7 ms·

TLDR; $400 billion total, $200 billion is currently spent on subsidies and medi-cal, $150 billion is already spent by employers. The state would need to "find"

TLDR; $400 billion total, $200 billion is currently spent on subsidies and medi-cal, $150 billion is already spent by employers. The state would need to "find" ~$50 billion or ~$1,300 per resident more to fully fund this. Personally, this seems like a relative bargain and some modest extra taxes should offset the difference. Article reads pretty poorly and sensationalist. Not to mention that the missing amount is less than most people have in various deductables and co-pays already. EDIT: Turns out in 2015, per capita health spending was $9,990 already, which translates to ~$390 billion for 39 million Californians. So $400 Billion is cheaper than what we already spend in 2017, assuming modest growth since 2015. Further, if we assume that this money already gets spent, just not very evenly, we'll end up with a much fairer system and a lot smaller downside for people if/when they get sick. Personally, I'll gladly trade some immediate savings for long term protection from not having insurance when I need it most. The data seems to imply that I won't even have to pay all that much more.

jlarocco 9y ago
Yeah, the headline is sensationalist. With the current spending factored in, it's really not that bad. A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it, with the added bonus of decreasing the amount needed. If that doesn't work, then there are a lot of programs they can cut that are less important than healthcare.
- tuxracer 9y ago
  > A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it Exactly this kind of statement is what worries some about universal healthcare. I highly support single payer, universal healthcare. But statements like this undermine the cause by feeding fuel to the idea universal healthcare will inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions.
  - jlarocco 9y ago
    Like it or not, it's already done with cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, gasoline, and a ton of other stuff. These type of taxes are the only way I'm in favor of government healthcare programs. Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs.
    - wtbob 9y ago
      > Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs. They also, of course, decrease other costs due to the deaths of the beneficiaries. Is that a net win or a net loss, financially speaking? And are you so sure of your analysis that you would use violence to take your fellow citizens' money?
      - Zungaron 9y ago
        Are you really trotting out the tired old taxation equals violence argument?
      - threeseed 9y ago
        The scientists and public policy professionals who formulate these policies aren't doing this for a laugh. There are significant benefits to taxing things that make people sick. And these policies have been pioneered in other countries e.g. Australia first where they have been wildly successful in reducing overall health care cost.
        wtbob 9y ago
        I'm not arguing that they don't reduce health costs: I'm arguing that a) they increase other costs (e.g. old-age pensions, since people would live longer) and b) they are an unjust imposition of force in order to change private behaviour.
      - sctb 9y ago
        We've asked you countless times not to post these ideological talking points here. We ban accounts that continue, so please stop.
        wtbob 9y ago
        sctb, I honestly don't understand why you are threatening to ban me. It's not an ideological talking point that people who die earlier due to health problems don't cost extra in pension funds. It's just a fact: if someone dies at 55, he won't cost a pension system which starts paying out at 65 a penny. fpgaminer posted much the same thing. Nor, I think, was my aside about taxes being enforced with violence an ideological talking point: it's a fact that any law is ultimately enforced with violence. I honestly don't see how mentioning a social cost in the context of cost-benefit analyses could be considered a violation of any of the HN guidelines. I'm not trying to derail or be argumentative; I'm honestly trying to understand how a fair moderator could threaten me with a ban for my comment.
  - flukus 9y ago
    > But statements like this undermine the cause by feeding fuel to the idea universal healthcare will inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions. Is that worse than corporate intrusion? Does your health insurance not factor these things in already?
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      "Is that worse than corporate intrusion?" Yes. You sometimes have a choice about which corporation you deal with. You don't get a choice when it comes to the government.
      - flukus 9y ago
        > You don't get a choice when it comes to the government. But you do get a vote, you don't get that with a corporation.
        Turing_Machine 9y ago
        Sure you do. You can vote to not give them your money. Try that with taxes.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    > inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions People wouldn't care except that your "personal" decision affects them. (1) Everyone pays for the public health care system e.g. hospitals. So if you're increased risk of serious disease results in increased visits or treatments then that's my problem as well. (2) Everyone pays for insurance. So if you're making premiums more expensive then that affects me too.
    - tuxracer 9y ago
      > People wouldn't care except that your "personal" decision affects them. Yes it's perfectly logical under a single payer, universal healthcare system. So the reaction by some is: this is exactly why we should not have universal healthcare. > Everyone pays for insurance. So if you're making premiums more expensive then that affects me too. It muddies the water quite a bit by having a marketplace of different private insurance companies. If you see me doing something risky you have no clue whether or not I'm even covered under the same insurance company as you. So maybe I am, maybe I'm not affecting your premiums. Single payer universal healthcare removes all doubt.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it, with the added bonus of decreasing the amount needed. Probably not; it would take a huge chunk of US fast food revenue, and probably more than California's. https://www.franchisehelp.com/industry-reports/fast-food-industry-report/ https://www.franchisehelp.com/industry-reports/fast-food-ind... > If that doesn't work, then there are a lot of programs they can cut that are less important than healthcare. The amount that would need to be cut is pretty much all the non-healthcare spending in the state budget (including the spending that directly produces revenue, yet it requires that the revenue come in anyway.)
bgentry 9y ago
In addition, they don't provide a figure for the amount of money that individuals put toward health care, only the amount that their employers contribute. Considering that most employers don't fully cover health insurance (relying on employee payroll deductions to make up the difference) and that many people pay directly out of their own pockets for insurance, I wonder if there'd be a shortfall at all.
smileysteve 9y ago
Thanks for the edit. You did the math. The headline is basically opposite of what it should be. 'California cuts overall health spending by almost 50% by going Universal'
mtgx 9y ago
Indeed. An alternative view on this: > The state would pay for almost all of its residents’ medical expenses — inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health, and nursing home care — under the plan, and Californians would not have any premiums, copays, or deductibles. > That’s an incredible deal for just 15% of GDP, which again is lower than the US as a whole already spends on health care. http://mattbruenig.com/2017/05/22/californias-surprisingly-cheap-single-payer-plan/ http://mattbruenig.com/2017/05/22/californias-surprisingly-c...
- pasbesoin 9y ago
  I like seeing dental included (per the parent comment). Increasingly discovered to be the genesis of numerous systemic problems (e.g. cardiovascular, for one) when not cared for. A really big opportunity for the kind of up front, preventative maintenance that saves big money / expense, down the road. Dental care needs to be wrapped into the fold of overall healthcare. Its exclusion creates far more trouble than just bad teeth.
- laurencerowe 9y ago
  Single payer would be a great improvement on the current nightmare of American healthcare, but let's not kid ourselves that this is an incredible deal. The UK spent 8.5% of GDP on healthcare in 2013 (life expectancy in the UK is marginally higher than in California.) Most European countries spend around 11%.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Single payer != universal health care. Single payer is likely no not work in the US, but there are plenty of other solutions out there. Europe has universal health care, not every country has single payer the UK and France do, NL and Germany do not. Also in all honesty unless you have cancer or something else which completely degenerative the NHS is garbage that no one outside of the low income brackets wants to deal with.
    - DanBC 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jlarocco 9y ago

Yeah, the headline is sensationalist. With the current spending factored in, it's really not that bad. A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it, with the added bonus of decreasing the amount needed. If that doesn't work, then there are a lot of programs they can cut that are less important than healthcare.

tuxracer 9y ago
> A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it Exactly this kind of statement is what worries some about universal healthcare. I highly support single payer, universal healthcare. But statements like this undermine the cause by feeding fuel to the idea universal healthcare will inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions.
- jlarocco 9y ago
  Like it or not, it's already done with cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, gasoline, and a ton of other stuff. These type of taxes are the only way I'm in favor of government healthcare programs. Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs.
  - wtbob 9y ago
    > Cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food directly increase medical costs, and people who indulge (and over indulge) in those things should be partly responsible for those increased costs. They also, of course, decrease other costs due to the deaths of the beneficiaries. Is that a net win or a net loss, financially speaking? And are you so sure of your analysis that you would use violence to take your fellow citizens' money?
    - Zungaron 9y ago
      Are you really trotting out the tired old taxation equals violence argument?
    - threeseed 9y ago
      The scientists and public policy professionals who formulate these policies aren't doing this for a laugh. There are significant benefits to taxing things that make people sick. And these policies have been pioneered in other countries e.g. Australia first where they have been wildly successful in reducing overall health care cost.
      - wtbob 9y ago
        I'm not arguing that they don't reduce health costs: I'm arguing that a) they increase other costs (e.g. old-age pensions, since people would live longer) and b) they are an unjust imposition of force in order to change private behaviour.
    - sctb 9y ago
      We've asked you countless times not to post these ideological talking points here. We ban accounts that continue, so please stop.
      - wtbob 9y ago
        sctb, I honestly don't understand why you are threatening to ban me. It's not an ideological talking point that people who die earlier due to health problems don't cost extra in pension funds. It's just a fact: if someone dies at 55, he won't cost a pension system which starts paying out at 65 a penny. fpgaminer posted much the same thing. Nor, I think, was my aside about taxes being enforced with violence an ideological talking point: it's a fact that any law is ultimately enforced with violence. I honestly don't see how mentioning a social cost in the context of cost-benefit analyses could be considered a violation of any of the HN guidelines. I'm not trying to derail or be argumentative; I'm honestly trying to understand how a fair moderator could threaten me with a ban for my comment.
- flukus 9y ago
  > But statements like this undermine the cause by feeding fuel to the idea universal healthcare will inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions. Is that worse than corporate intrusion? Does your health insurance not factor these things in already?
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "Is that worse than corporate intrusion?" Yes. You sometimes have a choice about which corporation you deal with. You don't get a choice when it comes to the government.
    - flukus 9y ago
      > You don't get a choice when it comes to the government. But you do get a vote, you don't get that with a corporation.
      - Turing_Machine 9y ago
        Sure you do. You can vote to not give them your money. Try that with taxes.
- threeseed 9y ago
  > inherently lead to more government intrusion into your personal decisions People wouldn't care except that your "personal" decision affects them. (1) Everyone pays for the public health care system e.g. hospitals. So if you're increased risk of serious disease results in increased visits or treatments then that's my problem as well. (2) Everyone pays for insurance. So if you're making premiums more expensive then that affects me too.
  - tuxracer 9y ago
    > People wouldn't care except that your "personal" decision affects them. Yes it's perfectly logical under a single payer, universal healthcare system. So the reaction by some is: this is exactly why we should not have universal healthcare. > Everyone pays for insurance. So if you're making premiums more expensive then that affects me too. It muddies the water quite a bit by having a marketplace of different private insurance companies. If you see me doing something risky you have no clue whether or not I'm even covered under the same insurance company as you. So maybe I am, maybe I'm not affecting your premiums. Single payer universal healthcare removes all doubt.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> A big enough tax on fast food could probably cover it, with the added bonus of decreasing the amount needed. Probably not; it would take a huge chunk of US fast food revenue, and probably more than California's. https://www.franchisehelp.com/industry-reports/fast-food-industry-report/ https://www.franchisehelp.com/industry-reports/fast-food-ind... > If that doesn't work, then there are a lot of programs they can cut that are less important than healthcare. The amount that would need to be cut is pretty much all the non-healthcare spending in the state budget (including the spending that directly produces revenue, yet it requires that the revenue come in anyway.)

bgentry 9y ago

In addition, they don't provide a figure for the amount of money that individuals put toward health care, only the amount that their employers contribute. Considering that most employers don't fully cover health insurance (relying on employee payroll deductions to make up the difference) and that many people pay directly out of their own pockets for insurance, I wonder if there'd be a shortfall at all.

smileysteve 9y ago

Thanks for the edit. You did the math. The headline is basically opposite of what it should be. 'California cuts overall health spending by almost 50% by going Universal'

mtgx 9y ago

Indeed. An alternative view on this: > The state would pay for almost all of its residents’ medical expenses — inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health, and nursing home care — under the plan, and Californians would not have any premiums, copays, or deductibles. > That’s an incredible deal for just 15% of GDP, which again is lower than the US as a whole already spends on health care. http://mattbruenig.com/2017/05/22/californias-surprisingly-cheap-single-payer-plan/ http://mattbruenig.com/2017/05/22/californias-surprisingly-c...

pasbesoin 9y ago
I like seeing dental included (per the parent comment). Increasingly discovered to be the genesis of numerous systemic problems (e.g. cardiovascular, for one) when not cared for. A really big opportunity for the kind of up front, preventative maintenance that saves big money / expense, down the road. Dental care needs to be wrapped into the fold of overall healthcare. Its exclusion creates far more trouble than just bad teeth.
laurencerowe 9y ago
Single payer would be a great improvement on the current nightmare of American healthcare, but let's not kid ourselves that this is an incredible deal. The UK spent 8.5% of GDP on healthcare in 2013 (life expectancy in the UK is marginally higher than in California.) Most European countries spend around 11%.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Single payer != universal health care. Single payer is likely no not work in the US, but there are plenty of other solutions out there. Europe has universal health care, not every country has single payer the UK and France do, NL and Germany do not. Also in all honesty unless you have cancer or something else which completely degenerative the NHS is garbage that no one outside of the low income brackets wants to deal with.
  - DanBC 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]