What do you all think of Single Payer HealthCare-Universal healthcare in CA

[MarieStevens]

What do you all think of Single Payer HealthCare-Universal healthcare in CA?

[NickB]

Massachusetts was not a single payer universal health care system. It was a mandate to have health insurance.

You make a valid point, but you're forgetting one thing. A single payer system will never survive if there aren't mandates for everyone to have to participate. The whole point of a single payer system is for everyone to have access to affordable healthcare right? California is in so much debt right now that this system would either have to turn a profit or at a minimum break even, because California would never be able to fund a loss based on their current fiscal situation. For that to happen, everyone would have to participate in the system, that way, you have healthy people paying "premiums" to the government but not utilizing the system. The other alternative would be to fund this through taxation. Either way, everyone will have to participate. I haven't read this entire bill so I'm not sure if they are going to allow private insurance to continue to sell policies in California, but if that is the case, it will only be a couple of years before they are forced out of business, again leaving people with no choice but to join the single payer system. This would in essence mandate people to participate in the single payer system. The other thing that irks me is when did "profit" become a four letter word. Yes, I understand it is healthcare and there is a whole ethical debate over making profit on healthcare, but these profits are what have funded years of research and technological advances that make what we do that much easier and successful. Something as simple as the "biopatch" was probably developed because some "greedy jerk" wanted to make his business more profitable. Now, the incidence of infection with central lines has decreased in every setting that it is being used in. Yet, he's a jerk for making profit on something that the research was funded from the company coffers. I wish I had the answer to this problem but, based on California's track record, I would have a hard time trusting them with my toilet paper supply.

[Jolie, BSN]

The federal government argued that Ma Bell, as a monopoly, was bad for the American people, and broke it up.

The feds were right. By breaking up a monopoly, costs dropped and quality rose.

If a monopoly was bad for phone service, how can it be good for healthcare, something far more costly and crucial? How can creating a monopoly be good for healthcare, when the government argues that it is bad for everything else?

[MarieStevens]

You make a valid point, but you're forgetting one thing. A single payer system will never survive if there aren't mandates for everyone to have to participate. The whole point of a single payer system is for everyone to have access to affordable healthcare right? California is in so much debt right now that this system would either have to turn a profit or at a minimum break even, because California would never be able to fund a loss based on their current fiscal situation. For that to happen, everyone would have to participate in the system, that way, you have healthy people paying "premiums" to the government but not utilizing the system. The other alternative would be to fund this through taxation. Either way, everyone will have to participate. I haven't read this entire bill so I'm not sure if they are going to allow private insurance to continue to sell policies in California, but if that is the case, it will only be a couple of years before they are forced out of business, again leaving people with no choice but to join the single payer system. This would in essence mandate people to participate in the single payer system. The other thing that irks me is when did "profit" become a four letter word. Yes, I understand it is healthcare and there is a whole ethical debate over making profit on healthcare, but these profits are what have funded years of research and technological advances that make what we do that much easier and successful. Something as simple as the "biopatch" was probably developed because some "greedy jerk" wanted to make his business more profitable. Now, the incidence of infection with central lines has decreased in every setting that it is being used in. Yet, he's a jerk for making profit on something that the research was funded from the company coffers. I wish I had the answer to this problem but, based on California's track record, I would have a hard time trusting them with my toilet paper supply.

Love your post. Very insightful. Read 7. below. 350 billion saved with a single payer system. The website also has data to support this. The single payer system is pushing the insurance companies out of CA. The insurance will still be able to sell insurance for abroad travel or out of state travel. As for the funding of this bill it is using less money that what we are all currently paying for health care. As I recall a person goes to country who is a resident of CA but has no insurance can get care and the Bill of service goes back to the tax payers which is currently costing more for all of us. We keep in saying CA is in debt and they care but were re-making the system that is cheaper and more cost-effective. It just realigning health practices and focusing on preventative care. How is it going to affect the debt of CA when its actually fixing the current system so CA can save money. We waste so much on administration cost and their are studies and charts showing the disparities. The current system is putting us more into debt so this bill something that will reform it and help begin to decrease the deficit. Heres a link to an article on admin cost. 290 + billion dollars in 1999. We're paying the middle man this much. What happens when they are gone. Better care and more Profit for preventative and innovative health care. ( as you can see Profit here is a good thing as oppose to insurance profit based on denying care or raising premiums.) It not just insurance companies but in the bill it sets whole sale prices between pharmaceuticals. As for the Profit as a bad word, I dont mean people making items for profit in the medical field. It is the insurance companies and individuals that make profit through insurance, medicare in the wrong ways. Some people deny care based on their insurance and how much it will pay them instead of caring for the patient. In the bill health professionals are paid based on a holistic care not based on cost of test and etc. We pay so much admin cost because of insurance claims etc. Sometimes denying health care for a buck. We've seen the stories where the donut hole affects an elderly from having adequate supply of meds or the individual who needs help but has a pre-existing condition. We're correlating the bad practices of profit making by insurance companies and hospital doing certain test because it gives them more money for the hospital and their pockets. Heres some more info from PNHP website and this the link i got it from http://student.pnhp.org/content/background_fact_sheet_on_single.php: ----Moderators, is okay for me to cite the source? If not I'll be more than happy to edit this post. Background Fact Sheet on Single Payer 1. 47.0 million Americans were uninsured in 2006. (US Census Bureau) 2. More than 18,000 adults die from lack of coverage annually, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. 3. Tens of millions more are under-insured, lacking adequate coverage for drugs, long term care or mental health services. 4. After a lull in the mid 1990s, health care costs are again rising steeply. The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that, absent major reform, health spending will reach 17.7% of GDP by 2012. 5. Every other developed nation has some form of national health insurance, yet U.S. health spending is far higher-42% higher than in Switzerland, which has world's the second most expensive health care system, and 83% higher than in Canada (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Health Database, 2002). 6. At present, GOVERNMENT spending on health care in the U.S. is higher than TOTAL spending on health care in Canada. (Health Affairs, July/August 2002) 7. Single payer national health insurance would save at least $350 billion annually on paperwork and administration, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for Medicare enrollees and others who are under-insured. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office and several private consulting firms all agree that NHI could assure universal, comprehensive coverage without increasing total health spending. 8. No other reform can slash administrative costs. Assertions that computerization or patchwork reforms will cut bureaucratic costs are not credible. Most health insurance claims are already computerized. Private insurers keep a big share of their premiums as overhead in every nation. Allowing them to continue playing a big role in health care guarantees high administrative costs. 9. Surveys show surprisingly strong support for single payer NHI, even among groups that have long opposed it. 59% of physicians now endorse single payer NHI, as do 40% of small business owners. Polls have long shown that a majority of Americans favor some form of NHI. (Annals of Internal Medicine, 2008) 10. The current economic downturn strengthens the case for NHI. States facing budget crises are cutting Medicaid and other social programs. They should instead use the vast administrative savings from a single payer program to implement universal coverage; NHI could pay for itself. NHI would also relieve the crisis for workers, unions and corporations grappling with skyrocketing premiums

[listeningangel]

Single-payer health reform is the most well-researched, accurate version of a viable solution to the current status of health care. Nurses using interchangeable terms for what this actually is - compounds the confusion. Educate yourselves and the public. This is a vital solution and should be a model for the country. Don't allow the Arnold's and Meg's of the politics confuse the public and scare them as we are stuck in the middle as givers of care. Practicing nurses are the on-view of how difficult it is as RN's to practice and are afraid to do the right thing for fear of losing our jobs. Single-payer is visionary and real. I hope this bill gets supported, passed and signed. Nurses, wake up! Insurance companies are still making obscene profits from our lack of focus on how big of a problem they are and continue to be.