing conditions.
Human ecosystems don't feel pain, get crippled and die; people do. It's individuals that will seek out the services. This isn't about etherial transmission of communicable diseases. In general, the docs may be able to handle any particular one and maybe not. This is about having those that work hard pay for everyone elses incompitancies and laziness, w/o regard.
Unless there's motivation for those engaging in the med market to control costs, they won't be. The ones with enough money to pay the taxes for everyone elses healthcare will continue to pay, regardless of complaint. On top of that freedom will be lost, and justified by all the complaints.
I had pnuemonia and a 2 year old. Sometimes one doesn't have the privilige of being knocked on ones butt.
Human ecosystems don't feel pain, get crippled and die; people do.
So, you get some guy with a nasty bug in the kitchen of the local restaurant making your salad and trying to ride out what he thinks is a cold -- because a doc is a hundred bucks a visit. You get some parent who puts off having their kid checked out until pay day and sends the kid to school with meninigitis.
According to an article in JAMA, if insurance companies did nothing more than adapt a universal insurance form, health care in the US would cost 112 billion dollars less a year.
Which church is doing that?
"I had pnuemonia and a 2 year old. Sometimes one doesn't have the privilige of being knocked on ones butt."
Congratulations. I had pnuemonia and 2 kids to care for.
My point was that pnuemonia is NOT like having a cold. You feel very sick, tired, exhausted. You experience breathing difficulties. The symptoms are much worse than a cold. You know that you need to see a doctor.
Being uninsured (or having children to care for) doesn't excuse someone from using common sense and seeking professional help when experiencing symptoms as critical as pnuemonia.
"Which church is doing that?"
WE are the Church. Through giving and missions, many people today are being helped through the generosity of charitable donations. After all, throughout history the care of the sick was entrusted to monastic orders and religious communities.
The government has (wrongly) usurped this roll through taxation and inefficient bureaucracy.
You have a reference to that JAMA article, what issue it was in, or who published it? I'd much appreciate it if you happen to remember.
So what do we do until that is remedied? Let 'em eat cake?
Heathcare is not a normal commodity. There always is and always will be more demand than supply. Moreover, it is a public good because the public in general has an interest that its individuals maintain a certain level of good health so that they are productive tax-paying members of society.
Therefore balancing the cost-effective positives of a free-market with the balance required for the above requirements is not all that simplistic as you make it seem. This is why through the various federal programs (medicare / medicaid), Americans have virtual nationalized coverage, but because of simpplisitc thinking and corproate interests the US also has the world's most expensive system (US = 16% of GDP; Germany = 13% of GDP; Japan = 8% of GDP) that still doesn't cover 15% of the population.
The boast that America has the world's best health care is only true if you believe that a system that costs more than any other, covers a lower percentage of people and produces a life-expectancy that is the lowest among comparable countries constitutes "the best".
Who's eating cake?
Like I said in the case of my nephew, there are ALREADY charitable organizations that are helping the poor/uninsured. If the government got out of the health care business (yeah, right), then the Church (us) would naturally provide for the needy- just like it always has and always will.
Certainly, one answer is to not get any deeper into entitlements (which is basically what Arnold is proposing).
.........It takes a village!
Nothing will change after taxes are raised and the cost is hidden in a fabulous hand waiving act. The law protects against this action now. it's the employer that's posing the risk. For your info, most of the contamination in sits like this is deliberate, not accidental. I really don't care why he's sick. He's sick and contaminating the food. what the hell difference does it make what the contamination is?
"You get some parent who puts off having their kid checked out until pay day and sends the kid to school with meninigitis. "
Bacterial meningitis just comes on all of a sudden. It's passed before one even develops symptoms. Do you think I should have to pay the $100 every time someone feels "under the weather"? If they eat too much candy, down too much pop, or get off their sleep schedule and get a bit of a headache, should I have to pay for the millions of kids weekly that do this to be examined for bacterial meningitis?
They'll ban cake soon after they get their single payer. They'll justify it, because they're paying for it.
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.