We can't even get our party behind a single payer system

[SHRED]

Forget about Repubs. We need to work on ourselves.
I think a massive effort by our party to help California work this out would be ideal. Set the stage for the entire country.

But no...we have a speaker here in California who thinks he knows what's best.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/california-democratic-speaker-killed-his-own-partys-plan-for-single-payer-healthcare/

[Adrahil]

1. That is at least partially because....

people like me are terrified of what a system like that would look like with the GrOPers having such power in excess of their actual support.

Would such a system cover abortions? Birth control? Transgender care? "Sin" diseases?

I'm not comfortable with a single payer system unless those kinds of things have iron clad coverage that can;t just be defunded by someone like Trump for the GrOPer Congress on a whim.

[SHRED]

4. That is why California is a good place to start

Set the gold standard in a big and politically friendly state as an example.

[Adrahil]

9. Don't disagree....

So long as they can get the funding mechanisms sorted out, including the Medicare and Medicaid payments.

[SHRED]

11. Hard to do...

...since the bill has been shelved.

[stevenleser]

49. Even harder since state legislatures have limited abilities to affect Medicare. nt

[zipplewrath]

2. It's about the money

Single payer at the state level is going to be hard to achieve without extensive cooperation from the feds. They need access to the money that the feds would otherwise spend on Medicare/caid, Vets, SSI, etc. It's going to be hard enough if they try to force the unions and private businesses to participate in such a system. I suspect the current effort in California got started when they thought that there'd be a democratic president with which to work on this. At this point, they've got a hard job figuring out how to "go it alone".

[tonyt53]

5. You hit the nail on the head. It isn't as simple as waving a magic wand.

[zipplewrath]

6. Not at the state level

I was massively disappointed at the national level how the democrats couldn't rally around anything looked anything like single payer, and "took it off the table" from the very first day. Ultimately they couldn't even muster the public option, which was the most immediate path to single payer (or something functionally equivalent).

This just really can't be done at the state level without significant cooperation from the feds.

[comradebillyboy]

3. Too bad voters aren't willing to pay

the price for single payer. European countries have high VATs and very high income taxes to pay for their social safety net. BTW France, which is reputed to have the best health care system in the world, is not single payer. Perhaps a more doable goal of affordable universal coverage is more realistic.

[zipplewrath]

7. Oh, they would/will

Bernie was trying to explain that if you access the same funds that are currently used to pay for health insurance, it really won't cost anymore. But that means accessing the money that companies pay, that employees pay, that the states pay, the unions pay, and the federal government pays, including VA benefits. And that always ends up being represented as "new taxes" instead of the more honest explanation that it is "taxing" money that is already being "collected".

[brooklynite]

21. I'm going to suggest that Warren will be a far better advocate for SP than Sanders was...

...especially since she has contacts in the Wall Street and business communities.

[cstanleytech]

8. SHRED please research before posting things like that in the future because if

you had bothered to do that you would know that RAW left out alot of key things in that article such as https://speaker.asmdc.org/press-releases/speaker-rendon-statement-health-care
which the speaker explains why its not being put to a vote for now.

[SHRED]

10. And shelving this bill does what?

How does work on it continue?

What am I missing?

http://www.healthycaliforniaact.org/single-payer-healthcare-for-california-is-in-fact-very-doable-fact-doable/

[cstanleytech]

12. It gives them time to work on it and fix the problems unless you think rushing through things like

the Repugnants are doing with their healthcare plan is a good idea.

[SHRED]

13. So a "shelved" bill will be worked on?

[cstanleytech]

19. Only that incarnation of it.

Discussion will probably still continue and hopefully they find a way to fix the problems with it and then it will go to a vote and if its a good bill then hopefully it will get enough votes to pass if its a bad unworkable bill then hopefully it doesnt get enough votes to pass
.

[Blue_true]

39. Some people would rather throw up stuff rather than painfully think through and resolve each major

problem. That is why the Sarandons, Wests, Smileys, Turners give us President Trump to contend with instead of the saner and far more moral President Clinton.

[R B Garr]

41. +1000, and that's exactly what happened here. It was an incomplete bill and forced

elected Democrats to address the costs, all that in a time when the federal funding is in question. This wasn't really a good faith bill, but a manipulative political football, which gives an opening to malign Democrats who can't run with it because it's not complete. Now Democrats -- elected Democrats --are maligned because they have to address the costs. It's really dishonest what happened here.

[still_one]

52. That is exactly right RB. Pushing a bill through with out dealing with issues such a financing,

delivery of care, cost controls, and how much federal funding we will get is critical, and part of that concerns the fate of the ACA, the subsidies, expanded Medicaid, and other sources of funds that the feds supply to the states. That money will be used to help finance this bill, plus tax payers dollars.

The worst thing that can happen is pushing something through without addressing the costs adequately so it fails. That is what happened in Vermont. They had a Single payer bill reach the Governor, only to be vetoed because they did not have adequate financing to make it work.

The California bill was put on hold. It is still alive. It was not killed.

[NCTraveler]

14. This would be an enormous accomplishment for a state.

Last edited Wed Jun 28, 2017, 02:26 PM - Edit history (1)

I personally think we should let them keep doing the overall good work they are doing. They have tons of experts helping out. They don't need a bunch of rank political amateurs chiming in.

The states economy is so large that this could be ground zero for single payer in the US. We do not want a "Vermont" to happen there. We need for it to succeed.

[yallerdawg]

15. If California had universal health care...

what would keep everyone in the US who wanted it from moving to California?

[NobodyHere]

17. The same thing that keeps people from moving to Canada?

But really details like this need to be figured out.

[yallerdawg]

22. When I move to California, I'm still a US citizen.

Until California secedes, it's not the same thing at all.

I'm pretty sure if I told Canada I was just there for free health care, they'd tell me to take a flyin' leap!

Most states have SOME residency requirements before state benefits kick in - but if every other state is uncovering their citizens (to the tune of 50,000,000 minus California residents), California residency requirements would just be Step One!

[SHRED]

26. You can't just move to Canada

Citizenship is difficult if not impossible.

[NCTraveler]

24. Employment. Housing. Family.

There would be waiting with respect to state residency laws.

Other than that I don't see what the problem would be. Follow the rules and you are a citizen of the state.

[yallerdawg]

27. 51,000,000 uninsured in 2026?

Ever seen or read "Grapes of Wrath"?

[NCTraveler]

33. I don't see the issue.

They are all going to flock to California to be homeless, jobless, yet get insurance after six months or a year?

How many of those 51 million are between the age of 25-55?

Just throwing out numbers and saying "Grapes of Wrath" does not make a solid argument.

[yallerdawg]

37. It WILL be the homeless, jobless and disabled.

Many between 56 - 65.

You don't believe people in this country don't move for better opportunity from where there is none?

Won't you be needing farm workers and nannies soon?

Books WILL be written.

[NCTraveler]

38. Homeless, jobless, with the possibility of insurance is not an opportunity...

For an overwhelming majority of the well defined 51 million you mentioned.

I hope there are books written about California's single payer program.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

31. Same thing that keeps a lot of people out of CA now:

a very high cost of living. If millions more people moved to CA to save $$$ on health care, it would drive the already-high cost of housing even higher, possibly erasing any benefit to those people.

I suppose if you were facing ruinous health-care costs in another state, then it would be worth it to move to CA just for free treatment and live wherever you could until you were well, but that strategy (lots of seriously ill people temporarily moving to CA to get treatment) would be the worst-case scenario for the single-payer system staying solvent.

[JI7]

44. housing costs

[haele]

16. Please - it wasn't killed. It was put on hold. A lot of the funding was dependent on Medicaid...

And because of the new BS Kill the disposable Poor Wealthcare efforts in the House and Senate, the bill has to go back because without a secure source of funding, it's not ready for a vote.

I have a nasty feeling it won't be ready for a vote until after the 2018 elections - when the fate of the ACA and Medicaid in the U.S. is finally decided.
Depending on what happens on the Federal Level California needs to be in the position to add the State taxes necessary to fully fund an affordable and comprehensive Single Payer program that won't also "double tax" Employers and Medicaid/Medicare recipients - groups that can least afford a double tax.

As tough as it is because we need Single Payer - especially in my household, with disabled and high risk pool dependents (including daughter and two grandkids we have guardianship of - also dependents on my employer's plan), and the specter of unaffordable premiums and deductibles because of this new "Buy Coffins Right Away" Wealthcare bill going through the Senate - I'd still rather have a Single Payer program that won't fail and bring the State down with it, than pass Single Payer and wonder how to fund it when the GOP gleefully looks for ways to pull the rug out from under California's economy.

Haele

[rogue emissary]

18. What's needed is facts and a plan.

I brought this up in the Warren thread. Since she said Dems should run on Single Payer. We need a bill that addresses liberal concerns. As well as how much it will cost a typical consumer. Right now the Senate doesn't even have Single Payer or Medicaid for All legislation in the current session.

I'm one of those skeptical of running on Single Payer, but healthcare is finnally front of mind for a lot of people. So I'm willing put my skepticism aside to try a different approach. Especially since Obamacare has gotten people to think about healthcare beyond when you're in desperate need of medical services.

[Demsrule86]

20. There is no way to fund it .

[R B Garr]

23. WRONG! CA Assemblyman Speaker Rendon counters Bernie Sanders/fans with ACTUAL FACTS:

NPR--his comments start around the 3:11 mark and go until around 11-minute mark (edit to add direct link)
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2017/06/27/57622/assembly-speaker-anthony-rendon-on-postponing-cali/

Some highlights of his comments:
-The bill submitted was just a statement of principles/values, NOT an actual bill. (obviously submitted just to grandstand)
-He'll put his progressive record up against anyone, and lists off his accomplishments, which actually sound better than the Senator from Vermont.
--Have to get a waiver from the federal government (i.e., now the Trump Administration!)

More at the link. He is for single payer, and has supported it long before 2015, which is when the bandwagon started.

Quit bashing California Democrats. Enough was done bashing New York simply because Wall Street is there.

Note: NONE of these comments about the real reason this was shelved (not an actual bill, especially since it doesn't address costs), --none of these comments match the grandstanding comments that are really just too phony to bother repeating.

What a shame that our party is being maliciously maligned like this!

[bettyellen]

30. Thank you! Facts matter people. Stop bashing Dems.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I rather have a public option.

Most folk get their health care through their employer and like it. I am not going to tell them they don't know what is best for them. We will have the "if you like your doctor you can keep him or her" problem on steroids. I will let anybody buy into the public option including employers.

[Trial_By_Fire]

28. Yes, it seems Dems are against (or at least not for) single payer healthcare...

We as Americans can make it happen. Medicare for All is already established for 65 and over. That means the funding mechanism, the back office operations, the provider interface, and the popularity are already in place. It can be expanded to accommodate more and more age groups until everyone is covered.

California can make it work as a starting point as well. There would have to be cooperation between CA and the feds for the ACA funding: subsidies and Medicaid. But that is not to say CA could not do it on it's own.

If Dems informs the public that they will implement single payer, there would be nothing stopping it, except for the greedy Wall Street health insurers.

We as Americans can make anything happen - it just takes the will of the people and leadership to get it done correctly. But that does not mean it will be perfect right out of the box - just like the any program that USA enacts.

Yes, SHRED, we can do it!

[R B Garr]

32. bwahahaha, yes, Wall Street stopped this bill in California....

"If Dems informs the public that they will implement single payer, there would be nothing stopping it, except for the greedy Wall Street health insurers."

you stick with that... Submit incomplete bills everywhere, and then malign elected Democrats who have to ask why it doesn't address costs. Good show.

[Trial_By_Fire]

34. Reading comprehension....

My post was generalized on how we the people can make single payer work.
The only ones that will try to stop it are the greedy Wall Street health insurers.
But I will also add "greedy corporate politicians'.

[R B Garr]

36. Your post is not about single payer actually working.

It's not at all about that. Submitting incomplete bills so that elected Democrats are forced to address the cost factor isn't about actually implementing single payer. It's about grandstanding.

[JHan]

45. ++++++++

[still_one]

53. That is exactly why single payer failed in Vermont, because when it reached the Governor's office

they found they didn't have adequate funding, and the Governor had to veto it

[Demsrule86]

42. Democrats are not against single payer...I think it would be great. But it won't work

because Americans will not pay the taxes needed...start with a public option and move on from there. We have no shot at getting it at the moment. I prefer Sen. Warren fight to save the ACA which is doable.

[Trial_By_Fire]

46. 'Taxes' is not a valid argument against single payer...

[NobodyHere]

60. Many if not most Americans disagree with you

[Binkie The Clown]

29. From the Greek...

demos - the mob
kratia - rule

Democratic party is the party of mob rule. No two Democrats ever seem to agree on anything. (With the exception of "Trump is an asshole&quot .

[alarimer]

35. It won't happen until our current system completely collapses.

With 90% of people unable to secure insurance at any price. I believe that day will come, even with the ACA (only more slowly than with the abomination the GOP is contemplating).

Imagine a situation in which no one has insurance and can afford care. I think that is what it will take before we come to our senses.

But there are other solutions other than single payer.

[Demsrule86]

43. I a so sick of this sort of talk...do you have any idea how many would die if this were to happen.

Also, I am not sure we would get it even then. We can not tear it down for some pie in the sky revolution. It won't happen.

[alarimer]

56. The failure of the system as it exists now is INEVITABLE.

It has slowly crumbled for years, with more and more costs shifted to the individual. Sooner or later, all insurance plans will be priced more than anyone can reasonably afford.

[Demsrule86]

59. No is not...Switzerland has insurance companies...and it won't fail.

We can fix it and add price controls...we can begin letting older folks have medicare earlier...there are ways...but a big single payer bill will never happen.

[leftstreet]

47. Most people get insurance through their employer

That would probably need to 'collapse' first

[alarimer]

57. Yes, for years they've shifted costs to us.

It started out as higher copays and deductibles. I've had jobs where my employer paid the entire premium for the employee. Soon the employee was required to start paying (what starts out as) as small percentage, maybe $50 a month. But they will keep shifting costs or dropping plans altogether. Because insurance companies kept raising prices to ensure their own profits (and CEO pay in the millions).

Without some kind of price controls, the system as it stands will collapse. Maybe that means the government simply tells insurance companies they cannot charge more than X for a given package of benefits. And controlling costs at the point of origin.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

40. I think we need to save the ACA first

If Trumpcare goes through, it sets back efforts towards single payer overall for a long time. At this point, it seems like we'll be lucky if we can keep the modest gains we've made under ACA. Uniting to get Trump out of the WH in 2020 and electing Democrats in droves in 2018 and 2020 would help tremendously too.

[G_j]

48. California could have set a course that

would have substantially helped open the way for all Americans to have health care. A Democrat derailed that opportunity? What's wrong with this picture?

[R B Garr]

50. A Democrat pointed out that the bill was not ready to sign because it didn't

address costs. That means it was derailed upon submission because it wasn't complete. So that is what is wrong with the picture.

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. Not just CA, but it couldn't be done in the home of the loudest and most vociferous spokesman for...

single payer. Do it VT first, and let the nation see how it works out.

[still_one]

54. It isn't dead in California, it is on hold. They have to see how much federal funding will be

available under trump which depends on the fate of the ACA subsidies, expanded Medicaid, etc. in order to evaluate where the funding will come from, and how much will be needed.

The Single Payer plan in Vermont went all the way to the Governor's office where it was vetoed because it was determined that the funding required wouldn't work.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. We can get to universal care with a Medicare expansion without single payer

A lot of people do want to keep the expensive private healthcare that they have and there is no need to take that option away from them

Most countries have a dual system to achieve universal health coverage