Single Payer Bill Passes Calif. Senate

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

California's state Senate Thursday voted for a bill creating a single-payer health system Thursday.

The Associated Press: "The California Senate approved creating a government-run health care system for the nation's most populous state on Thursday, ignoring a veto threat from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger" (Thompson, 1/28)

The New York Times: "While the move came as questions arose over the prospects of Congress adopting national health care legislation, the author of the California bill, State Senator Mark Leno, said that the timing was coincidental. ... 'Scott Brown did not push me to do this,' said Mr. Leno, referring to the newly elected Republican senator from Massachusetts" (McKinley, 1/28).

San Francisco Chronicle: "The 22-14 vote was nearly party-line, with one Democrat, Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, voting no. It now moves to the Assembly." The plan would likely cost $200 billion a year (Buchanan, 1/29).

Other state health news includes Medicaid, veterans issues and a tobacco settlement.

The (Minneapolis) Star Tribune: "Minnesota's five state-owned veterans homes could save state taxpayers more than $4 million a year -- a tenth of the Legislature's annual appropriation -- by accepting federal Medicare and Medicaid payments for many of their residents, a new study finds." But the state would have to change its rule for admission to the homes and "reduce the flexibility that veterans have in controlling their finances" (Wolfe, 1/28).

Kansas Health Institute: "People without health insurance are generally charged more for the same hospital services than people who have coverage, a consumer spokesperson said Thursday after introducing legislation that would force hospitals 'to level the playing field'" (Shields, 1/28).

Chicago Tribune: "If you smoke and itch to quit, don't look to the state for help. Despite an annual infusion of about $300 million from the landmark tobacco settlement, Illinois continues to spend less than most others on programs designed to prevent people from lighting up, according to a national ranking" (Simmons, 1/29).

Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star: "Several [state] senators want to know whether Gov. Dave Heineman will work with them to fix the Nebraska's prenatal care program so all low-income women can continue to get prenatal services through Medicaid. State Health and Human Services Department leaders told senators Thursday they can't fix the prenatal care problem without a change in state law, putting the problem in the legislature's court ... Without a speedy resolution, more than one-sixth of the women who get prenatal care through Medicaid will no longer be eligible" (Hicks, 1/28).

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Repo...-watch-fri.aspx

[I'm Gone 60]

Don't they know when you are in a hole you stop digging? LOL

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Don't they know when you are in a hole you stop digging? LOL

Surrender at the very first setback?

Politics is attrition. This is going to go on for years and decades.

[Ali G. 37]

California is actually large enough for a single payer government system to work. However, they would also need to start constructing government owned and operated hospitals in order to control costs.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't they know when you are in a hole you stop digging? LOL

What if that hole is partly because of the state costs for millions of uninsured and under-insured? My wife's relative is an RN for hospital in LA. He's been there for 20 years and says there are plenty of people who come to the emergency room with no insurance and no way to pay.

[Craneman 2]

Don't they know when you are in a hole you stop digging? LOL

They are looking for a huge hole, and they know if they keep digging they will find it.

[Ali G. 37]

What if that hole is partly because of the state costs for millions of uninsured and under-insured? My wife's relative is an RN for hospital in LA. He's been there for 20 years and says there are plenty of people who come to the emergency room with no insurance and no way to pay.

I wonder what the status of these patients is. Even a fifth grader can do the math and estimate the hundreds of millions of dollars required to treat illegal aliens under such circumstances, which includes delivering their anchor-babies.

It's one thing for an American to be without insurance and rely on a hospital in an emergency and totally something else when someone who entered a sovereign nation illegally, exploits the must treat everyone loophole.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's more to the story...

SACRAMENTO — Saying that states may need to take the lead on healthcare reform if the effort in Congress stalls, members of the California Senate today approved a measure to establish a single-payer insurance system that would function much like Medicare to cover all Californians.

The vote was largely symbolic, as many of the details have yet to be worked out and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has already twice vetoed similar bills.

“Let us stipulate that single-payer is a long way off,” said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento.

Under such a system, private insurance companies would be replaced with a single government-run insurance plan. The more than $200 billion that California employers and their workers now pay in premiums would be paid instead in taxes to fund the government-run plan.

Advocates say such a system would reduce total health insurance expenses by sharply reducing administrative costs that now go to pay for marketing and administering private plans, as well as for insurance company profits. Such costs now account for 30 percent of healthcare costs, they say, compared with a 5 percent overhead cost for Medicare.

The vote was 22-14, with only majority Democrats in support.

The voting followed a robust debate reminiscent of the arguments heard in the halls of Congress late last year.

Republicans argued that a government-run insurance system would ultimately restrict consumer choices, while Democrats countered that a Medicare-like system would save money and halt the relentless upward march in insurance premiums.

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the author of SB 810, noted healthcare costs that absorbed 11 percent of the gross domestic product in 1986 have now climbed to 17 percent and are projected to reach 20 percent within five years.

“If we don’t contain costs soon, this will become ever more expensive,” he said, arguing that a single-payer system would remove “this 30 percent administrative cost we currently have that comes between the consumer of healthcare and the provider of healthcare.”

The debate included a sharp exchange between Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark, and Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, over the relative proficiency of government and the private sector to take care of the interests of the public.

“If you want the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the DMV running your healthcare, this bill’s for you,” Strickland said.

“If you want the compassion of Exxon and the dependability of Ameriquest, vote no,” countered Cedillo.

Leno argued the current system provides a built-in government bailout of the health insurance industry. “For-profit insurers are quite happy to take their ever-escalating premium dollars from us,” he said. “But if you actually need care, you’re dropped from coverage. You end up going to an emergency room for care, and who picks up the cost? The government.”

Republicans scorned Democrats for pursuing this plan in the wake of Sen.-elect Scott Brown’s upset special-election victory in Massachusetts last week — a victory they said was a repudiation by voters of health insurance reform.

“I’m running for office statewide, and I’d love for you to pass this bill and keep pushing this bill,” said Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, who is seeking the GOP nomination for lieutenant governor. “That would help me get elected.”

Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, whose district includes Oxnard and Port Hueneme, said most of the constituents she’s talked with support a single-payer system. “The status quo is simply unacceptable,” she said. “This is simply an expansion of a Medicare kind of system, one that works well and the public generally accepts.”

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jan/28/sta...ic-single-bill/

[Peikko 1,575]

Never never land politics? Yay!

[Ali G. 37]

The billion dollar question (literally) is going to be, will this coverage be extend to illegal aliens? If so, California is bankrupt as they cannot afford it period.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Booyah

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I wonder what the status of these patients is. Even a fifth grader can do the math and estimate the hundreds of millions of dollars required to treat illegal aliens under such circumstances, which includes delivering their anchor-babies.

It's one thing for an American to be without insurance and rely on a hospital in an emergency and totally something else when someone who entered a sovereign nation illegally, exploits the must treat everyone loophole.

Washington, D.C.—Approximately 12.1 million Californians—37.4 percent of residents under age 65—were uninsured at some point in time during 2007-2008, according to a report released today by the health consumer organization Families USA. In fact, 9.3 million of those uninsured Californians, 76.9 percent of the total, were uninsured for six months or more during that time.

The situation is a reflection of what is happening nationwide. Approximately 86.7 million Americans—one out of three people (33.1 percent) under 65 years of age—were uninsured at some point during 2007-2008. The Families USA report is an essential supplement to commonly-used Census Bureau data, such as the 45.7 million people deemed to be uninsured for the entire 2007 calendar year.

“The huge number of people without health coverage in California is worse than an epidemic,” said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA. “At this point, almost everyone in the country has had a family member, neighbor, or friend who was uninsured—and that’s why meaningful health care reform can no longer be kept on the back burner.”

The Families USA report reveals additional important demographic information about uninsured individuals in California:

• More than four out of five uninsured Californians, or 80.2 percent, were in working families, working full- or part-time.
  
• Almost three-fifths, or 59.3 percent, of those individuals and families in California with incomes below twice the poverty level—$42,400 of annual income for a family of four in 2008—went without health insurance at some point in 2007-2008.
  
• In addition, more than a quarter, or 26.2 percent, of those individuals and families in California with incomes at or above twice the poverty level—$42,400 of annual income for a family of four in 2008—went without health insurance at some point in 2007-2008.
  
• Hispanics/Latinos and African Americans in California were much more likely to be uninsured than whites: 52.6 percent of Hispanics/Latinos and 37.8 percent of African Americans went without health insurance in 2007-2008, compared to 24.7 percent of whites.
  

• 
  

link

[Peikko 1,575]

BY, it's already costing the state that amount, it's not going to be more because they are insured - it might even be less.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The billion dollar question (literally) is going to be, will this coverage be extend to illegal aliens? If so, California is bankrupt as they cannot afford it period.

If cost containment means curtailing emergency room visits by the uninsured, how would manage to curtail such a cost with respect to a person legal status? Turn them away from emergency rooms?

[Ali G. 37]

What is the status of these people? That might be insignificant in the Scandal world, however, in the real world this makes a huge difference.

The system can work if citizens and legal immigrants pay into the system but will fail on an epic scale if millions of illegal aliens working $6 jobs or less, with many being cash in hand, are thrown in.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Booyah

[Ali G. 37]

BY, it's already costing the state that amount, it's not going to be more because they are insured - it might even be less.

They should not be covered, hence my earlier point. These people are jumping the border and exploiting this legal loophole.

Californian schools are ranked almost last in the union. What do you guys think covering everyone is going to do to healthcare there? Much like the education system, it will drive it into the ground. Kumbaya is great in theory but there is a reason why no other first world country practices this, not even the socialist that are all about people.