Senate passes 'Medicare for all', 59% of voters approve

[Craig234]

Oh, wait, that's in California.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/28-7

So, this is what happens when the legislature is Democratic and not blocked by a filibuster abused by a Republican minority, and not - somehow - as overwhelmed by corporatism dominating some Democrats.

Bills like this - or the passage of non-discriminatin against gays on marriage (vetoed by Schwarzeneggar).

Some Republicans argued against the federal healtcare bill, understandably, on the basis that voters don't approve this version. I asked them, would they support, then, a version they don't like the voters approve?

We'll see, based on the reported 59% voter appproval of this bill, from the righty responses if they are consistent on using voters to decide - or only when they agree.

It's no problem to say you are just noting voter opinion but not using it to justify a position on the issue, but if you say, 'take this position because voters do', it's not too consistent to ignore them.

Good for my state's legislature approving this (the Assembly is expected to approve it also).

I'm not so optimistic about our Republican corporatist governor. At least he'll be gone soon, but he might be replaced by another Republican corporatist, the well-funded former CEO of eBay.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have added the details from the sponsors Web page which may help clarify questions within the thread

Common Courtesy



Actual Web Page Details

Truly Universal: Eligibility is based on residency, instead of on employment or income. Under the Act, all residents are covered. No California resident will ever again lose his or her health insurance because of unaffordable insurance premiums, because he or she changes or loses a job, goes to or graduates from college or has a pre-existing medical condition.

Shared Responsibility: Under the Act everyone – individuals, employers and government pays something in and everyone gets healthcare.

Affordable: The plan involves NO NEW SPENDING on healthcare. The system will be paid for by federal, state and county monies already being spent on healthcare and by affordable insurance premiums that replace all premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket payments and co-pays now paid by employers and consumers.

Total Choice: Under SB 810, delivery of care remains as it is; a competitive mix of public and private providers. All consumers have complete freedom to choose their healthcare providers. No more restrictive HMO networks.

Fair Reimbursements: The Act requires actuarially sound reimbursements for providers. Doctors, nurses, hospitals and other healthcare providers will receive fair and reasonable reimbursements for all covered services they provide. No more uncompensated care.

Efficient: The Act eliminates waste by consolidating the functions of many insurance companies into one comprehensive insurance plan, saving the state and consumers billions of dollars each year. Currently about half of every dollar spent on healthcare is squandered on clinical and administrative waste, insurance company profits, and overpriced pharmaceuticals. The Act is based on a model that has been estimated to save California about $20 billion through reduced administrative costs in the first year alone.

Under the Act, California will use its purchasing power to buy prescription drugs and durable medical equipment in bulk. It has been estimated that this model of systemwide bulk purchasing could save California $5.2 billion in the first year.

Most importantly, the Act will make our healthcare system more reliable and secure by stabilizing the growth in health spending; linking spending increases to state GDP and population growth, employment rates and other relevant demographic indicators.

The Act will combine needed cost controls with medical standards that use the best available medical science, and place an emphasis on preventative and primary care to improve California’s overall health in a way that also saves billions of dollars.

The Act utilizes proven financial incentives that support the delivery of high quality care, including bonuses for providers working in rural or under-served areas. The plan invests in needed healthcare infrastructure such as electronic claims and reimbursement systems and statewide medical databases that improve healthcare quality.

Benefits: Coverage includes all care prescribed by a patient’s healthcare provider that meets accepted standards of care and practice.

Specifically, coverage includes hospital, medical, surgical, and mental health; dental and vision care; prescription drugs and medical equipment such as hearing aids; emergency care including ambulance; skilled nursing care after hospitalization; substance abuse recovery programs; health education and translation services, including services for those with hearing and vision impairments; transportation needed to access covered services, diagnostic testing; and hospice care.

Actual Bill PDF

 

[Craig234]

nm.

 

[PokerGuy]

Californians have a history of doing stupid things, but if they want to inflict it on themselves, go for it. "free healthcare for all!". Nice mantra... but someone has to pay for all that stuff. Of course they don't want to admit that CA is 20+ billion in the hole because of this kind of spending. Idiots. Good thing we have some people with sense in other states to block this kind of socialist stupidity.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, voters in the People's Republic Of California are for a socialist measure by 59%? What is the world coming to?

 

[MotF Bane]

WAAAAHHHH corporatists!

That California passed anything like this isn't surprising at all, but only +9% on approval there?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

WAAAAHHHH corporatists!

That California passed anything like this isn't surprising at all, but only +9% on approval there?

I'm glad to let California do this. The article at once states that this type of system costs half while creating 2.6 million jobs. That's a nice trick.

Anyway, let them be the guinea pigs.

 

[Mursilis]

Oh, wait, that's in California.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/28-7

So, this is what happens when the legislature is Democratic and not blocked by a filibuster abused by a Republican minority, and not - somehow - as overwhelmed by corporatism dominating some Democrats.

Bills like this - or the passage of non-discriminatin against gays on marriage (vetoed by Schwarzeneggar).

Some Republicans argued against the federal healtcare bill, understandably, on the basis that voters don't approve this version. I asked them, would they support, then, a version they don't like the voters approve?

We'll see, based on the reported 59% voter appproval of this bill, from the righty responses if they are consistent on using voters to decide - or only when they agree.

It's no problem to say you are just noting voter opinion but not using it to justify a position on the issue, but if you say, 'take this position because voters do', it's not too consistent to ignore them.

Good for my state's legislature approving this (the Assembly is expected to approve it also).

I'm not so optimistic about our Republican corporatist governor. At least he'll be gone soon, but he might be replaced by another Republican corporatist, the well-funded former CEO of eBay.

Did Cali win the lotto? Good luck funding it. Truly, affordable healthcare for all is a wonderful goal, but 'affordable healthcare' is practically an oxymoron these days.

 

[highland145]

Guess their new +10% payroll tax will pay for it. Good for them.

Sen Leno says this will attract employers to the state. LOL So far Cali has done a fine job of running employers out of the state with taxes.

How long before they ask the Uncle for a bailout. Ow wait, they did that last May.

 

[PokerGuy]

Another aspect that comes into play with this is adverse selection. People without health insurance (or with crappy insurance) will now simply move to CA temporarily if they have some serious or chronic condition that requires expensive care (cancer, heart surgery etc etc).

I'd love to laugh at those idiots in california over the disaster they are creating for themselves, but they'll probably end up getting a massive federal bailout at some point, which means their stupidity is going to cost me money.

 

[daishi5]

Will it be the republicans fault if this program does not work out well?

 

[rudder]

Gotta love the old blame the republicans because this load of crap bill that the majority of Americans did not want failed to become law. BUt hey if it helps you sleep at night.

Don't things like free medicare for all sound so fuzzy and warm. Until the reality sets in and the State of California realizes that their projections of how much people will use this "free" medicare were way off. Then the 'oh shit' factor will kick in with the state government demanding scaling back the program. But the 'hell no' factor of the people receiving the free healthcare kicks in and sues the state to stop it from reducing benefits... soon California will realize that 30-40% of the state's budget will likely be consumed by the program. I have pity upon whoever is governer of California when that happens.

 

[Craig234]

Funny, in the federal thread some like Pokerguy are there making a big deal of the public opinion. Public opinion is against this, that's why it's wrong to vote for it.

So, if the public opinion is for a version of the bill, is he consistent and going to say it's wrong to vote against it when public opinion is for it? Hardly. Two posts in this thread, not a word about voting no.

Will he say Republiicans are wrong to oppose it since the public is for it? Don't hold your breath.

It's one thing to note public opinion and not say that's the reason for a position, and another to use public opinion only when it's on your side as the reason for voting.

Now, we might here a valid point about it's the public opinion in their district that matters. But we didn't hear a word about that in the federal topic - only the total opinion because it fir their opinion.

If a Republican whose district is in favor of this votes no, will we see Pokerguy and similar with any consistency here condemning the vote? Unlikely.

As for people moving to the state for the benefit? That's a reasonable concern - and the measure should have a long residency reqirement or appropriate protection for that reason, until we have it federally.

 

[Craig234]

Will it be the republicans fault if this program does not work out well?

Why do you lack the common sense of a rock?

If the Republicans support the bill (hardly), they're responsible for that. If they block it - for that.

If the bill passes by the Democrats and is opposed by the Republicans, and doesn't go well, the responsibility depends what goes wrong. If it's a bad bill, that's the Democrats' fault.

If Schwarzeneggar vetoes it, then the lack of the billl is the Republicans - who voted against it and his - fault.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

All I can say is right now, I wish my state had a "Medicare for All"...funny how major life events can change your perspective.

The problem with the "Medicare for All", of course, is that anything the government touches always ends up being completely inefficient and grossly over budget. Such is our conundrum.

Oh, and you can't keep increasing spending while cutting taxes. That doesn't really work out. IOUSA is a pretty decent documentary that shows how our spending problem is out of control, and both parties are at fault.

Craig, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with you. I wish my state had "Medicare for All", and that the public option was back on the table. However, the massive costs that such programs would incur need to be sufficiently addressed before any such plan is considered. I have the sneaking suspicion that they are not...which is the big problem.

 

[highland145]

Why do you lack the common sense of a rock?

If the Republicans support the bill (hardly), they're responsible for that. If they block it - for that.

If the bill passes by the Democrats and is opposed by the Republicans, and doesn't go well, the responsibility depends what goes wrong. If it's a bad bill, that's the Democrats' fault.

If Schwarzeneggar vetoes it, then the lack of the billl is the Republicans - who voted against it and his - fault.

It appears to be the mantra on the federal level for the health bill even though the dems had the super majority. So if it works there, why not try it?

Also, public opinion isn't going to pay for the Cali plan which appears to be the opinion of most of the posts in this thread.

 

[PokerGuy]

Funny, in the federal thread some like Pokerguy are there making a big deal of the public opinion. Public opinion is against this, that's why it's wrong to vote for it.

So, if the public opinion is for a version of the bill, is he consistent and going to say it's wrong to vote against it when public opinion is for it? Hardly. Two posts in this thread, not a word about voting no.

Will he say Republiicans are wrong to oppose it since the public is for it? Don't hold your breath.

Clueless as usual. You're supposed to represent your constituents. Not just the ones in your party, all of them. If they are largely against something, you should vote against it. If you don't, then those folks should boot you out of office.

If a Republican whose district is in favor of this votes no, will we see Pokerguy and similar with any consistency here condemning the vote? Unlikely.

Democracy takes care of that. If 80% of the people in his district are against something and he votes for it, those people can remove him from office and replace him with someone who does represent their wishes. That's how it's supposed to work. The representative doesn't have to vote strictly based on public opinion polls, but he's the voice representing his constituents, so if he doesn't voice their concerns and vote accordingly he gets removed.

As for people moving to the state for the benefit? That's a reasonable concern - and the measure should have a long residency reqirement or appropriate protection for that reason, until we have it federally.

Bwahahahaha... "residency requirement"?? LOL. I'll just show up and say "hola, soy Juan Ramirez, no tengo documentos", and voila, residency issue resolved. Oh, and don't hold your breath on this disaster happening at the federal level soon, the congress critters are going to hear the people's opinion loud and clear soon enough.

 

[daishi5]

Why do you lack the common sense of a rock?

If the Republicans support the bill (hardly), they're responsible for that. If they block it - for that.

If the bill passes by the Democrats and is opposed by the Republicans, and doesn't go well, the responsibility depends what goes wrong. If it's a bad bill, that's the Democrats' fault.

If Schwarzeneggar vetoes it, then the lack of the billl is the Republicans - who voted against it and his - fault.

I am just wondering, and I have yet to see you admit that a progressive initiative failed on its own merits without blaming the republicans.

EDIT: BTW I work for a health care provider, and one of our merits of success is reducing medicare patients as a % of our total patients. Medicare does not pay the total cost of caring for the patients, therefore a larger % of medicare patients is bad.

 

[Craig234]

Clueless as usual. You're supposed to represent your constituents. Not just the ones in your party, all of them. If they are largely against something, you should vote against it. If you don't, then those folks should boot you out of office.




Democracy takes care of that. If 80% of the people in his district are against something and he votes for it, those people can remove him from office and replace him with someone who does represent their wishes. That's how it's supposed to work. The representative doesn't have to vote strictly based on public opinion polls, but he's the voice representing his constituents, so if he doesn't voice their concerns and vote accordingly he gets removed.



Bwahahahaha... "residency requirement"?? LOL. I'll just show up and say "hola, soy Juan Ramirez, no tengo documentos", and voila, residency issue resolved. Oh, and don't hold your breath on this disaster happening at the federal level soon, the congress critters are going to hear the people's opinion loud and clear soon enough.

More of the typical idiocy from pokerguy, with a bit of dishonesty added in about his shifting standards.

The residecy requirement need not allow an undocumented person any non-emergency services.

 

[PokerGuy]

The residecy requirement need not allow an undocumented person any non-emergency services.

This is the democrats in Cali we're talking about. Do you really think they are going to take bennies away from the illegal immigrants? Anyone even suggesting actual logic would be accused of racism and run out of town.

This is going to be a fun trainwreck to watch.

 

[Genx87]

California spending more money they dont have? I love their experiement for the rest of the country.

 

[Craig234]

This is the democrats in Cali we're talking about. Do you really think they are going to take bennies away from the illegal immigrants? Anyone even suggesting actual logic would be accused of racism and run out of town.

This is going to be a fun trainwreck to watch.

Well I think it's very likely they'll put in the protections I said for your point about people coming to get free care. I don't have the bill info handy on it - feel free to get it.

 

[PokerGuy]

California spending more money they dont have? I love their experiement for the rest of the country.

"Hey, we're 25 beeeeeellion in the hole, what do we do? Add some huge new spending program, of course!". :biggrin:

 

[PokerGuy]

Well I think it's very likely they'll put in the protections I said for your point about people coming to get free care. I don't have the bill info handy on it - feel free to get it.

So that would make it even worse. Actual legal US citizens would not be able to take advantage, while illegal ones would. Much like the "in-state tuition for illegals" issue.

 

[Greenman]

It's going to be an interesting experiment. I'd be very interested to see how it pans out, if I didn't live in California. A state that hates business and is bankrupt taking on health care doesn't seem like a good idea.
I'll also be very curious to see how they keep people from other states from coming here for free medical while allowing illegals unfettered access to the system.

 

[Craig234]

It's going to be an interesting experiment. I'd be very interested to see how it pans out, if I didn't live in California. A state that hates business and is bankrupt taking on health care doesn't seem like a good idea.
I'll also be very curious to see how they keep people from other states from coming here for free medical while allowing illegals unfettered access to the system.

No one said illegals get medicare for all.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

No one said illegals get medicare for all.

But we all know it will happen, especially in California. That's just how things roll.

Craig, the main problem with many of your arguments is that you just take the party line and refuse to look at the positives and the negatives. Yes, universal health care for all would be great! However, there are some glaring, huge obstacles that need to be addressed, such as cost (the big one), illegals getting free care as a reward for breaking the law, etc. Most of these issues are glossed over or ignored and instead, the mantra of "FREE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL!" is shouted over and over again from the rooftops.

Both sides need to get off of their talking points and partisan insults and get down to business. So far, neither side has shown a willingness to do so.