California Senate passes single-payer health care proposal

>The California Nurses Assn., which sponsored the bill, released a fiscal analysis this week that proposed raising the state sales and business receipts taxes by 2.3% to raise $106 billion of the annual cost, with the rest proposed to come from state and federal funding already going to Medicare and Medicaid services.

>However Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts economist, has argued that “California’s analysts erred by understating health care cost savings and failing to subtract current health care spending from their projected payroll tax increase.” Friedman’s ultimate conclusion was that “single-payer would save the public and businesses money via cutting bureaucratic costs and negotiating for drugs.

>Nonetheless the bill is a step forward for those looking to ensure a larger blanket of health coverage, but it moves in the exact opposite direction of President Donald Trump’s agenda even though he bizarrely praised Australia for their health care recently — which is subsidized by the government.

>It’s unclear what will happen with Lara’s proposal, but it will now travel to the state Assembly for further development, according to the Times. Republicans in the state have opposed the bill and have argued it isn’t affordable.

>“We don’t have the money to pay for it,” Sen. Tom Berryhill said, according to the Times. He also argues that health care belongs in the private sector and out of the hands of the government. “I absolutely don’t trust the government to run our health system,” Berryhill said. “What has the government ever done right?”'

>>148421
>What has the government ever done right?
>Berryhill said, while working as the government

>>148422
Telltale sign of a Republican; any government that doesn't bow to them is 'Big Government'. Yet he probably trusts Trump with his shiny new AHCA, eh?

>>148426
CA is already bankrupt, how will they manage to pay for single payer?

And before you say raise taxes, how will they keep people/companies from moving out of the state?

>>148420
>spending Norway's entire GDP on a healthcare system on top of the already enormous state budget you can't afford
>feasible long term

Are they attempting to destroy their state economy?

>>148452
>spending Norway's entire GDP on a healthcare system
they already spend that, just not through taxes.
this is replacing paying for health insurance and healthcare co pays and deductibles in their entirety.
it's an investment with complex costs and benefits.
and there will probably be up and downs in a state trying it for the first time in the US, but it will be a worthwhile experiment.

I'd be happy to pay my federal taxes to California instead of the federal government. In return, California agrees to become its own Republic.

>>148430
>And before you say raise taxes, how will they keep people/companies from moving out of the state?
You have this dynamic in the EU, but economies with single-payer system don't necessarily see businesses and people leaving.
Some people will move out of the state who think they can get a better deal elsewhere and are OK accepting risk in the long term, and some people will move in whose healthcare costs are too high elsewhere or who like the idea of a health safety-net.
Some businesses will benefit from not having to provide insurance for employees, some will hurt.
The proposal isn't final so there will probably be a lot of terms and conditions tacked on.

>>148430
The idea is with higher taxes. California realizes that if the healthcare is rolled out efficiently and intelligently, that the cash amount taxes will still ultimately be lower than the premiums of private insurers for most people. Furthermore, the costs of overhead for hospitals may be lowered too if they're mostly dealing with just one insurer who's not doing its best to obfuscate or complicate things like some private insurers do.

>>148456
If they're basing this prospect on a -

1) Best case scenario
2) assumption the CA government can be efficient or even competant

Then they're in for a massive wake-up call. Far less ambitious programs have been tried and resulted in complete failure. And the CA government does not have a good fiscal track record.

>>148455
>Lots of terms and conditions tacked on

Jesus why can't people just buy healthcare with cash / credit. The terms and conditions of all these agreements/regulations/insurance deals are becoming such a complex mess it's no wonder people struggle to pay.

>>148460
>assumption the CA government can be efficient or even competant
Well there are some ways in which a single-payer system is inherently more efficient.
Simpler on consumer's end than navigating a complex marketplace of private insurers, which the state government are already involved in regulating.
And the government has supreme negotiating power for prices, whereas right now if a healthcare provider doesn't like the deal one insurance company offers they can just refuse to accept that.
Also, the government already provides Medicaid (Calaid) for those who can't afford their healthcare, so it's not as though a lot of folks don't benefit from government subsidized care under the current system either.

>>148461
Well I think some restrictions would be necessary moreso for folks that have payed state taxes for a different state looking to leverage the healthcare system.
Like, you can't live in a neighboring states, come over to a CA hospital and then claim benefits of the single payer system that your taxes didn't contribute towards.

>>148471
It sounds like a ponzi scheme where everyone needs to play by the rules /pitch in or everyone is fucked

I can see why this would work in a rich homogeneous society like Japan or Sweden but once poor/uneducated/obese/unhealthy immigrants (in tandem with already unhealthy American lifestyles) are tossed into the mix it seems incredibly far fetched.

California also has a low growth environment based policy that has not been able to keep up with the populations infrastructure demands. It's roads are some of the worse I've ever seen in the US. It's choked off its agriculture market. They've dammed all the rivers. They've allowed millions of Mexicans to flood the southern districts.

If California wants to undertake this endeavor they can go ahead. It's my firm and realistic opinion that it won't work the way they hope, no matter how sound it is on paper, and that they have much more pressing matters to attend to

>>148421
>with the rest coming from state and federal funding already going to Medicare and Medicaid services
Does anyone know the legality of this? These funds are supposed to go to these programs explicitly and it seems like diverting them wouldn't be allowed, especially in the case of federal funds.

>>148420
This seems like feel-good legislation that could really do some damage if the Assembly takes it seriously. What's to stop everyone south of the border from beelining to Cali and swamping the system?

>>148645
Would be a win for Texas and Arizona

>>148420
how about we just make health insurance illegal and pay the doctor directly?
oh yeah, cus insurance companies manipulated the media and thus the people into thinking that their only options involved continuing this "healthcare" racket

>>148461
Because no matter how you look at it, HC will always be an expensive ordeal.

Who pays for the medicine? The doctor/patient insurance? The one use tools & equipment? Add on that you can be hit with a some rare illness or accident tomorrow that would easily rack up $10k+ in treatment.

We will never go back to the simpler times without some major overhauls in how we look at life expectancy, how the world pays for new medicines, and narcotics.

>commiefornia raises taxes to Denmark levels
>Businesses and citizens alike flee the higher tax rates for greener pastures north and east
>All that's left to pay for dem programs are minorities and poor people who can't afford the taxes
>local government implodes

>>148735
I just don't think healthcare is a right. It's a service. And your health is largely a combination of the luck of the draw and your own decisions.

Idk where the idea came from that health is expected/mandatory

>>148742
>Be born into poverty
>Lolsuxfir4luckofdadraw xD

>>148744
World isn't fair, never will be

>>148746
>Muh nihilism means people less privileged than me should suffer
Nice life outlook, edge-anon.

>>148755
He's right though. The debate over welfare is often distorted into one side claiming moral high ground.
In reality we should first recognize why there is even a debate to begin with. As >>148746 stated, the world is inherently unfair and the idea of welfare is to attempt to even the playing field. The question now becomes to what extent do we need to even the playing field, if it is possible to truly make everything fair and, even more importantly, what is the cost and feasibility of such measures.
Of course all of these questions will have different answers based on who you ask. A person with more to gain would obviously argue for more while the person with the most to lose will argue for less. The upper middle class has the most to lose in terms of spending power whereas the poorest have the most to gain. Add in a myriad of other factors beyond wealth, such as ethnicity, ability to work, etc. and the debate becomes very complex.
So really the problem with these debates is that everyone is cemented into the view that they are correct and are unwilling to listen to the other side or even try to understand their arguments.

>>148755
It's not nhilistic. It's a fact.

>>148755
It's called survival of the fittest and its the law of the nature.

>>148746
Sounds like you like it that way.

>>148841
Lol what gave it away?

>>148843
Selfish people always try to disguise their opposition to reforms as being "realists", saying that things can't be made more just. It's just a convenient smokescreen for protecting a system that benefits them.

>>148844
How do I sound selfish? In what way can you assume either system is more beneficial to me?

>>148844
He never said things can't be just, he just said life isn't fair. I thought that was common sense...

>>148841
Yes, because its the best way of limiting the gene pool of the unsuccessful and ensuring that only the intelligent procreate.

>>148856
I guess that's why hordes of africans and indians breed far faster than any american. They're just smarter and more successful.

As a Texan, I'd be interested to see how this develops in California. Either they approve the proposal, spend some time working out the kinks, and have a better system than the rest of the US currently does, or this tanks hard and we get another wave of tech companies opening shop in Austin bringing more revenue to our state. It's a win-win.

>>148877
Rabbit breeding (R) vs Wolf breeding (K)

https://youtu.be/35MparEoEw0

>>148474
>It sounds like a ponzi scheme where everyone needs to play by the rules /pitch in or everyone is fucked

You just described private insurance.

>>149007
You are not forced into private insurance

>>149007
Yeah except it's not mandatory

>>149008
>don't buy health insurance
>goes for minor medical care
>4 figure bill
>get sick or hurt
>5 figure bill

So much for my "consumer choice"

>>149010
It's your choice to not buy it though

You just illustrated a scenario where it's beneficial, there are scenarios where it's not as well

>>149011
In Maryland, you no longer have to prove you physically fought back to defend yourself during a rape.

This is just a rape called an "option" by the Health sector. It's not a fucking choice unless you're 1%, which is the exception not the norm.

>>149012
The illusion of choice is better then no choice at all. At least you get to choose how you're gonna get fucked as opposed to the state deciding for you.

>>148902
>moving goalposts

>>149011
>Instead of paying a relatively small amount extra in taxes (if any extra, at all) I'd rather have a system where a private company fucks me in the ass, makes me pay for it, and when I actually do get sick will do everything in its power to deny me care and/or make me pay more in the future. That is if they don't outright kick me off their policy and all other private insurance companies refuse to take me on because of pre-existing conditions. This is better because it gives me the illusion of choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1R53U9lNcM

>>149026
Holy shit this isn't satire.

It had this guy making the already fucking idiotic idea that universal healthcare would make doctors into slaves and made it even more fucking stupid.

And yet it's still not satire.

>>149013
>The illusion of choice is better then no choice at all

No it's not, it's politicial theater made to sedate people from seeing just how hard they're getting fucked over. If you realize it's an illusion and still believe in the illusion, you're part of the problem.

>>148744
Nature is red in tooth and claw, anon. You don't have time to mewl about how things aren't fair if you want to have things for yourself.

Oh no, you failed to get healthcare and now you have to suffer for it. It's not hard to get if you file paperwork and look at state and local programs.

There's literally a clinic with dental for homeless people to walk into in my city.

>>149028
Healthcare is not a right.

>>149031
So your argument is that giving people a decision in whether or not to get Healthcare from a variety of providees is a way to bamboozle them, but having the government force them into a single option is perfectly acceptable? The ability to choose whether to be insured or not at least incentives companies to try and attract the uninsured and therefore creates an incentive to keep price from going too out of control.

At the end of the day, we need to look at how to reduce costs at the provider level in order to actually fix the problems with the Healthcare system. Forcing people to have insurance doesn't solve the fact that it is too damn expensive to treat people and we need to find ways to reduce the cost.

>>148420
insurance is important at this moment of time, diseases and fatal accidents are happening frequently, everyone should be having insurance, and i think the government is the ones to provide its citizen. not from private insurance, anything private is not good.

>>148826
Oh fine then. When it's your dying mother or father or YOURSELF sitting in that hospital bed with an excruciating, expensive yet entirely curable disease that anyone who believes in high-minded things like the definition of "insurance" or "society" shouldn't mind paying a tiny bit into, you can breathe a last sigh of relief knowing that life isn't fair–and you did nothing to fight back because your suffering and dying early is just the law of nature at work. Just don't come back here to complain about it.

>>149039
It's not about complaining. It's about solving. Are you homeless? Have you ever failed to get healthcare and actually suffered for it? When's the last time you happened across decent health insurance after sifting through all these peachy state and local programs?

I'm guessing the answers are no/hell no/can't remember if at all, or else your reaction to getting handed a poor lot in life would have sounded very different. I don't buy for a second the problem is somehow most people unable to receive life saving and life altering healthcare simply fail to get off their asses and file some paperwork. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

I mean good for you for living somewhere last stop services are available for homeless people with abscess teeth.

>>149042
>The ability to choose whether to be insured or not at least incentives companies to try and attract the uninsured and therefore creates an incentive to keep price from going too out of control.

Yeah how's that been working out for the only super power on earth NOT using standard single payer health care of any form for its citizens?

>At the end of the day, we need to look at how to reduce costs at the provider level in order to actually fix the problems with the Healthcare system. Forcing people to have insurance doesn't solve the fact

At the end of the day, we need to look at where counties with parallel economies to the U.S. are actually reducing costs and increasing quality health care across the board. Those countries take a radically different approach.

>>148856
Intelligent things tend to get viciously shredded and eaten in the wild far more often than their ignorant and often out-breeding counterparts. The fact that humans have been able to use it to fill a niche for several million years doesn't mean it's always going to be that way. We're getting dumber all the time in a world where survival of the fittest is still very much alive in many places.

Also, assuming for a second that what you said is gospel truth, isn't it funny how in areas of the globe most concentrated with high intelligence, people always seem to come to an educated consensus that healthcare is best served to every citizen regardless of health status, income, occupation, or who your daddy knows– often with single or multi-paying structure? Puzzling, I know.

"Healthcare is a human right!"

>not realising that you're lucky the state itself isn't trying to kill you.

>>149070
Other countries around the world approach health differently at EVERY level, not just insurance. Look at obesity rates, rates of preventable diseases, etc. and it is clear that at a fundamental level Americans value their health less then other countries. For this reason we see a rise in more costly procedures needed to treat patients and therefore a higher price.

There is also the mentality of those countries being fundamentally different. People in the US have a very "every man for himself" philosophy drilled into then from a young age, as evidenced by numerous posts in this very thread, which makes the idea of paying for someone else's care less appealing then a Scandinavian country.

Another aspect is the smaller populations of other first world nations as well as the distribution of wealth being more even then what we see in the United States. Everyone actually would pay into the system, as opposed to here where the wealthy pay the majority of income tax making them less then willing to help others who would pay less for the same care. Yes, it is selfish and no I do not want to go further into it as it detracts from the main point.

Finally, many of those countries actually have a lot of problems with their Healthcare systems and it is not as perfect as it appears from the outside. Many of those systems weigh very heavily on the nation requiring far higher taxes then what we experience in the US at all income levels. You can make the argument that if you factor private insurance as a hidden tax it would balance out, and that is not an unfair point. Despite that, people are always more willing to pay a hidden as opposed to a blatant tax . Also you should look into the projected effects of the migrant crisis on European Healthcare systems.

Your entire argument hinged on radically overhauling the Healthcare system to ape others with minimal understanding of why they work in the first place was disastrous and would lead the country to financial ruin.

>>148740
Super Detroit

>>149010
>don't buy health insurance
There is your choice. Guess your iPhone isn't such a necessity.

>>149023
Obamacare fucked everyone in the ass. Idk what you're smoking but the old system was only horribly expensive if you had a terrible disease/accident or were on medicinal life support.

>>149085
>Americans value their health less then other countries

That is absolutely not true.

>For this reason we see a rise in more costly procedures needed to treat patients and therefore a higher price.

Also not the reason why.

>The United States is routinely the most expensive place to buy medical care, whether that’s a Humira pen or a knee replacement or an MRI scan. There are a handful of exceptions to the rule: The US does have colonoscopies that are cheaper than in New Zealand or the United Kingdom. On CT scans, we also come in slightly cheaper than Britain. But aside from those examples, it’s generally a safe bet that the highest prices for medical care can be found in America.

>The IFHP report undercut a common misconception about American health care: that it’s more expensive because we use more of it. Americans actually tend to use slightly less health care than people living elsewhere. We go to the doctor less, for example, and have fewer hospitals per capita than most European countries.

>Americans spend more for health care largely because of the prices.

>Most other countries have some central body that negotiates prices with hospitals and drug manufacturers. Sackville, who used to work for Britain’s health care system, recalls that it had a unit of 14 people whose whole job was getting drug manufacturers to give the country a better deal on prescription medications.

>That unit of 14 is essentially buying in bulk for a country of 63 million people – and can successfully ask for steep discounts in return.

>The United States doesn’t have that type of agency. Every insurance plan negotiates individually with hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical company to set prices. Insurers in the United States don’t, as these charts show, get a bulk discount. Instead, our fragmented system means that Americans pay more for every type of health care that IFHP measured.

>>149192
>“You could say that American health care providers and pharmaceuticals are essentially taking advantage of the American public because they have such a fragmented system,” Sackville said. “The system is so divided, it’s easy to conquer.”

I think you're grossly out of touch with reality and the real costs of a single payer healthcare system (hint: it would cost me less per year than my monthly premiums that are already slated to go up by 4x my by-in rate in my state because there's no reason for Insurance companies not to do this). You have to give up something to gain something, and I'd give up a percentage of my taxes to cover healthcare.

>>149104
Obamacare was extremely short-sighted but covered many of my monthly medical expenses completely for a fraction of the cost. Of course, this didn't last, but let's also not forget what a fucking nightmare getting coverage for serious medical illnesses where if you didn't already pay into the system.

Here's an article to accompany my comment about my soon to surge rates and why (also why Obamacare was stupid):

>The head of the largest insurer in the Mid-Atlantic region warned Thursday that the Affordable Care Act marketplaces were in the early stages of a death spiral, a statement that came as the company announced its request for massive, double-digit premium increases for next year. Projecting that by year's end the company will have lost a total of $600 million since it started selling plans in the marketplaces four years ago, CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield is requesting a greater than 50 percent rate increase in Maryland, a 35 percent increase in northern Virginia and a 29 percent increase in D.C.

>“What we’re seeing is greater sickness levels. The pool of beneficiaries is becoming sicker, in part because healthier people are not coming in at the same level we hoped,” said Chet Burrell, chief executive of CareFirst, which insures about 215,000 people through the marketplaces set up by the Affordable Care Act in all three states.

>Burrell said he was worried that the market was in the early stages of a death spiral, in which sick people who need insurance stay in the pool but healthier people drop out, causing insurers to raise rates — driving even more healthy people out of the market.

>The CareFirst announcement is a worrisome sign for insurers facing deep uncertainties about the political and regulatory environment next year. When large premium increases were approved for 2017, many health policy specialists and supporters of the Affordable Care Act argued those were a one-time correction because companies had priced their products too low when they entered the nascent marketplace. A recent report by S&P Global said the ACA market was not in a death spiral and said that Blue Cross Blue Shield plans broadly had done markedly better in 2016 than previous years.

>>148430
>>148452
>>148740
>All businesses are going to flee commiefornia because of muh regulations
>I know we've been saying this for decades but it will happen any day now
>Just trust me

>>149200
They expected healthy people to buy into higher level plans "just in case", but instead they dropped coverage and ate the annual penalty at Tax Time, leaving the Insurance Provider with sick people who need to use the services their Provider agreed to cover.

It's the same plan these national Gym Chains use to get huge profits but collecting annual membership fees on people who never step back inside the gym, and if people did, well then the membership rates would have to rise!

Not to mention, since we're on the topic of "illusion of choice", you do realize in the US you have to pay a yearly penalty for NOT buying into PRIVATE health insurance plans, right? The only way you can exclude yourself is if you're too poor in the first place (and guess who's the poorest generation? Oh the millenials, just our future, no big deal). The penalty for opting-out is the same as some of the cheapest level plans of insurance.

>Only people under 30 can have a Catastrophic Plan
>People who get older and are more and more likely to get seriously ill must, by law, pay more regardless of they are generally healthy or not
>next time you catch a break is when you're 65 and get to use the incredibly fucked up system of Medicare

Can't wait to see the new Republican bill, by the way, I'm sure it'll be all the changes to Obamacare we hope for.

>>149196
Obamacare originally came with a public option. You could still get private Cadillac plans, but there was always the public plan to fall back on (and keep the private options competitive). When you take that into consideration, the shit like health mandate starts making a lot of sense. The public option was killed by Lieberman, but everything else remained the same.

Think about building a house without a roof. The removal of such a key component to the ACA should have sent it back to the drafting board, but the Democrats were desperate to pass something, so we get a very flawed reform that nobody is really happy with.

>>149216
Thank-you for the explanation , I was aware, but others may not know that Lieberman killed the public option. I totally agree that this desperate plan is and was in no way, a long-term solution, but as someone who has a very sick (terminal) member of the family, I was happy that at the very least no one could be disqualified for already being sick and initially, there were low-enough premiums to help the ever diminishing middle-class

As convoluted, frustrating (if you freelance and have to verify your income, god help you), and temporary the ACA is, I think any progress towards a different standard of health care is worth the painful revisions and struggle forward. Americans often times don't seem to know or understand what they're voting or fighting for until they're directly affected, so that a large amount of the country is actually uncomfortable with a total ACA repeal is a good sign.

>>148420
single payer only works with price controls.

>>148841
A fair world is a hopeless world.

>>149201
>I know we've been saying this for decades but it will happen any day now

Time 4 reality check

>California’s costly tax and regulatory policies prompted more than 10,000businesses to leave the state, reduce their operations or curtail plans to locate here between 2008 and 2015, according to a report from Spectrum Location Solutions.
>http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/business/20160809/how-many-businesses-have-left-california-this-report-claims-to-have-an-answer

Reality check complete :)

>>149325
Liberals BTFO

>>149321
This

>>149325
>Economist Christopher Thornberg, a founding partner with Beacon Economics, acknowledged that California’s isn’t the most business friendly state. But he said the state’s economy is still moving in a positive direction.

>“Some companies do move out of California because of cost concerns,” he said. “Would I like to see those jobs stay here? Of course. But we still added more jobs than Florida and Texas put together. If you take a good hard look at things, our state is largely a success story.”

>Figures from the state Employment Development Department show that California led the nation in year-over-year growth in June with 461,100 jobs added — outpacing Florida’s new 244,500 jobs and Texas, which added 171,100.

Know how I know you don't read your sources? Even allowing for overall employment growth and higher texan wages, unemployment in the state is the lowest it's ever been, and getting lower still. Get back to me when that growth actually becomes negative.

>>149330
>Know how I know you don't read your sources?
Know how I know you're an idiot?

>lolol no businesses are leaving commiefornia because of taxes and regulations
>Here's empirical proof of 10,000 companies that have left commiefornia between 08 and 15 because of taxes and regulations
>LOL, doesn't count somehow cause commiefornia still added jobs

The goal posts will remain in place. Thank you.

>unemployment in the state is the lowest it's ever been, and getting lower still
And yet it's still higher than the national average.
And Florida.
And Texas.

Re-reality check complete :)

>>149331
I wasn't moving goalposts, I was redirecting your attention to important stats within the article showing falling unemployment hasn't stalled and thus the issue is more complicated than people think. Many businesses may have left, but those that remained may be expanding.

Looking at the April 2017 State Unemployment Rates right now, and while Florida's is 0.3 points lower, Texas' is 0.2 points higher. Furthermore, Texas' rate for this month was also higher than the national average by 0.6 points, more so than California, and as a matter of fact has not fallen at all. Finally, Texas' rate has actually grown significantly from its post-peak low back in 2015, whereas it's smooth sailing down for California.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-unemployment-update.aspx

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/california/

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/texas/

We don't necessarily have to be opponents; if increased taxation and regulation truly isn't working out for California, the stats will definitely show that over time, and action will have to be taken to make them more reasonable. Now, however, is still a bit too early to be making rash assumptions, especially when the numbers are telling a different story.

>>149336
i'm a transplant that's been living in Los Angeles for the past 10 years.

A pro tip. the locals out here hate transplants, they treat us like the alt-right treat illegals.

now that being said, if they want this single payer bullshit, they will have an influx of dead beats unlike they have ever seen.

oh and i forgot. locals are always bitching and moaning about how there are no jobs and not enough housing. They don't get it, at some point people like me and the others that make good fucking money will end up moving because we are sick of getting taxed to death. This state pisses everything away with Unions and paying out pensions, and all these fucking locale retards keep voting these people in.

California is a bubble and Los Angeles is a bubble within a bubble. They have no clue how the rest of the united states works, they only know what the talking heads tell them.

fuck this state. i got 5 more years and i'm moving i've made my money and i'll be taking it with me.

>>149336
SB 562 -- the Healthy California Act -- is working its way through Sacramento right now.

SB 562 proposes a single payer system for CA. You will NOT get to vote on it

Single payer = "rationed" medical care.

SB 562 means the State controls and pays for your health care.

YOU pay the state (significantly) higher taxes.

You will have no other choice. You will see the doctors who participate in the State's program, and only if/when they're available.

Here's what we DO know for sure: IF SB 562 passes, ALL existing plans WILL end (including employer / Individual / Medicare / Medi-cal) IF SB 562 passes, nine unregulated board members and an advisory committee appointed by the governor will control your benefits IF SB 562 passes, it will be paid by YOUR increased taxes (the state needs $179 billion in new taxes!)

And here's what we can probably guess will happen: You won't get to decide your coverage ALL payroll taxes and self-employment taxes will skyrocket Rationed health care. It means you can't just see any doctor and long wait times. Estimated personal income tax increase of $9200 for everyone, probably increasing every year Doctors won't get paid very well, which could cause them to leave CA Government run ... AKA if you need help with your coverage, your only call will be to a government call center (like calling the IRS but worse!) There'll be no professional, experienced brokers to advocate for you

>>149339
The only way single-payer system will ever work in the united states of america is if it is done at the federal level. State by state it will fail, done in by immigration/running away of citizens/businesses/doctors, hospitals, clinics, insurance companies(major player in the last decade and a half of medical insurance laws), career politicians, and stock-holders in medical companies(the new/in/protected/guaranteed money makers in stocks).

If the insurance companies have literally NO WHERE ELSE TO GO, then they'll be forced to accept deals and no longer charge 100,000 for toilet seats and 10,000 for a simple bandage. Until then inflated to obsurd levels charges will continue to apply.