Plan could require all in state (CA) to have health insurance

[question everything]

Wednesday, February 9, 2005

Plan could require all in state to have health insurance

By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer

LA JOLLA ---- Two state assemblymen told health officials in La Jolla on Tuesday that they plan to propose a sweeping health-care reform package in Sacramento on Thursday that would likely require all Californians to have health insurance.

State Assemblymen Joe Nation, D-Marin, and Dr. Keith Richman, R-Chatsworth, told health officials who gathered at UC San Diego to discuss the future of health care that they had been working on the comprehensive reform package that would "shake up the status quo," for more than a year.

Health-care officials, meanwhile, representing insurers, hospitals, doctors, county health services, academics and think-tank groups said California's, and the nation's, health-care system was broken and costs are spiraling out of control ---- in part because too many people don't have health insurance.

More..

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/02/09/news/top_stories/23_17_522_8_05.txt


Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at [phone] or [e-mail]

[proud patriot]

1. as a Californian W/O health Insurance

I hope they expand Healthy Families to include
Adults ...

[mudderfudder77]

2. I would much rather support

Healthcare at the state level than at the Federal. Individual states should give their citizens the opportunity to vote on state provided healthcare initiatives.

[w4rma]

8. It really should be handled at the federal level, however.

Because handling it at the state level allows the ultra wealthy to get off without having to pay into the system, just by setting up their "residence" in another state.

They can move their P.O. box from state to state but to keep the benefits that the U.S. military provides them they have to keep their residence within the country.

[lebkuchen]

3. I'd be happy if they all had car insurance

but why not shoot for the moon in a RW-run Fantasyland (aka the US of A).

[Book Lover]

4. So if I go to the emergency room sans insurance

How much *more* will I have to shell out for the fine? People, this is a stupid idea logistically and politically.

[superconnected]

13. 10 times what you would without

it's a scam. It's designed to force you to get insurance or not use the hospital. The insurance companies apparently get up to %90 breaks on the same procedure if you got it without one.

From what I've seen looking at someones bill pre/post applying the insurance.

[zann725]

32. Absolutely! Are they going to ."fine" or imprison us if we can't afford

to buy insurance? A lot of people can't...more every day.

This sounds like a "Herr" Arnold plan. Totally out of touch with the people he represents. What a jerk!

[Conservativesux]

39. Perhaps. California's correctional officers union members need more bodies

I dont underestimate anything that goes on in this state.

[Rockerdem]

5. Why stop at health insurance? Mandatory auto, life, and homeowners?

What is needed is help for the indigent. Let the middle and upper classes pay for themselves and chip in for the rest. It's a lot simpler than being stopped by a cop and hauled in for not having proper insurance papers on your person. It will just be another angle to increase the number of snoop stops by cops.

[Ilsa]

6. We're middle class and we wouldn't be able to afford

health insurance without assistance from an employer. Just two adults and two kids, one with a chronic health condition.

[question everything]

26. You would be better off if your employer pays you the premium

so that you can shop around for the best plan for you - provided that insurance companies start competing in the market place for individual and families - and provided you can deduct all the premium from your income, the way the employer does.

Also, provided that insurance company cannot just drop policy holders because they got sick and, hey, provided insurance companies are limited in the compensation that they give their executives.

Yes, a lot, I know. But I am certain that one reason why health costs have risen so much is that, first, it is the employer who negotiate the plan and, two, most of us do not see the bills submitted to the insurance company.

As recently reported in the strib http://www.startribune.com/stories/465/5227999.html

Medica says that it did not pay anywhere near $20,000 for repair of Pajak's broken arm. Medica says that for the hospital portion of the bill -- $11,374.52 -- it actually paid $1,049. That's a prenegotiated price that Medica would pay for a broken humerus bone. Other insurance companies might have different prenegotiated prices.

(snip)

But, according to Hatch (MN AG) and other critics, the problem with these wink-wink billing arrangements is that the uninsured are the only people who get stuck with the full bill.

"The billings are fictional," Hatch said. "These total charges don't make any difference to anyone except the collection agencies. For the uninsured, these bills are tickets to bankruptcy."

[Garbo 2004]

7. Auto insurance effectively mandatory in CA: proof of insurance

(financial responsibility) must be available on the scene if you're stopped by a cop or have an accident; it's also required to register the vehicle with the DMV http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm. It's been that way for years.

[Book Lover]

14. There is an essential difference

I can choose not to drive a car. I can choose to not live in a house. I can not choose to never become sick.

[Richard D]

15. It's only mandatory for liability

It's for if you hit someone else. If you're at fault, the insurance covers their claim. You don't have to have insurance to cover yourself.

[Book Lover]

16. Yes, I live in CA

and am familiar. I also know we have a provision for a driver to put up a bond (I believe it's for $50k?) rather than purchase auto insurance. I wonder if something along those lines will be worked into these bills...

[zann725]

33. So we're going to let people die on the steps of a hospital if they can't

afford insurance? How Draconian is that?

Is THIS the Freedom we're spreading around the world? There are so many unemployed people, or underpayed people right now due to job outsourcing right now, and failing economy. How can most people be expected to buy health insurance when many have either NO jobs (due to no fault of their own), or several part-time jobs that do NOT provide health insurance at all.

This is dreadful. Shame on us as a Nation!

[Garbo 2004]

30. Sure but my response was to Rockerdem who apparently didn't know

that CA already does have a law requiring proof of auto insurance or equivalent financial responsibility.

[cornermouse]

10. Auto insurance is already mandatory here.

And if you financed your home, chances are really good that you had to have a certain amoung of homeowners insurance as well.

[greeklady]

29. Mandatory?

Well Auto and Homeowners is already mandatory (if you drive and have a mortgage). Life Insurance most people already have.

Requiring people to have health insurance by law? Do these dorks think we wouldn't have it if we could afford it? So what now? What is the penalty, fine or is jail time involved?

This is the idea of a complete idiot. This will never get passed if it does watch California become a wasteland.

[not systems]

37. "wasteland" your funny.

I'll take a "wasteland" with heath care over your
prosperous third world paradise of rising infant mortality.

[greeklady]

43. I'm confused?

I'll take a "wasteland" with heath care over your
prosperous third world paradise of rising infant mortality.


Huh? When did I say anything about third world paradise of rising infant mortality?

[Sivafae]

9. So how would this be enforced?

And if those, like myself, are not able to pay for the insurance, what would make these people believe that anyone would be able to pay any fines on top of that?
and considering that those who do not have insurance already do have larger bills than those without insurance, aren't they already paying a fine?

[spunky]

11. So is the state of California going to pay for it? Or at least provide low

cost policies to low-income families?

While it may be true that some people without insurance CAN actually afford it, lots of people who don't have it CAN'T afford it. Just because you pass a law saying everyone has to have it doesn't magically give people the money to pay for it.

[superconnected]

12. this is a tough swallow for me

because health insurance like car insurance is big business, and I don't trust the insurance industry.

If they're going to make it mandatory that we have health insurance(pay them for it),(which means those companies get big breaks with hospitals, drug companies and medical procedures) why don't they just put a cap on hospital charges, instead.

My boss had a heart attack in his early 40's, a few years back. his bill for 2 days in the hospital was 50k. After his insurance got in their discount with the hospital, it was only a 5k bill for them to pay. The insurance paid the 5k, but why should hospitals be able to charge people 50k when they can charge insurance companies only 5k for the same bill.

That's where we get into forced insurance. We have to pay for insurance or the medical industry will make our bill 10 times more for the same procedure.

I believe in free enterprise, but in areas where there is no price competition, and the service is necessity, why not put a cap on profit margin.

Instead, this will pass because insurance companies are the #2 donator to politicians, number 1 being the medical industry.

It will pass because they want us to pay them, not because they want to give us affordable health coverage.

fairly soon you'll see your personal mandatory insurance cost skyrocket if you have something like, bad credit. It affects your rates in the auto industry because you fall into a bigger liabilty driver if you have bad credit. ???? But that's what will happen.

insurance great, but do you really trust them? Warren Buffet - owns most of the auto insurance companies in america was schwartzeneggers running partner and treasurer of the schwartzeneggers campaign. He's a dem but I've never trusted him.

[pookieblue]

17. {{shakes head in disbelief}}

What is this world coming to?

<< patients over-use expensive drugs ---- rather than generics ---- and medical treatments, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging >>

I don't know about some people, but I do believe that most people don't go into their doctor's offices demanding MRI's. And I do think that most people would choose generics over the more expensive brands, if the RX's are equal. But in some cases some medicines don't come in generic and that is the one RX the person needs.

Do these people think that we go in begging to have these medical treatments?

<<Goldman said, many people who do not have health insurance are not poor>>

Okay Mr Goldman... granted that not everyone who doesn't have insurance is poor... but considering the cost of the policy and compare it to how much they make a year... it could put a big dent into their finances. Oh there are people out there who can not get covered because of a pre existing condition. What about those people Mr Goldman???? What are they going to do?

okay, my rant is over.

[athenap]

18. bass ackwards...

From the article:
<i>Michael Murphy, president and chief executive officer of Sharp Healthcare, said, "The system isn't working ... only one-third of hospitals in the state are making money. There have been eight hospital closures in the state of California in the last six months."</i>

Pardon me, but waaah waaah, hospitals aren't making money. Maybe because their goal is to *treat sick people!*

Also from the article:

<i>Surprisingly, Goldman said, many people who do not have health insurance are not poor.

He said recent studies show that more than one-third of the population who are uninsured have income levels that are twice the federal poverty level.</i>

Just because you have more than the poverty level does not mean you are rolling in money. In fact, why doesn't he try to live at those "poverty levels" and see if he can afford a health insurance premium that's hundreds of dollars per month.

I honestly don't understand what problem these people think they're trying to solve. I suspect it isn't the fact that people don't have access to health care. I think it's that somebody can't make money off more people who get health care.

[Book Lover]

22. Federal poverty level

Size of 48 Contiguous Alaska Hawaii
Family Unit States and D.C.
1 $ 9,310 $11,630 $10,700
2 12,490 15,610 14,360
3 15,670 19,590 18,020
4 18,850 23,570 21,680
5 22,030 27,550 25,340
6 25,210 31,530 29,000
7 28,390 35,510 32,660
8 31,570 39,490 36,320
For each additional
person, add 3,180 3,980 3,660

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml

on edit: Hey! This was correctly formatted in the edit window...

[bemildred]

19. Morons.

We need a tax-funded public health care system that covers everybody.
Like most every other "advanced" nation has.

[MuddyBootStrap]

24. Would this be a tax increase or a budget cut?

How much do other nations pay in tax for full health care for all?

[bemildred]

25. How much do WE pay for the crappy system we have now?

We have the most expensive health care "system" in the World,
and it still sucks. National health care will be cheaper and
better than the disfunctional mess we have now. It's not the money
that is the issue.

[Solon]

28. Actually people in Canada pay LESS in taxes than we do...

I think its like a grand or more less on average. But anyways, let me put it this way. Would you be willing to forgo the 250 dollar a month premium, with 1k or over co-pay, etc. etc. And instead pay let's say 175 dollars a month more in taxes, of course this will be progressive, like most taxes should be, so less is paid by the poor, more for the rich etc. Now keep in mind that under most NHSes co-pays and such are either non-existant or extremely low, like 20 dollars or less. Not to mention you can get NO restrictions on what doctors you want, etc.

Also think about this, the overhead and administration health care costs in this country, including both insurance and for-profit hospitals is around 30 to 40 percent. That is almost half of what you pay in that isn't used for medical care at all. Not to mention that your insurance rates are dependent on stock market performance, where insurance companies make most of their profits. Market tanks, and premiums go up so they keep the profit margin high, talk about a scam. Now, guess what Medicare's overhead costs amount to? I'll tell you anyways, 3%, that's it, and Canada's, that whole horrible system has an overhead cost of less than 5%, so who has the most effecient in medical care system again?

[lostnfound]

35. No, it's an unfunded mandate, on the backs of citizens. nt

[Skittles]

36. not nearly as much as we pay

trying to get decent health care

[Misskittycat]

20. Are the insurers suddenly going to cover everyone,

regardless of medical history?

Uninsurability is a big factor here; it isn't just the lack of financial ability to pay for a policy -- although often the two go hand in hand.

[hansberrym]

21. What will they do to people who refuse to pay? n/t

[MuddyBootStrap]

23. What about those that can't afford it or don't want it?

Who will pay their premimum and can people opt-out of it?

[kineneb]

27. In CA, but hubby can't GET insurance!

We live in a rural CA county and are on the adult version of MediCal called "CMSP". And yes, we live on under 200% of the federal poverty level to qualify for coverage. Hubby is on insulin and has "renal insufficiency" (fancy term for kidneys going out). He has been turned down for coverage. Will this law change that?

To qualify for CMSP:
1.no liquid assets (savings, 401K, retirement), house and 1 car excepted.
2. Income below 200% of federal poverty level.
3. Pay "share of cost" if income is above certain amount ($934/month for 2 people) = every dollar above 934 is paid out as the share of cost before the coverage kicks in!!

Try living on $934/mo(before taxes!) for two people when one has a severe medical condition! I was working 40 hrs/wk @$10/hr before I figured out it just increased the share of cost. I cut back my hours to 35/wk!

[GetTheRightVote]

31. It is a start in the right direction, all Americans should have health car

:kick:

[lostnfound]

34. Will this stop bankruptcies caused by health problems? NO.

The recent study that showed that 1/2 of bankruptcies are caused by health problems also showed that in most of those cases, the person HAD health insurance but the company dropped them due to the illness OR the copays and deductibles wiped them out etc.

Insurance companies have started aggressively marketing to college kids and young adults -- why? Because it's easy revenue without a proportional burden.

So they raised the rates of John Q Public so high that working people almost can't afford it..how can they make more money? By making health insurance mandatory.

Take away choices for the individual, make money for corporations.

This is another Republican unfunded mandate.

[doodadem]

38. Fake "insurance"

Listening to Democracy Now again the other day (LOVE that show!), and Amy Goodman had someone on talking about our new Bush appointed head of Health/Human Services. I guess the guy used to be governor of Utah. One of the things he implemented there was "insurance for everyone". This "insurance" consisted of $1,000 paid toward major medical bills. It didn't cover anything else, no hospitalization, nothing. But all kinds of companies jumped on that bandwagon, saying they were now offering health insurance to their employees. A total joke.
Now, this guy is saying he wants to implement this plan nationally, and solve all our problems. If people stand for this, they do indeed "get the government they deserve".

[depakid]

40. The rationale only works if there's a large enough risk pool

and the individual purchers are allowed to either buy-in at standardized rates or are provided subsidized coverage via the state's collective purchasing power.

Simply forcing people to buy insurance based on the current auto and home mortgage model is stupid, because it does nothing to adress the problem of premium disparities and adverse selection.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. "Solving" the health care crisis by requiring people to buy insurance

is like "solving" the problem of homelessness by requiring everybody to buy a house.

:eyes:

[LiberallyInclined]

42. what about the "un-insurable"...?

what are the people who CAN'T get insurance due to a pre-existing condition supposed to do?

move out?

[Newsjock]

44. Proposed (Calif.) law: All must buy health insurance

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/10873803.htm

By Barbara Feder Ostrov
Mercury News

A sweeping, bipartisan health reform plan that would require all Californians to purchase basic health insurance -- or have their wages garnished -- is drawing a lot of attention in Sacramento, but insiders say the plan in its current form doesn't stand much of a chance.

Assemblymen Joe Nation, D-San Rafael, and Keith Richman, R-Granada Hills, on Thursday unveiled their Universal Healthcare Act of 2005, which aims to help California's 6.4 million uninsured people, control costs and improve health quality. The legislation is expected to be formally introduced next week.

... The Nation-Richman reform package would:

-- Require citizens and legal residents of California to purchase basic health insurance, maintaining at least a catastrophic policy with a maximum $5,000 deductible. Californians would be required to submit proof of coverage with their state tax returns. Those who don't could be automatically enrolled in a health plan and either lose their tax refunds or have their wages garnished to pay the premiums.

more

[eyesroll]

45. Strategically, a bill makes sense

It stands little chance of passing, but might force through some reasonable compromises (i.e. the provisions which make enrolling in Medical, subsidies and buying pools for individuals and small employers).

The bill itself is crap, though.

[sarcasmo]

46. Forced health care what a nut job idea. You can't afford it so the idiots

force you to buy it. If this ever went through in Michigan I know I would be the first to not buy it just out of spite. Wages garnished to pay for health care. Could you imagine, 25% to taxes 25% of your check to health care garnishment and then what if you owed child support.
The check you would get could be let's say 400 gross a week. 25% to taxes leaves you with 300, 25% health care garnishment leaves you with 200 a week to leave on. This is just the most insane idea I have seen thrown out their in years.

[sarcasmo]

47. Live on not leave. Missed typo, man I was ticked when I saw this.

[sarcasmo]

48. Live on not leave. Missed typo, man I was ticked when I saw this.

[leesa]

49. This is a disaster in the making. How will they afford it?

Privatization is a disaster any way it's tried. We need national health insurance.

[Canuckistanian]

50. How about his?

States give corporations tax breaks to provide healthcare for their employees. And reduce the amount of the tax break if they lay people off, with government providing healthcare to laid-off workers.

Thus, an incentive to keep people working and insured by both corporations AND government.