Sounds to me like it died because it was a half written bill that didnt actually give a way to fund itself.
You proved nothing. You quoted Forbes, -a capitalist anti-entitlement, anti-UHC rag. I proved you wrong with the facts of those who have done it.
The normal procedure is to produce a bill and then another "agency" determines the cost and funds it.... in this case the Assembly as I quoted in post #69 above.
3 things. Compare drug costs Compare provider salary Compare usage The US is highest in all 3 categories by a wide margin. And those systems youh are talking about, are collapsing under their own weight, no matter what an opinion survey says.
The first two items can be regulated; we have no control over the usage, however by regulating provider salaries and drug costs, it will offset overall costs associated with usage.
So you want the govt to dictate the salary of private individuals. You also want to dictate product costs to private business. I don't see any possible way this could go wrong or be open to let more govt corruption.
Take your pick http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...squires_oecd_exhibit_01.png?h=720&w=960&la=en https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/49084355.pdf
None of those disprove the fact that Medicare administration is not more efficient than private insurers.
OK, I read your information in that previous post. It is interesting and fills in some gaps as to what happened to the bill. I find it interesting that the California State Senate sent the bill to the Assembly with no way to pay for it. My cynical nature about politicians makes me suspect that the Senate didn't want to include a funding method because they were afraid to. So, they voted for it, shifting the responsibility of paying for it to the Assembly. Cute trick, huh? That way, the Senate could tell the supporters of UHC that they supported UHC while deflecting any blame for the increased taxes it would create. I'll bet the Assembly saw through that in a heartbeat, and I'll bet they really appreciated the Senate's little political tactic of throwing the Assembly under the bus, so to speak. I'll bet the Assembly really appreciated the way the Senate could slip and slide away from responsibility for the taxes, while still being able to claim they supported UHC, while the Assembly alone would have to face the taxpayers. Politicians ... gotta love 'em, eh? Partisan opposition has little to do with it. I did a quick check on the complexion of the California legislature. From Wiki ... "The Democratic Party currently holds supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature. The state senate currently consists of 27 Democrats and 13 Republicans, and the Assembly consists of 54 Democrats, 25 Republicans and 1 vacancy." And the governor is a liberal Democrat. So this whole issue is one for the Democrats to figure out and decide. The Republicans oppose it, but they have little political impact, if any. The information you added also talks about a 15% payroll tax. I wonder if that's for everyone or not. If you earn $15/hour in California, that's $31,200/year gross. You're poor. 15% of that is $4680, bringing your income down to $26,520/year (or $2210/month). Are the politicians really going to impose a 15% tax on the poor? On the other hand, lets say you make $200k. 15% of that is $30,000. The trouble is that the couple making $200k may already have a nice employer-paid health plan, or they may be buying their own for around $20k. Are they going to want to pay another $10k for health insurance, knowing that this extra $10k is not going to them, but to others? I don't know the answer to these questions, Kode. I'm just very interested to watch and see what happens. As I said earlier, I wouldn't mind seeing California go ahead and give it a go. It would certainly give the rest of the nation an example to judge. Btw, my 90 year old father has a dog that looks a lot like your avatar. His name is Koda. I'm not making that up.
the government already dictates the salary of private individuals as it is. Does the name Martin Shkreli ring a bell? There are no guarantees in life except death and taxes; having government oversight will limit any corruption that may occur.
I think you have just listed several good reasons why prescribing more tests improves the doctor's bottom line.
If I'm not mistaken, that is common federally, too. The House can send a bill to the CBO or other offices for evaluation and tax recommendations. Am I wrong? I kept snooping around and found that too. But I also found that when it went to the Assembly it needed a 2/3 majority to pass. And the Democrats have that majority -IF- every Democrat were to vote for it and no Republican did. So for whatever reason, the Assembly decided to table it for now. Good points. The need to work that out may be one of the reasons they tabled it for now. Agreed. LOL!!! My wife was active in a Scottish Terrier rescue agency for a couple of years and we fostered several and owned several in our 35 years of marriage. We actually fostered two white ones (rare) as a bonded pair once.
Single payer is just a terminology shortcut. Just about every developed country has a system thst works better than ours. I think we could use a dart board and come up with a more effective system than America currently has.
IF you read the article it says the administrative costs are higher per patient but less as a percentage of claims paid. And of course that will be true because the Medicare patients are older and have higher per capita expenditures. To put it simply the Forbes article is meaningless when considering Medicare for all.
And why do you practice defensive medicine? Because there are so many whose only way of paying a bill is to sue the doctor
More like a get rich quick scheme for lawyers. They know full well that filing a 100k lawsuit, no matter how thin of a case, will cost a doctor and insurance company another 50k to defend. With that in mind, they simply settle for 40k. Easy money for the lawyer. Only loser is the doctor that now has higher malpractice rates. Or he may just cancel it.
The measure of effectiveness of healthcare reform is reduction in total spending. Just moving costs around between government spending and individual spending really changes nothing. It won't reduce percentage of GDP spent on healthcare nor will it improve the efficiency of that spending.
In a world of computers can't imagine that would make much difference. I assume that within the organization itemization still has to occur in order to track spending and cost.
