Posted on 02/10/2005 7:46:33 AM PST by MedNole
LA JOLLA ---- Two state assemblymen told health officials in La Jolla on Tuesday that they plan to propose a sweeping health-care reform package in Sacramento on Thursday that would likely require all Californians to have health insurance.
State Assemblymen Joe Nation, D-Marin, and Dr. Keith Richman, R-Chatsworth, told health officials who gathered at UC San Diego to discuss the future of health care that they had been working on the comprehensive reform package that would "shake up the status quo," for more than a year.
Health-care officials, meanwhile, representing insurers, hospitals, doctors, county health services, academics and think-tank groups said California's, and the nation's, health-care system was broken and costs are spiraling out of control ---- in part because too many people don't have health insurance.
Officials said people without health insurance, or not enough health insurance, can't pay for their medical coverage.
That, they said, forces insurers, hospitals and doctors to try to make up shortfalls by passing the costs on to patients who have health insurance ---- an action that contributes to a continuing upward spiral in the cost of health care for everyone.
Neither assemblyman would go into the details of exactly what their "multi-bill" plan would entail.
But they strongly hinted that it would, if passed, require all Californians to have health-insurance coverage ----- just like car insurance.
"The system is crumbling," Richman said. "It's 6.4 million people (in California) who are currently not in the system who are not contributing to the financial stability of our entire health-care system."
Officials said that health-care costs in California have risen to $150 billion, and that the annual health-care costs for a family of four is roughly $10,000.
Richman and health experts on the panel of experts at Tuesday's seminar hosted by the Rand Corp. and the Communications Institute said there were multiple reasons why health-care costs continue to rapidly increase.
Those reasons include:
State and federal health insurance for the poor ---- Medi-Cal and Medicare ---- are too complicated, need to be simplified and "streamlined," and do not pay doctors and hospitals enough to cover medical service.
The cost of prescription drugs, pushed by incessant television marketing, continues to rise at double-digit percentages each year.
That patients over-use expensive drugs ---- rather than generics ---- and medical treatments, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging and surgical procedures such as "stomach stapling," that they do not necessarily need.
That a significant portion of California's, and the nation's, population is getting older, meaning they need and use health-care services more often.
That expensive technological advancements such as hip, knee and other joint replacements continue to be used more and more.
In addition, Dana Goldman, a senior economist with the Rand Corp., and others said people are living longer than ever before, giving them a chance to be stricken with aging illnesses such as heart and lung disease that are often expensive to treat.
Michael Murphy, president and chief executive officer of Sharp Healthcare, said, "The system isn't working ... only one-third of hospitals in the state are making money. There have been eight hospital closures in the state of California in the last six months."
Surprisingly, Goldman said, many people who do not have health insurance are not poor.
He said recent studies show that more than one-third of the population who are uninsured have income levels that are twice the federal poverty level.
Those same studies showed that 55 percent of those who are uninsured are young ---- between the ages of 18 and 34.
San Diego's Dr. Bob Hertzka, president of the California Medical Association, said the association believes that a partial solution is for the government to mandate "individual health insurance coverage" ---- meaning that everyone in the state would be required to pay for health insurance.
Goldman said that could possibly be just for "catastrophic coverage," to start out with, just to prevent hospitals from having to eat the cost of expensive treatment for uninsured people who suffer traumatic car wrecks or serious illnesses.
Richman, meanwhile, said he agreed with all the observations at Tuesday's seminar. He said the legislative package he and Nation plan to unveil Thursday would be far-reaching and would not "just be talking about a mandate for universal coverage."
"When I started in the Legislature in 2000-2001, health care was a crisis," Richman said. "And it's only gotten worse. I really believe that this is the opportunity to make some real changes in our health-care system. We're going to roll out something on Thursday ... I think it will shake up the system."
You no doubt already know this, but the State is now subsidizing car insurance for low-income drivers. Gee, I wonder where the State gets "its" money?
That's all I could think of when I saw the headline. How does a state enforce this? Deport you to Arizona? Shoot you in the head?
Pinz
I am still trying to figure out how my low-life sister-in-law who makes $9.00 an hour and pays no taxes gets a refund ( bigger than mine ) on something she didn't pay into.
She also has state welfare insurance or whatever you call it so I ( you/we ) pay that so she can have kids and stay drunk.
Exactly. I smell Blue Cross/Blue Shield hoping to become government contractors. I also smell campaign contributions to State Assemblymen Joe Nation, D-Marin, and Dr. Keith Richman, R-Chatsworth, from health insurance companies.
Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."
LOL I'd hate to see the uninsured maternity patients! ;-)
Pinz
I say deport them to Detroit....
Forget billing Mexico. Take it out of the $600 milllion that we are going to give Mexico this year.
However, when Bush gives Mexico the totalization agreement on social security , then more than half of Mexico will be on medicare. Guess who gets to pay for that monstrosity?
They shoot you ? Talk about ironic if true.
You are crazy. Insurance is socialism. Mandatory insurance is mandatory socialism.
Insurance is where everyone pays into a pool and benefits are paid out according to "need". It is the very embodiment of Karl Marx.
Notice the authors of this insanity MADE NO MENTION OF TORT REFORM.
What happens right now if an uninsured kid splatters himself on a motorcycle????
He STILL gets treatment, but if he had insurance, at least YOU wouldn't have to pay for it.
that's the only way health care is going to survive.
but the dems will want to exclude from responsibility their tenants on the democrat plantation.
the dems will say that po' illegals can't afford to pay.
and then they'll send the tv cameras over to south central los angeles for some more whining.
Only emergency treatment. Under your preference YOU would still be paying, but paying for more.
/figures
So, should we just refuse all emergency treatment to people that can't afford it? Should we refuse to treat uninsured people in car accidents? Who are having an acute MI? Uninsured kids with leukemia? Uninsured on dialysis?
People without insurance are leeches on all of us. If we require them to a cheap indemnity plan (with a $5,000/year deductible), then it will save ALL of us money.
WOW... I cannot believe the number of so-called Conservatives on this website who are excited about legislation that puts more Government into their lives.
Who will pay the premiums for the people who can't afford to pay for health insurance after this passes? Well, you can rest assured that the next piece of legislation that passes after this one will be one that provides insurance to the "working poor", "welfare class", "unemployed", and "other disadvantaged groups". It's going to cost the taxpayers.
Who will enforce this law? Count on a new Department of Medical Insurance, staffed by hundreds of political cronies of the legislators - making 6-figure salaries. It's going to cost the taxpayers.
What's the remedy if someone doesn't have insurance? Count on the formation of a Committee on Determining Enforcement Mechanisms. It's going to cost the taxpayers.
Sorry, this legislation is not for me... keep the Government away from the health industry.
Insurance itself is the big cost raiser and always has been. Because of insurance, Docs started charging more because the insurance companies could pay more than individuals, then insurance companies raised their rates to cover the costs of the treatments docs were charging, the docs charged more, then insurnace raised again, and on and on. Now, we here it is the fault of people who have to weight between buying food and paying rent and having health insurance. This is BS.
Also, forcing people to have insurance, car or health, is definately big brotherish and, IMO, is unconstitutional.
If this goes into affect, what will the penalty be for not having health insurance? Are they going to stop people on the street and demand an insurance card?
The article said "Healthcare costs," not insurance coverage.
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.