Will single payer in California save California or kill it?

[Patranus]

Patranus: interesting argument. But I've said the three main propaganda organizations in the US are Heritage, CATO, and AEI. Your data is from Heritage. Find it elsewhere.

You are laughable.

Show me where Heritage simply made up data?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

so you are in favor of more job losses in a state that has 12%+ unemployment, 35M people for uhc? CA's budget doesn't look too good as it so i really wonder how well it can be doing. do you have any facts stating that san frans uhc is not a deficit to the state? and what about the other people that you are ok w/ losing a job, are they just suppose to "take one for the team?" live in a tent?

The city currently is running a $522 million dollar deficit and sent out lay off notices to 15,000 city employees.

Now factor in the point that the article linked is from 2008 and you can see how his source has no relation to the current fiscal reality and state of being of SF's UHC system or the city's current fiscal budgetary problems. Lets also not forget that SF's UHC system is abused by illegals in the city as the city itself has a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" sanctuary city bullshit policy.

If the city does not find a way out of its budgetary problems things will go south very quickly do to the overwhelming amount of social service programs (SF is the Mecca for those who want to live a "homeless" lifestyle) which are funded by home residential and business tax payer dollars.

 

[Craig234]

Wealth redistribution via progressive policy.

And yet you don't have a word to say about the wealth redistribution from right-wing policies the last 30 years, do you? What chutzpah you have to whine about the wealth redistribution issue at a time the bottom 80% have gotten nothing from the economy's growth for 30 years after inflation while the rich are taking all the growth, skyrocketing their share of all wealth. Chutzpah, ignorance and reckless spouting.

 

[Red Dawn]

Yeah, we have a 20billion dollar deficit, and were going to pay for eveyones healthcare. Democrats are so stupid.

Jerry Brown, mayor of Oakland, the murder, drugs, and gang capital of the state(and maybe even country) is the savior? LOL.

And it was different before he was Mayor? Oakland has been a shithole since the mid 60's

 

[EagleKeeper]

And yet you don't have a word to say about the wealth redistribution from right-wing policies the last 30 years, do you? What chutzpah you have to whine about the wealth redistribution issue at a time the bottom 80% have gotten nothing from the economy's growth for 30 years after inflation while the rich are taking all the growth, skyrocketing their share of all wealth. Chutzpah, ignorance and reckless spouting.

No left wing policies over the past 30 years?

 

[Ozoned]

And yet you don't have a word to say about the wealth redistribution from right-wing policies the last 30 years, do you? What chutzpah you have to whine about the wealth redistribution issue at a time the bottom 80% have gotten nothing from the economy's growth for 30 years after inflation while the rich are taking all the growth, skyrocketing their share of all wealth. Chutzpah, ignorance and reckless spouting.

Actual, whine-tit, I did mention it a few posts ago.

All Classes have seen a dramatic rise in their lifestyle in the last 30 years. The stuff directed toward the bottom 80% by federal/state mandate, and the stuff they steal through fraud/abuse and black market activity doesn't show up in your fancy pants little articles and graphs that you post. ALL of that activity is tax free. Just the $60 billion a year in medicare fraud compounds into about 5% of GDP economic activity.

Chutzpah, ignorance and reckless spouting indeed. Via your progressive indoctrinated mind that doesn't know how,,,,or refuses,,,, to look at the real world.

Keep lapping up the spoon-fed dogma they feed you and maybe one day you will be promoted to the feeder position. That's where the money is. That is the only path to the wealth that you desire because it is obvious that you have no desire to actually earn it.

 

[Craig234]

Actual, whine-tit, I did mention it a few posts ago.

All Classes have seen a dramatic rise in their lifestyle in the last 30 years. The stuff directed toward the bottom 80% by federal/state mandate, and the stuff they steal through fraud/abuse and black market activity doesn't show up in your fancy pants little articles and graphs that you post. ALL of that activity is tax free. Just the $60 billion a year in medicare fraud compounds into about 5% of GDP economic activity.

Chutzpah, ignorance and reckless spouting indeed. Via your progressive indoctrinated mind that doesn't know how,,,,or refuses,,,, to look at the real world.

Keep lapping up the spoon-fed dogma they feed you and maybe one day you will be promoted to the feeder position. That's where the money is. That is the only path to the wealth that you desire because it is obvious that you have no desire to actually earn it.

Ozoned has degraded into idiocy and rudeness and isn't getting more replies is the current plan. But let's finish off his numbers.

He just posts lies to try to deny the enormous - perhaps greatest in our history - shift of income and wealth to the top, as the richest sliver has a far larger share.

There is *no* credible proof of $60 billion in Medicare fraud. A top organization - which like most says there are no clear figures - indicates the figure for all Medical spending, private and public, might be about that figure, but Medicare's share isn't known; if proportional, it'd be 3% or $13 billion. If twice proportional, $26 billion, it'd be under half that figure.

On the other hand, pretending his figure of $60 billion were right, he claims it would be 5% of GDP. Since GDP last year was over $14 trillion, it'd actually be under a half percent.

Which is still huge but less than 10% of the claim. This is why I recently posted in favor of stronger anti-fraud measures.

He has no interest in the accurate info on this issue (I wonder if that's any issue) or any decent discussion, as shown by his falsehoods and name calling.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The problem that arises when one state does something like this is that it's liable to encourage the healthy people (who might have to pay more taxes) to leave while encouraging sick people from other states to relocate to California, just like people moved to California decades ago for free college tuition.

 

[blackangst1]

There is *no* credible proof of $60 billion in Medicare fraud. A top organization - which like most says there are no clear figures - indicates the figure for all Medical spending, private and public, might be about that figure, but Medicare's share isn't known; if proportional, it'd be 3% or $13 billion. If twice proportional, $26 billion, it'd be under half that figure.

So youre now claiming that Senator Mel Martinez and Herb Kohl of the Special Commitee on Aging are lying?

Really?

 

[her209]

Medicare servers a population that is elderly. The elderly are in need of greater levels of medical care. Medicare generates significantly higher expenditures when compared to private insurance plans making administrative costs a much smaller percentage of overall cost.

Just like every other Democratic budget scheme, claiming that Medicare only has an overhead of 3% is smoke and mirrors.

If you look at the administrative costs on a per person basis and not compare it to total dollars spent, it is actually 24% higher than private insurance.
http://timerealclearpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/admincosts1.gif

(Craig234's head explodes)

I'm curious. Does Medicare generate more claims per enrollee compared to private insurance? And if so, is it >24%?

 

[theamericans075]

The city currently is running a $522 million dollar deficit and sent out lay off notices to 15,000 city employees.

Now factor in the point that the article linked is from 2008 and you can see how his source has no relation to the current fiscal reality and state of being of SF's UHC system or the city's current fiscal budgetary problems. Lets also not forget that SF's UHC system is abused by illegals in the city as the city itself has a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" sanctuary city bullshit policy.

If the city does not find a way out of its budgetary problems things will go south very quickly do to the overwhelming amount of social service programs (SF is the Mecca for those who want to live a "homeless" lifestyle) which are funded by the residential and business tax payer dollars.

argh treating humans like humans!

 

[Red Dawn]

So youre now claiming that Senator Mel Martinez and Herb Kohl of the Special Commitee on Aging are lying?

Really?

Well they are politicians and that's what politicians do.

 

[MotF Bane]

Well they are politicians and that's what politicians do.

How do you know when a politician is lying?

When his lips are moving.

I know, it's an old one.

 

[RedChief]

The problem that arises when one state does something like this is that it's liable to encourage the healthy people (who might have to pay more taxes) to leave while encouraging sick people from other states to relocate to California, just like people moved to California decades ago for free college tuition.

Or California still does with welfare payments.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How do you know when a politician is lying?

When his lips are moving.

I know, it's an old one.

Yep. BTW, did you know the Dems are saying that this "health care" reform bill is good for us?

Hmmm.

😛

 

[ProfJohn]

A thought about San Francisco...


The only way the city is able to survive at all is because tourism pours billions of dollars per year into the economy. ($8 billion in 2007) And over $400 million a year in tax revenue.

Take away the tourists and all the money they pour into the city's coffers and the city would have gone belly up years ago.

 

[blackangst1]

A thought about San Francisco...


The only way the city is able to survive at all is because tourism pours billions of dollars per year into the economy. ($8 billion in 2007) And over $400 million a year in tax revenue.

Take away the tourists and all the money they pour into the city's coffers and the city would have gone belly up years ago.

No it wouldnt. It just wouldnt be as it is today.

 

[simpletron]

I'm curious. Does Medicare generate more claims per enrollee compared to private insurance? And if so, is it >24%?

even if medicare has >24% more claims per enrollee, it still wouldn't give a clear picture. Overhead can be broken down into three type of expenses - overall fixed cost, per enrollee costs, and per claim costs. If fixed cost per enrollee, per enrollee cost and per claim costs were the same for both medicare and private insurers, then medicare would need more than 24% more claims per enrollee to generate 24% more cost per enrollee.

Simply put, neither per enrollee or percentage of overall cost are fair or accurate comparisons because the needs of the underlying groups being cover are vastly different. Until there are comparisons between a government program and private insurer that cover the same demographic group or a breakdown of overhead into the three type of expense, It is all smoke and mirrors with both sides latching onto whichever naturally bias statistic agrees with their point of view.

 

[JSt0rm]

A thought about San Francisco...


The only way the city is able to survive at all is because tourism pours billions of dollars per year into the economy. ($8 billion in 2007) And over $400 million a year in tax revenue.

Take away the tourists and all the money they pour into the city's coffers and the city would have gone belly up years ago.

No it wouldnt. It just wouldnt be as it is today.

No shit lol. If nyc wasn't ever a city it would of gone belly up? If washington DC was never made the capitol then all those people would be living in a swamp?

 

[ProfJohn]

No it wouldnt. It just wouldnt be as it is today.

Exactly!!

Without all the tourists to finance all their great social initiatives San Fran would not be the poster child for progressive ideals that it is today.

UHC for all residents, gone.
Liberal programs to help the homeless, gone.

etc etc etc.

The city is a mecca for liberal/progressive ideas because all those ideas and programs are financed by people who visit the city because of its beauty and location.


So next time you liberals want to point to the city as an example of liberalism's success keep in mind that its success is based purely on tourism money.

 

[Zebo]

How do you know when a politician is lying?

When his lips are moving.

I know, it's an old one.

LOL oldie but goodie. Hadnt heard that in awile. thx

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Exactly!!

Without all the tourists to finance all their great social initiatives San Fran would not be the poster child for progressive ideals that it is today.

UHC for all residents, gone.
Liberal programs to help the homeless, gone.

etc etc etc.

The city is a mecca for liberal/progressive ideas because all those ideas and programs are financed by people who visit the city because of its beauty and location.


So next time you liberals want to point to the city as an example of liberalism's success keep in mind that its success is based purely on tourism money.

Unfortunately the SF is beset with a very vocal but small group of people ( aka ultra progressives most of whom are professional protesters and don't even live in the city itself but come here to cause trouble) who protest every big business opening in the city.

Even when a business is opening up in places like Bayshore Blvd or in areas like the Mission district which have run down sections of closed down store fronts for several blocks you get people complaining and protesting. These people hate businesses but for some reason don't make the connection between their beloved and bloated social programs and those who help fund the city tax coffers so these programs stay open. It is like a spoiled child who hates his parents but would go ape shit bonkers if stupid daddy/momy didn't pay for his cell phone and texting minutes or buy them the latest in clothing, etc.

 

[Patranus]

Unfortunately the SF is beset with a very vocal but small group of people ( aka ultra progressives most of whom are professional protesters and don't even live in the city itself but come here to cause trouble) who protest every big business opening in the city.

Even when a business is opening up in places like Bayshore Blvd or in areas like the Mission district which have run down sections of closed down store fronts for several blocks you get people complaining and protesting. These people hate businesses but for some reason don't make the connection between their beloved and bloated social programs and those who help fund the city tax coffers so these programs stay open. It is like a spoiled child who hates his parents but would go ape shit bonkers if stupid daddy/momy didn't pay for his cell phone and texting minutes or buy them the latest in clothing, etc.

Hit the nail on the head.
They have massive amounts of retail vacancies in much of the city and when several "chain" stored wanted to move in, the developers were run out of town.
What these people don't understand is that you need to take care of the basics before you start handing out the candy.

 

[blackangst1]

Exactly!!

Without all the tourists to finance all their great social initiatives San Fran would not be the poster child for progressive ideals that it is today.

UHC for all residents, gone.
Liberal programs to help the homeless, gone.

etc etc etc.

The city is a mecca for liberal/progressive ideas because all those ideas and programs are financed by people who visit the city because of its beauty and location.


So next time you liberals want to point to the city as an example of liberalism's success keep in mind that its success is based purely on tourism money.

Although I agree, but so what? You make it sound like tourism dollars are bad. 2006 was the largest tourism year for the USA at about 52 million visitors, and over $110 billion in revenue. Its huge business, and a relevant source of revenue.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Although I agree, but so what? You make it sound like tourism dollars are bad. 2006 was the largest tourism year for the USA at about 52 million visitors, and over $110 billion in revenue. Its huge business, and a relevant source of revenue.

its a highly fluctuating source of revenue. it's not at all reliable. one year, you could erect a giant tourism farm in LA, and SF would go broke.

Listen to all the budget troubles that SF is facing now. It had a huge shortfall problem last year too.