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."
Makes you wonder who is going to destroy California first, God or the Democrats? Since compliance with auto insurance laws is about 60% (it went from 50% to 60% in Washington when they mandated it, then it trickled back down a bit), you would need a huge government infrastructure trying to enforce compliance. Someone has to pay for that and I know who it would be.
I thoroughly understand the med mal problems, and its HUGE impact on health care costs. However, I think that the uninsured receiving free health care is just as big of a problem.
You are on the wrong website.
How would this work?
Track them for what?
What to do with people who have no money is a question as well. The whole thing is preposterous.
My opinion is people with chronic illnesses who can not pay and have no insurance, probably should be untreated.
It is just too expensive.
ER bills for acute problems, are not a major budget busting expense.
Since when is the legislature going to pay any heed to what you suggest? We're talking political reality here, not ideals.
The above example is evidence of my theory that it is crime that causes poverty and not that poverty is the actual cause of crime.
The majority of which is the health insurance.
The clap is better than herpes too.
It would depend, who is going to pay for this???
Probably taxpayers, and property owners will pay dearly.
Crime is caused by criminals.
....gee, they forgot to include illegals???????I'm sure it was just a typo!
Yes, and at taxpayers expense probably too.
I like the idea too.
This also eliminates the disparity between rates for those with insurance and those without, since everyone will be with. The structure of 60%-70% off of normal rates will dissappear.
But I think they should combine it with the idea of HSA's. And then allow the deductibles on the insurance to rise to truly catastrophic levels as and only as the balance of the HSA rises.
I agree with this 100%. But mandatory insurance is not the same as voluntary insurance.
Oh, yes we would have to pay for it. Tax rates are soaring.
Who pays for the health care of the uninsured now? You do.
These indemnity policies don't cover doctor visits, drugs, or lab costs. They would only cover catastrophic expenses, and there would be at least a $5,000 deductible.
Yes, unfortunately, it is the insurance companies and the politicians that win the game. The public is on the hook for the prizes and the coffee and donuts.
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.