Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Dr. Gaius Baltar
Mar 12, 2008

I've been framed!

Play posted:

Okay, this is very simplistic. Firstly, my county has universal low income healthcare. Secondly, the state is right in the middle of implementing the PPACA, which was not in existence the last time they aimed for universal healthcare. Thirdly, the state is just now recovering from seriously terrible budget deficits and is trying to avoid spending like a drunken sailor which is the standard Democratic party routine when there is a budget surplus; this is also as opposed to the situation last time. I would say give it time. If Obamacare is not working well (it looks like it will be, starting prices on the exchange are lower than expected and California is going to be the premier test case for the PPACA), then we'll see what happens, but personally I am all for caution and not loving up this opportunity given to the party by the voters. If we're still running a surplus in a couple years we'll see what can be done.

The whole point of single-payer health care is that it costs less than private health insurance plus medicaid plus medicare plus the uninsured etc etc. According to the Lewin Group (a research group that works for a large health insurer, meaning their findings are surely a conservative estimate), if single-payer had been adopted in California in 2006, in the first year it would have saved $8 billion, by the 10th year it would have saved a cumulative $343.6 billion, and by year 10 health care costs would have been 20% lower than with no single-payer. The taxes that would have financed it wouldn't even have bothered the rich all that much, because they would have capped out at $200,000 in income.

California democrats are just useless, like democrats everywhere except Vermont. Here in Maryland 70% of the legislature is Democratic, and they refuse to let single-payer get out of committee. Democrats tease their base with promises of single-payer when they're out of power, and then when they regain power they cozy up to insurance companies and their delicious, delicious campaign contributions.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Locked thread