5 ms·

Isn't that a given? I mean, do people not realize that the money has to come from somewhere? Of course it's going to be insanely expensive to insure everybody.

Isn't that a given? I mean, do people not realize that the money has to come from somewhere? Of course it's going to be insanely expensive to insure everybody. Edit: I'm not arguing against Single Payer, I'm just surprised that this is something so shocking an article was written (and then upvoted) about.

flukus 9y ago
> Of course it's going to be insanely expensive to insure everybody. The entire rest of the western world would indicate that it's cheaper than the current system, better too.
- threeseed 9y ago
  Actually let's be clear here. The rest of the Western world does not have a pure single payer system. In fact almost all of them don't. What we have e.g. in Australia is a mixed system closer to Obamacare. If you don't pay for private health insurance you get public coverage (but you have to pay an increased tax).
  - flukus 9y ago
    The increased tax is our governments attempt to copy the American system.
ncallaway 9y ago
Right, it adds an insane cost. You then need to raise that same amount of money. However, when you consider that people are no longer paying for health insurance there's a large pool of money available. CA needs somewhere between $50-100B to fund this project. The population of CA is around 39M (https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=state:06000:48000&hl=en&dl=en https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&...). That means, you need about $2,564/person/year. Or about $214/person/month. If you compare that figure to the average health insurance cost for people in CA everything starts to look possible or reasonable. Of course, there's still some massive political hurdles to get over. But the money is out there.
- csuwldcat 9y ago
  You forgot to account for two significant factors: that 40% of Californians pay no state income tax, and that California dramatically skews toward higher brackets paying for the state's expenditures - the top 1% already pay an absurdly massive 48% of state income tax. Per person numbers like the ones you included are basically meaningless, given they bear almost no reflection of the actual fiscal implementation and unique issues it would create. Alexander Tyler nailed the broader issue of 'democracy' long ago: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."
smileysteve 9y ago
> I mean, do people not realize that the money has to come from somewhere? If You read some of the above comments, you'll see that the money is already coming from "somewhere", that Medicare and Medicaid already cost more than what Japan spend per capita, or that $400bln may be half of what is currently being collectively. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14398948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14398948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14398974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14398974
jernfrost 9y ago
If you pay 200 dollars today per month for health insurance but instead have to pay 200 dollars in extra taxes tomorrow for health insurance, what difference does it make?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Quite a lot to people who are ideologically opposed to taxes and/or government spending irrespective of the cost-effectiveness of the programs they find compared to alternatives. Which California—Democratic majority notwithstanding—is hardly short on. And those are exactly the people this Sac Bee headline is aimed at.
- DrScump 9y ago
  Can you name an Obamacare-compliant plan (even just bronze) with a total (unsubsidized) $200 premium for the median or mean adult? One?

flukus 9y ago

> Of course it's going to be insanely expensive to insure everybody. The entire rest of the western world would indicate that it's cheaper than the current system, better too.

threeseed 9y ago
Actually let's be clear here. The rest of the Western world does not have a pure single payer system. In fact almost all of them don't. What we have e.g. in Australia is a mixed system closer to Obamacare. If you don't pay for private health insurance you get public coverage (but you have to pay an increased tax).
- flukus 9y ago
  The increased tax is our governments attempt to copy the American system.

ncallaway 9y ago

Right, it adds an insane cost. You then need to raise that same amount of money. However, when you consider that people are no longer paying for health insurance there's a large pool of money available. CA needs somewhere between $50-100B to fund this project. The population of CA is around 39M (https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=state:06000:48000&hl=en&dl=en https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&...). That means, you need about $2,564/person/year. Or about $214/person/month. If you compare that figure to the average health insurance cost for people in CA everything starts to look possible or reasonable. Of course, there's still some massive political hurdles to get over. But the money is out there.

csuwldcat 9y ago
You forgot to account for two significant factors: that 40% of Californians pay no state income tax, and that California dramatically skews toward higher brackets paying for the state's expenditures - the top 1% already pay an absurdly massive 48% of state income tax. Per person numbers like the ones you included are basically meaningless, given they bear almost no reflection of the actual fiscal implementation and unique issues it would create. Alexander Tyler nailed the broader issue of 'democracy' long ago: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."

smileysteve 9y ago

> I mean, do people not realize that the money has to come from somewhere? If You read some of the above comments, you'll see that the money is already coming from "somewhere", that Medicare and Medicaid already cost more than what Japan spend per capita, or that $400bln may be half of what is currently being collectively. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14398948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14398948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14398974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14398974

jernfrost 9y ago

If you pay 200 dollars today per month for health insurance but instead have to pay 200 dollars in extra taxes tomorrow for health insurance, what difference does it make?

dragonwriter 9y ago
Quite a lot to people who are ideologically opposed to taxes and/or government spending irrespective of the cost-effectiveness of the programs they find compared to alternatives. Which California—Democratic majority notwithstanding—is hardly short on. And those are exactly the people this Sac Bee headline is aimed at.
DrScump 9y ago
Can you name an Obamacare-compliant plan (even just bronze) with a total (unsubsidized) $200 premium for the median or mean adult? One?