Schwarzenegger calls for Universal Health Coverage
 

I am so happy to hear about this. As others on this site who are in the legal profession will attest to, when California does something, most likely the remaining states will be soon to follow. I think its about time the country takes this step. It is so badly needed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/...ia_health_care

The California concept is most interesting as a sort of "rich tax" - essentially taxing the upper tiers (doctors, insurance companies) to subsidize the lower classes. I'm not sure every state has the ability to follow through with such a plan, and really between the plans in place in MA and CA, you're seeing innovative solutions for health care that may not be universally applicable across other (poorer) states.

Remember that insurance is simply pooling risk - there's no 'magic' to where the money comes from . . . the estimated savings in this system will be fascinating to follow, to be honest.

Are we sure Arnie isn't a Democrat? Or is he worried about the medical bills for his ski injury?

Seriously, KSig is right. It'll be tougher for the smaller and poorer states.

Yeah everyone always follows CA. That's why when CA increased its taxes to support the lavish Gary programs, all those businesses left for other states.

-Rudey

Hopefully we'll be just like Canada soon!

Nah, Ahnold is what I like to call a RINO...Republican in name only. =) I heard about this on the afternoon news today and it sounds like a good idea, but will have to read more about it before I form any opinions myself.

If you place the burden on the shoulders of the wealthy, they'll go somewhere they're appreciated.

Well, he is married to a member of the Kennedy clan.

Well, given the small amount these people would be taxed, especially since the burden would spread among a number of people and entities rather than JUST the wealthy, I doubt they will feel so pinched that they would choose to leave the U.S.

This is not a matter of people just wanting something for nothing like many conservatives love to yell about. People cannot go and heal themselves when they get injured or sick. People HAVE to be able to go to the doctor and receive adequate regular health care. It's a morality issue, not a social one in and of itself. How can people allow people to just die because they have no way to afford a doctor? That is very scary and something that happens everyday. For people to constantly fuss about "taxing the rich to help the poor" and then call themselves a Christian is completely hypocritical to me. In a system that has set up a nation where there are such deficiencies in how people become rich and how others are born and remain poor, it is necessary to not equalize the two groups completely ( I don't agree with that), but at least enable people in the are of health care to receive the same care that everyone else does.

I can't say I agree. Sometimes it happens, but often other states view California as a bit on the crazy side -- they'll wait and see how it works in a more "sane" state.
This characterization bothers me. While I believe on ethical, moral and religious grounds that everyone should have access to good healthcare, I think people can disagree about how to make that happen without having to be characterized as hypocrites. Unless you want to suggest that we should have a theocracy in this country, then there are valid, non-hypocritical, arguments that the taxing power of the government is not the proper or best way to achieve accessable healthcare for everyone.

I agree that there are a number of ways to achieve a more fair health care system. However, my statement was specifically geared toward (and perhaps I should have made the statement more directly to those that I had in mind) those who claim to be Christians and have a sense of disdain and resentment toward the poorer people and more disadvantaged in this society and allow those sentiments to guide their feelings about how this society in general and health care in particular is run and who has access to what. These types of people seem to have a great deal of influence in our society from what I have observed and it is a big problem in my opinion.

All he's doing is giving Blagojevich ideas. Seriously. And Rod will want to implement it first, with no money.

I have to move out of Illinois ASAP

Not in my experience or observation, but maybe.

I think part of the issue/debate, if one is going to look at it from a Christian perspective, is whether a Christian response requires involuntary support (via taxation), voluntary support, or some combination of the two.

I have a problem with your argument (bolded) in that it's something of a slippery slope. As you know, medicine is a lot different than it was 50 years ago. Some procedures are routine (and cheap) while others are just astronomically (and sometimes unjustifiably) expensive. You seem to present to us that health care is some sort of inalienable right. It's not.

The fact is that in the end, we all die. Those with more resources have the ability to cheat death. In the end, we all have bodies which will eventually cease to function. C'est la vie. Were a doctor to come up with some sort of anti-aging therapy which could either reverse or stall the aging process and it was a very expensive therapy, it would seem that your above bolded statement would hold that it is necessary for society to fund that therapy for every single aging person out there.

I may be beating a bit of a straw man here -- I'll admit that. I only do it to point out that should we 'give in' on this proposition that the government should provide health care, we'll suddenly be faced with the prospect of 'line drawing.' By that, I mean that some government official, committee, task force, computer, high priestess, etc., is going to be tasked with deciding which procedures the American people will pay for and which procedures they will not. What criteria will decide whether people have a "right" to health care in a certain case? The commonality of their condition? The severity of the condition? Their poltiical party? A letter from a Senator?

Currently, Americans have a lot of choices. We can go pay for insurance which would only cover those basic procedures.. that doesn't cost a whole lot. Or, like me, you can take out a pretty good chunk of change and cover just about any possible medical emergency. The point is, we have choice. I like choice... choice is good.

People no more have a "right" to medicine than they have a "right" to housing. We all die. It's just a question of when. People who have failed to make good choices in their lives may die because they can't afford insurance. Oh well.

At some point in governance, we have to be callous. We have to be willing to accept that governmental intervention is not the solution to all the ills of the world. As I said above, it's all about line drawing. I'm pretty clear where I draw the line on this issue... are you?

I refuse to pay christian tax.

I think one of the major problems in this country is that those who support the DNC/RNC/AP would be perfectly comfortable in a xian theocracy

Yes, you are and I'm glad that you chose to concede that point. I said BASIC health coverage the people need to just get over common, yet unecessary ills. Those that people should be able to avoid in a modern world.

People who have failed to make good choices? That is rediculous. The health care crisis affects a huge number of people in this country, including much of the middle class. These people (including myself) have made all kinds of choices, none of which have any bearing on the issue here. Since you put it into the context of "personal choices", though, fine I'll address that. It is the astronomical cost of health insurance that is the problem and the unethical causes of that high cost. People, like me, who CHOSE to get educated, work and follow the strait and narrow STILL are unable to get insured. So, what exactly are the choices YOU are talking about the WE made that render all of us undeserving of health coverage? Are you saying that people who, through any number of means, happened upon wealth and money are more entitled to health coverage than someone who happened to not make as much money or get LUCKY like most of the well-to-do in this country? If that is your point, whether you realized that that was what you were saying, then yeah, you are a part of the problem: the overwhelming number of people who unfortunately influence the policy in this country that does not favor making healthcare more affordable and available to more people.

I'm a law student by night, a legal assistant by day. My wife's a teacher. I'm not sure what sort of "luck and wealth" as you put it I've benefited from, ya know, having such lofty, high-falootin' titles 'n such.

What you are talking about is "basic" health care coverage. I was not aware that there was any such thing as "basic" health care coverage. Yes, I imagine there are a number of packages out there with things chosen somewhat arbitrarily (but mostly mathematically) to be covered and other things not to be covered. What you would propose is that a "basic" plan be introduced which would essentially take the choice out of the hands of the consumer.

There are any number of plans out there for you, the middle class right this moment. In my state, until my wife, the teacher got access to her plan where we took out a plan with all the bells and whistles, I was on BCBS. It had decent coverage, and if I wanted to expand that coverage, I could. At any rate, I was only spending about $120/month (which is way less than I'm spending now under the state plan, albeit, I have coverage out the wazoo).

Health care is a very complex problem. When you draw those lines as I was discussing above (in deciding what is "Basic coverage") you're essentially telling certain people they're not getting coverage. When you have socialized medicine, in my mind, you're going to create the unrealistic expectations in people that they are entitled to health care no matter what.

I do see that as the next looming "crisis" in healthcare. Microexpansions of the system. It's a huge entitlement program, and no one is entitled to health care. It's a large industry, and I rarely do see or hear of people 'going without.' Do I hear of people being bankrupted, losing their jobs, etc. because they didn't have insurance? Sure, but it's their choice to go without.

as a californian who did NOT vote for schwarzenegger (either time), i'm impressed with his idea and that he's trying to better the whole state, rather than be a puppet for the "rich"

What?

According to 2 different web sites I just surfed, someone my age in your area (25, in Houston, TX) can get health insurance ($1k deductible/20% coins/$25 office visit) through BCBS for between $130-150/mo.

The insurance 'crisis' for the middle class is not the issue here - if anything, the CA plan will hurt the middle class by forcing them to be covered (and pay out of pocket) if they aren't already . . . unless you know many college-educated, straight-and-narrow people making $25k in Houston (that's the CA threshold for assistance for a single person)?

Basically, the real issue is that hospitals can't turn away the uninsured for emergency care, and the poorest of the poor can't afford basic care. The hope is that pooling risk for the first part (which is paid for out of tax dollars, generally, or passed along to the insured in higher hospital costs) will cause enough of a reduction to pay for the latter - and this burden will be felt MOST by the middle class (the lowest class that won't benefit directly from 'free' insurance).

Essentially, I don't think this policy will have the effects you think it will - eventually most of this gets passed down to consumers.

The "unethical" costs associated with insurance that you mention? What are those? Do you really think those just 'go away' here, or do you think they'll be passed up the chain?

Once that happens, think about the marginal utility of each dollar you earn, and wonder: hmmm, who is this really hurting? Helping?

I'm curious why you keep quoting rates for a single person who is age 25. There are other family units (families of 3, 4 or more) and age groups who have to pay at least 3 times as much as you're quoting.

"Keep quoting"? I posted one quote, and tried to make it applicable to that poster.

I realize rates will be different all the way around, it's more expensive with dependents, all of this stuff is pretty obvious - it doesn't change much about the conversation, though, does it? It's borderline tautological . . .

The family rate for gov't assistance in the CA plan? $30k - so I feel like my points earlier still apply, no?

Oh yeah! Its a "moral" issue! This is laughable coming from the "you can't legislate morality" crowd.

Sorry, that was the plural "you" not the singular "you" as Kevin gave a similar quote.

All states have some form of Medicaid already and it sounds like the CA plan is only slightly better than that. It doesn't sound like the right solution to me.

Having worked in health care for 20 years now, I can honestly say that something has to be done in some areas or 1) more and more hospitals in urban areas will have to close and/or 2) the uninsured and underinsured will end up dying from ailments that can be treated. We are, and have been, in a health care crisis for at least a decade and it's only getting worse as fewer employers are offering health care. The hospital system that I work for gives away $100 million in free care annually. The one that is 15 miles north of the city gives away none, because the residents near that hospital have insurance and the hospital sends them to other hospitals. The Detroit area is in a serious health care crisis with 2-3 hospital systems treating all the uninsured and the other hospitals in the state taking on very little of the burden. The gravity of the situation does vary greatly from state to state because of different assistance available (for instance, most major cities do have county hospitals that get funding to treat the uninsured, but no such program exists in Michigan). So, a single mother of two who makes $40,000 a year and doesn't get health care from her employer is pretty much out of luck, as are her children. There is a difficult area where you make too much to qualify for any aid but not enough to pay for all the expenses. It's a tough spot to be in. After paying $300-400 a week in day care, and $1300 a month for a mortgage, there's not much left to pay for health insurance.

Addtionally, there are people with chronic health conditions who cannot get health insurance independently. The health insurance companies don't have to take them on because they are high risk. I had a friend with a thyroid condition who worked as a contractor making good money and who could afford insurance, but couldn't find a company to insure her.

Those are just a couple of scenarios which vary from the 25 year old single person who would only pay $125 a month.

A large part of why health costs are so much is because the hospitals have to make up for the care that they won't get paid for. I could go on for a long time on this subject with a lot of examples, but I've said enough for now.