Plan to give health care to every Californian moves forward

[SecularMotion]

Source: Tampa Bay Times

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers pushed forward Wednesday with a proposal that would substantially remake the health care system of the nation's most populous state by replacing insurance companies with government-funded health care for everyone.

The idea known as single-payer health care has long been popular on the left and is getting a new look in California as President Donald Trump looks to replace former President Barack Obama's health care law.

The proposal, promoted by the state's powerful nursing union and two Democratic senators, is a longshot. But supporters hope the time is right to persuade lawmakers in California, where Democrats like to push the boundaries of liberal public policy and are eager to stand up to the Republican president.

"It is time to say once and for all that health care is a right, not a privilege for those who can afford it," said Democratic Sen. Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens, who wrote the bill along with Democratic Sen. Toni Atkins of San Diego.

Read more: http://www.tbo.com/health/plan-to-give-health-care-to-every-californian-moves-forward-ap_health9945c400e5764fe19038d3544b12de88

[Left-over]

1. Why we don't have this for the whole country just amazes me.

[RKP5637]

2. Same here. It's made so complicated. As usual, follow the money trail. Also, healthcare in the

US costs twice what it is in other nations, and we do not have the best healthcare. Again, it's all about money in the US, not good healthcare.

[ehrnst]

3. Canada made single payer federally funded only after all the provinces had done so independently.

It took them 20 years, until 1964, and was still being tweaked and changed legislatively in 1999.

It may take us that long. Or longer - Vermont single payer failed, and Coloradocare got soundly defeated in November.

[ehrnst]

4. Should have been done in the Truman adminstration

when it would not have been a retrofit, and would have become part of the postwar economy rebuilding.

Now health care infrastructure is such a large part of the GDP, and involves so many different industries, it's way more of a challenge.

Making huge changes too quickly to such a huge entity will have consequences, and those consequences include the delivery of health care, so any major mistake implementing would involve everyone's health care, and would enable politicians to say that it's too dangerous to continue.


Those are some of the reasons why we don't have it, and why it's not as easy as it might seem.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. It was tried. AMA opposed it.

Interesting that it was called "W-M-D plan". Weapon of Mass Destruction? No ...

https://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/healthprogram.htm

[ehrnst]

12. They opposed Medicaid and Medicare as well (nt)

[IronLionZion]

8. Truman wanted it but red scare was taking over America at the time

Johnson also tried but ended up getting us Medicare and Medicaid. When Taiwan studied many different systems, they selected America's Medicare as the one they wanted for their country.

Getting their countries destroyed by the war is what prompted a lot of Europe to develop national health care programs. There was no feasible way to treat their many wounded otherwise. The more destroyed countries got more socialistic systems like UK and Germany. The less destroyed ones got more market influenced systems like Switzerland.

[ehrnst]

11. Johnson had to lie about what Medicare and Medicaid would actually cost

because he knew it never would have passed. The CBO would prevent anyone doing that now.

Taiwan is also a very, very small population compared to the US, so they didn't have a large infrastructure overhaul.

Not to mention - Medicare isn't single payer. You need another payer for Rx, dental, hearing and vision. What has been described as "medicare for all" which includes all those thing is way, way, way more expensive than actual Medicare.

[IronLionZion]

13. The costs of providing care is the real problem, way more than the cost of insurance

with real political costs. If we had single payer that tried negotiating down costs of procedures, supplies, devices, etc it would be accused of rationing care through socialism. 1/7 of our economy means a lot of Americans are making a living from it and have an interest in keeping costs high.

If a large liberal state like California can manage to have single payer and use their tremendous purchasing power to do something to control costs of providing care, that would go a long way towards inspiring other states how it can be done.

It's disappointing that politicians have to lie to do the right thing. Johnson also straight up lied about the effects of civil rights and immigration reform too, and we are better off because of it.

It would be interesting to go back in a time machine and have FDR pass national health care as part of the new deal, back when people wanted socialism to keep from starving to death.

[IronLionZion]

6. Good, and this time Arnold isn't there to veto it

California's state legislature had passed single payer twice already.

If this works out, CA is bigger than many countries and should be able to inspire other US states to do the same.

Vermont came close a few years ago.

[RDANGELO]

7. This could be the start of it.

California is big enough to make it work. Say Oregon wanted to go in the same direction, but they don't have a large enough population. California might be willing to let them merge into their pool.

[muntrv]

9. We should frame it as "giving everyone health insurance."

[ehrnst]

10. Problem is the word "giving" because health care professionals are paid

And the right wing is all about fear of "giving" what they feel they have earned to "those people" who didn't.

"Affordable health care" is something everyone understands, however, people who believe that they already have affordable health care - including many who are on Medicare, will balk because they think making it affordable for everyone means that they will have to pay more.

Not sure if there is a way to spin it that won't invite division, especially when the word "government" or "federal" enters the conversation.

[geretogo]

14. Keep marching forward California and don't look back .