California's new single payer health care bill for 2010, SB810

[Spytheweb]

California will be the first state to enact single payer universal health care, medicare for all.

"We're not going away ? and our ranks are building," said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, principal sponsor of the bill. SB 810 is an updated version of SB 840, the single payer, carried in previous years by now retired Sen. Sheila Kuehl which passed the state legislature twice but was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarze******. The new bill has 43 cosponsors, a number growing daily.

Nationally, the study found, implementation of a single payer system would create 2.6 million new jobs, infuse $317 billion in new business and public revenues, and inject another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy. The jobs, through increased spending on healthcare delivery, ripple through the economy, creating employment in retail, manufacturing, and other sectors in addition to healthcare. But in healthcare alone, DeMoro noted, the impact would be especially great in California where an estimated 15 percent of the new jobs would be generated.

http://www.calnurses.org/media-cente...ayer-bill.html

 

[layinwood]

LOL, this should be interesting.

It creates 2.6 million jobs but how many jobs are lost because of it? This kind of sounds like some Obama math.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

your link isn't working--but this one of theirs is--

http://www.calnurses.org/




<SCRIPT src="/components/form/form.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="/components/cookie/cookie.js"></SCRIPT>

CNA/NNOC Executive Director, Rose Ann DeMoro calls on AFL-CIO convention attendees to support single-payer healthcare for everyone in America.​

AFL-CIO Convention Endorses Single-Payer

Unanimous Vote for Medicare-for-All Reform
PITTSBURGH ? In a historic vote that adds the nation?s leading voice of American workers to a broad national campaign, the AFL-CIO voted unanimously at its national convention here today to endorse the enactment of single-payer, universal healthcare for all Americans. More >
<OBJECT id=utv78737 classid=clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000 width=370 height=250>
























<embed flashvars="autoplay=false&brand=embed&cid=1320762" width="370" height="250" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" id="utv78737" name="utv_n_574825" src="http://www.ustream.tv/flash/live/1/1320762" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" /></OBJECT>Live TV : Ustream

The AFL-CIO is hosting its 26th annual constitutional convention Sept. 13-17 in Pittsburgh, Penn. S[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']ee live video on here when business is in session, or watch prerecorded segments on the AFL-CIO Ustream channel.[/FONT] More >

CNA/NNOC RNs with filmmaker Michael Moore at AFL-CIO convention in Pittsburgh, Penn. 09/14/09.​

​

<OBJECT id=PictoBrowser class=inlineimg title="Big Grin" border=0 alt="" classid="clsid</OBJECT>
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://www.db798.com/pictobrowser/swfobject.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var so = new SWFObject("http://www.db798.com/pictobrowser.swf", "PictoBrowser", "370", "500", "8", "#DDDDDD"); so.addParam("quality", "low"); so.addParam("scale", "noscale"); so.addParam("align", "mid"); so.addVariable("ids", "72157622197213715"); so.addVariable("names", "HOD 2009 Home Page Set"); so.addVariable("userName", "calnursesphotos"); so.addVariable("userId", "16992253@N06"); so.addVariable("source", "sets"); so.write("PictoBrowser090915111232"); </SCRIPT>​

​

 

[Chadman]

I'm curious, has anyone seen any stories, reports, studies, etc., on how much a single payer or government option will cost the average person? Meaning, is there anything to compare what the average cost to an individual or individual/employer combo for healthcare now, compared to what a proposed bill (any of them) would cost the same people in taxes or fees in that scenario? I realize different plans have different ideas, like high earners paying more, etc. And I realize single payer is quite different from a government option.

There's no doubt the monies have to come from somewhere, for both. We know that the current costs of healthcare (the real issue IMO) are causing big problems for nearly everyone, whether they realize it or not (meaning, if their employer is paying most of theirs, they love their current plan, while their employer is getting killed by it). But I'm wondering how (for instance) the above plan will work to create all those new jobs with increased spending. Quite simply (and maybe stupidly) wouldn't adding spending and creating a bunch of new things add to the overall costs we face now, no matter what system we're using? And in the above story, do we really need additional "healthcare delivery", whatever that means? Does that simply mean additional coverage and services to people who don't or can't afford insurance?

This is a serious question, I hope it doesn't turn into a BS mudslinging Youtube rant. I just don't have anything to really go on when it comes to comparisons.

 

[Duff Miver]

I'm curious, has anyone seen any stories, reports, studies, etc., on how much a single payer or government option will cost the average person? Meaning, is there anything to compare what the average cost to an individual or individual/employer combo for healthcare now, compared to what a proposed bill (any of them) would cost the same people in taxes or fees in that scenario? I realize different plans have different ideas, like high earners paying more, etc. And I realize single payer is quite different from a government option.

There's no doubt the monies have to come from somewhere, for both. We know that the current costs of healthcare (the real issue IMO) are causing big problems for nearly everyone, whether they realize it or not (meaning, if their employer is paying most of theirs, they love their current plan, while their employer is getting killed by it). But I'm wondering how (for instance) the above plan will work to create all those new jobs with increased spending. Quite simply (and maybe stupidly) wouldn't adding spending and creating a bunch of new things add to the overall costs we face now, no matter what system we're using? And in the above story, do we really need additional "healthcare delivery", whatever that means? Does that simply mean additional coverage and services to people who don't or can't afford insurance?

This is a serious question, I hope it doesn't turn into a BS mudslinging Youtube rant. I just don't have anything to really go on when it comes to comparisons.

Here are a few facts you can consider:

We now have single payer, not-for-profit coverage for about 50 million Americans - Medicare, TriiCare, Veterans Administration.

Those programs have overhead costs of about 3%, compared to for-profit overhead costs (advertising, dividends, profits, multi-million $ salaries) of about 30%.

The not-for-profit programs negotiate lower prices with hospitals and physicians.

Non-profit hospitals add about 50% to the bills of paying patients to cover the cost of care they provide to the uninsured.

If health care were universal and non-profit, hospitals and physicians could reduce their fees by 1/3 because they'd get paid every time.

The insured now pay for the uninsured through higher premiums.

 

[layinwood]

Here are a few facts you can consider:

We now have single payer, not-for-profit coverage for about 50 million Americans - Medicare, TriiCare, Veterans Administration.

Those programs have overhead costs of about 3%, compared to for-profit overhead costs (advertising, dividends, profits, multi-million $ salaries) of about 30%.

The not-for-profit programs negotiate lower prices with hospitals and physicians.

Non-profit hospitals add about 50% to the bills of paying patients to cover the cost of care they provide to the uninsured.

If health care were universal and non-profit, hospitals and physicians could reduce their fees by 1/3 because they'd get paid every time.

The insured now pay for the uninsured through higher premiums.

I don't have time to talk about all of your statements but what will change about the last one? Won't we still have to end up covering illegals in some form? Maybe it won't be thru higher premuims but somewhere it's coming out of our pockets so what's changing?

 

[Duff Miver]

I don't have time to talk about all of your statements but what will change about the last one? Won't we still have to end up covering illegals in some form? Maybe it won't be thru higher premuims but somewhere it's coming out of our pockets so what's changing?

Try reading the proposed legislation. No healthcare for illegals is specifically spelled out, although I expect ERs will provide enough care to stabilize. No physician I know is going to let an illegal die, including those physicians who are right-wingers.

You need to realize that ERs don't treat mostly illegals. Just look at states like ND where there are virtually no illegals, their ERs are full of real emergencies and uninsured citizens. Get your information from someone other than Limbaugh.

 

[Duff Miver]

I'm curious, has anyone seen any stories, reports, studies, etc., on how much a single payer or government option will cost the average person? Meaning, is there anything to compare what the average cost to an individual or individual/employer combo for healthcare now, compared to what a proposed bill (any of them) would cost the same people in taxes or fees in that scenario? I realize different plans have different ideas, like high earners paying more, etc. And I realize single payer is quite different from a government option.

There's no doubt the monies have to come from somewhere, for both. We know that the current costs of healthcare (the real issue IMO) are causing big problems for nearly everyone, whether they realize it or not (meaning, if their employer is paying most of theirs, they love their current plan, while their employer is getting killed by it). But I'm wondering how (for instance) the above plan will work to create all those new jobs with increased spending. Quite simply (and maybe stupidly) wouldn't adding spending and creating a bunch of new things add to the overall costs we face now, no matter what system we're using? And in the above story, do we really need additional "healthcare delivery", whatever that means? Does that simply mean additional coverage and services to people who don't or can't afford insurance?

This is a serious question, I hope it doesn't turn into a BS mudslinging Youtube rant. I just don't have anything to really go on when it comes to comparisons.

And here's an observation from a physician friend: The CEO of BC/BS gets $25 million. Cut his salary to $1 million, and my friend can treat lots of patients with the $24 million saving.

Do you think the CEO of BC/BS will work the night shift at McDonalds rather than work for $1 million?

The head of Medicare works for a lot less than $1 million.

 

[layinwood]

Try reading the proposed legislation. No healthcare for illegals is specifically spelled out, although I expect ERs will provide enough care to stabilize.

You need to realize that ERs don't treat mostly illegals. Just look at states like ND where there are virtually no illegals, their ERs are full of real emergencies and uninsured citizens.

Exactly Duff, there's no healthcare of illegals. You said hospitals add 50% to their bills to cover for the uninsured, how much of that is for illegals? I'm glad you say ND has virtually no illegals, now lets talk about all of the other states that do. There's still going to be a big cost there and it doesn't go away with single payor.

 

[Duff Miver]

Exactly Duff, there's no healthcare of illegals. You said hospitals add 50% to their bills to cover for the uninsured, how much of that is for illegals? I'm glad you say ND has virtually no illegals, now lets talk about all of the other states that do. There's still going to be a big cost there and it doesn't go away with single payor.

Who said there's no healthcare of illegals? Of course there is some, but most uninsureds are citizens.

Employers who do not provide healthcare for their employees, legal or illegal, will pay a penalty. There's your money.

Stop bloviating your birther nonsense -
"It's all the fault of illegals".

Are you Joe Wilson's brother?

 

[layinwood]

Who said there's no healthcare of illegals? Of course there is some, but most uninsureds are citizens.

Employers who do not provide healthcare for their employees, legal or illegal, will pay a penalty. There's your money.

Stop bloviating your birther nonsense -
"It's all the fault of illegals".

Are you Joe Wilson's brother?

Where did I say "it's all the fault of illegals?" I asked where that money would come from?

I see you have a problem with people asking honest questions.

While we're at it, it'a a great example you gave of the current single payor system we already have. The VA and Medicare are great models to follow. It's kind of like a new auto company coming along and asking if they can borrow GMs business plan.

Stop being a dumb ass and get a clue. The people who work hard don't care to support your loser ass.

 

[Duff Miver]

Where did I say "it's all the fault of illegals?" I asked where that money would come from?

I see you have a problem with people asking honest questions.

While we're at it, it'a a great example you gave of the current single payor system we already have. The VA and Medicare are great models to follow. It's kind of like a new auto company coming along and asking if they can borrow GMs business plan.

Stop being a dumb ass and get a clue. The people who work hard don't care to support your loser ass.

Okay, back under your rock, Limbaugh wannabee. LOL!

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Where did I say "it's all the fault of illegals?" I asked where that money would come from?

I see you have a problem with people asking honest questions.

While we're at it, it'a a great example you gave of the current single payor system we already have. The VA and Medicare are great models to follow. It's kind of like a new auto company coming along and asking if they can borrow GMs business plan.

Stop being a dumb ass and get a clue. The people who work hard don't care to support your loser ass.

Honest questions? Honestly? :mj07:

 

[layinwood]

Good one guys. :mj07:

 

[Mags]

Here are a few facts you can consider:

We now have single payer, not-for-profit coverage for about 50 million Americans - Medicare, TriiCare, Veterans Administration.

Those programs have overhead costs of about 3%, compared to for-profit overhead costs (advertising, dividends, profits, multi-million $ salaries) of about 30%.

The not-for-profit programs negotiate lower prices with hospitals and physicians.

Non-profit hospitals add about 50% to the bills of paying patients to cover the cost of care they provide to the uninsured.

If health care were universal and non-profit, hospitals and physicians could reduce their fees by 1/3 because they'd get paid every time.

The insured now pay for the uninsured through higher premiums.

While a lot of what you say above is true (not all) - a simple question:

Why don't we have the government run everything, so we can take out the profit objective?

For example, if we have government run food stores, and take out profits and multiple grocery store chains, there could be a lot of savings. People could eat better (more fresh vegetables, etc) because the pricy food (usually the healthiest food) would be much cheaper.

I would argue food is much more expensive than healthcare. Without food, you cannot live. And food is very expensive.

Same with housing. Food and Shelter are 2 of the top human needs, according to Maslow (not healthcare, by the way). Why not have government run real estate - with no broker commissions, no interest mortgages, etc. Wouldn't housing be much cheaper then too?

My point is - since when it is wrong to have a capitalistic society? And who is to decide which sectors of our economy are OK to have a profit incentive, and which ones aren't????

It's a dicey road we are heading down.......

 

[Chadman]

As I've mentioned before, Mags, I don't think the healthcare industry is the same as the other sectors you mention, except for maybe oil and energy. A few big corporations hold a vast majority of the business, and there is little real competition, nor need to be competitive, just charge as much as they think they can get away with without raising a fuss. I think we saw when gas prices got so high (for us) what an uproar and notice it caused, and now the same thing with healthcare. I don't think food specifically is all that expensive, maybe it is, never thought of it as such, but there is definite competition in that market and the need to provide food on sale and attractively and coupons, etc. When was the last time you saw an ad for reduced hospital bills, or a doctor providing a cheaper day to see you, or a sale on a specific pharmaceutical item, a cheaper room cost in a hospital, etc.

Lots of different food store options around, lots of gas stations, home building options/real estate, even banks with different checking and savings account deals... not too many hospitals around in most places, usually one, maybe a couple in bigger cities, and doctors rarely talk about or advertise prices as a matter of doing business. Or pharmacies.

Just don't think the competition angle plays that well with healthcare - maybe a little bit with insurance, like car insurance, but not as much with health insurance.

 

[layinwood]

As I've mentioned before, Mags, I don't think the healthcare industry is the same as the other sectors you mention, except for maybe oil and energy. A few big corporations hold a vast majority of the business, and there is little real competition, nor need to be competitive, just charge as much as they think they can get away with without raising a fuss. I think we saw when gas prices got so high (for us) what an uproar and notice it caused, and now the same thing with healthcare. I don't think food specifically is all that expensive, maybe it is, never thought of it as such, but there is definite competition in that market and the need to provide food on sale and attractively and coupons, etc. When was the last time you saw an ad for reduced hospital bills, or a doctor providing a cheaper day to see you, or a sale on a specific pharmaceutical item, a cheaper room cost in a hospital, etc.

Lots of different food store options around, lots of gas stations, home building options/real estate, even banks with different checking and savings account deals... not too many hospitals around in most places, usually one, maybe a couple in bigger cities, and doctors rarely talk about or advertise prices as a matter of doing business. Or pharmacies.

Just don't think the competition angle plays that well with healthcare - maybe a little bit with insurance, like car insurance, but not as much with health insurance.

Chadman, that is the problem. I've said it before that small business can't compete and typically small business is what keeps prices in check.

 

[Mags]

As I've mentioned before, Mags, I don't think the healthcare industry is the same as the other sectors you mention, except for maybe oil and energy. A few big corporations hold a vast majority of the business, and there is little real competition, nor need to be competitive, just charge as much as they think they can get away with without raising a fuss. I think we saw when gas prices got so high (for us) what an uproar and notice it caused, and now the same thing with healthcare. I don't think food specifically is all that expensive, maybe it is, never thought of it as such, but there is definite competition in that market and the need to provide food on sale and attractively and coupons, etc. When was the last time you saw an ad for reduced hospital bills, or a doctor providing a cheaper day to see you, or a sale on a specific pharmaceutical item, a cheaper room cost in a hospital, etc.

Lots of different food store options around, lots of gas stations, home building options/real estate, even banks with different checking and savings account deals... not too many hospitals around in most places, usually one, maybe a couple in bigger cities, and doctors rarely talk about or advertise prices as a matter of doing business. Or pharmacies.

Just don't think the competition angle plays that well with healthcare - maybe a little bit with insurance, like car insurance, but not as much with health insurance.

A lot of great points. Yes, insurance companies do compete price wise (especially in the individual marketplace), but you are correct, doctors and hospitals don't. This is where the increased cost issues are, in my opinion - nobody knows the price or shops for price.

But Obama has decided to make insurance companies the villiian - as policitically it is much easier for him to make him the fall guy than it is the doctors and hospitals.

I see food and healthcare as being similiiar issues - in fact, people spend more on food each month (usually) than healthcare. Yet, grocers do not have to worry about a loaf of bread that they sell for $2.00 ultimately costing the grocer themselves $5 million dollars (which can happen in healthcare).

Here's an interesting point about health insurance (and heath insurance companies): Name another industry where you don't have any idea of what your costs of goods sold will be? Even life insurance, the companies know they will pay out $1M - sooner or later. Health Insurance - from the companies perspective - you don't know if the $500 monthly premium will pay $0 claims or $5 million in claims.

Which makes it quite the interesting industry to work in.....

 

[layinwood]

Here are a few facts you can consider:

We now have single payer, not-for-profit coverage for about 50 million Americans - Medicare, TriiCare, Veterans Administration.



This is from a thread you just started Duff.

http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=376691

First example is why the VA doesn't work and second is why Medicare doesn't work. Thanks for the help in proving the point of why single payor doesn't work.

 

[The Sponge]

While a lot of what you say above is true (not all) - a simple question:

Why don't we have the government run everything, so we can take out the profit objective?

For example, if we have government run food stores, and take out profits and multiple grocery store chains, there could be a lot of savings. People could eat better (more fresh vegetables, etc) because the pricy food (usually the healthiest food) would be much cheaper.

I would argue food is much more expensive than healthcare. Without food, you cannot live. And food is very expensive.

Same with housing. Food and Shelter are 2 of the top human needs, according to Maslow (not healthcare, by the way). Why not have government run real estate - with no broker commissions, no interest mortgages, etc. Wouldn't housing be much cheaper then too?

My point is - since when it is wrong to have a capitalistic society? And who is to decide which sectors of our economy are OK to have a profit incentive, and which ones aren't????

It's a dicey road we are heading down.......

What a complete joke of a post. Lets take the profit out out of food? I have a million choices on where to get my food so this takes away the greeddy douchebag element of greedy unregulated capitalism.