She seems to be the next token left wing moral activist "they" are going to try and shove down everyone's throat by hiding or downplaying the crazy and stupid crap.


Bigger, stronger government through policing morality going after utopian policies that emotionally seem rational but in practical reality just lead to government overreach and problems?


The expansion of California crazy? No, thank you.


I think the government had an opportunity to show how great a "single payer" medical service could be through the VA system.
I think they keep failing.

I think Kamala Harris is doing what a lot of politicians are doing; pandering to morons/low informed voters that support the left.

I'd like to see California enact a single payer state system, that is only funded by the state, to see what happens.


Neither? It's SOSDD from liberal democrats?


Only if you want a young Pelosi/Hillary hybrid, IMO.



Great. So illegals sneak in, get free prenatal care, drop an anchor baby, and through the magic of constitutional and statute wording the parents and family are now covered by free medical care?
I'm sure that will stop the trains with thousands of undocumented immigrants from Central and South America from pulling right up to the border.
And I'm sure that will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the cost, access, or quality of care.


And I'm sure this will be determined solely by the doctor and patient and not defined by government, right?
It won't be the government telling doctors, limiting options that doctors can offer to patients, what they can say is "medically necessary..." right?


Hmmm...Let's see. Let's look at the VA, the department of education, college loan programs, college tuition costs, social security, medicare/medicaid, SNAP...out of all of those government or government funded programs have the administrative costs decreased due to new efficiencies implemented due to greater government centralization, so more money every year is going towards the services the people receive?
No. Administrative costs have done nothing but increase and bloat.


How's that working out for your water or electricity bill or cable bill?
Every year they keep going down, right? Cheaper electricity? Cleaner water? Fewer commercials, more quality program, cheaper cable bill?
All that happens is government creates government sponsored monopolies with less incentive to give you anything more than what the (state and/or federal) government mandates they give you according to the costs the government mandates.

You tell me which had a quicker response and resolution without a huge increase in costs:
- The E. Coli outbreak at Chipotle or Jack in the Box in 1993?
- The Flint/California Water crisis?

There's no incentive to give you anything better to keep you coming back, only how little they can give you to keep you from complaining too much, and more incentive for corruption like in Washington state where enough money as a campaign contribution will get you lost or reinterpreted water quality reports.

Not to mention, the U.S. government is not held to things like GAAP standards. If they spend 100 billion this year, want to budget 200 billion next year, but "only" manage to budget 180 billion, well that's touted on the front page as "saving" (cutting costs) for taxpayers by 20 billion.

Other than that, look at any "single payer" system in the world and you'll notice the amount spent on healthcare per GDP has only ever increased.
Costs are hidden. Kind of like food inflation. e.g. recently Pringles can size change but price remains the same.
Or what Wal Mart (whose profit comes mostly from SNAP. 17 billion profit, 14 billion in food stamps spent at Wal Mart) does routinely. Lower the price of one product that doesn't sell all that much, then very slightly raise the price of 30 well selling products.

Costs do not decrease in a centralized system of government created monopolies. Especially not with a fiat currency and built in inflation, but that's another thread.


Really?
"If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too"
How'd that work out?

Jesus.
"B...b..b.but this time it's different!"


Obama's solution was to keep the patchwork of private insurance companies, and insert a new patch of government bureaucracy into the mix, through the magic of a nearly 2 billion dollar website. But that was supposed to magically decrease administrative costs?

From the OP "a single public or quasi-public agency organizes healthcare financing."
So a monopoly, or a government sponsored enterprise like fanny mae and freddy mac and sallie mae.
Look into their finances and need for bailouts and please feel free to say how administrative costs have decreased.

And how have they worked in the real world?
You ever try to buy a house with a fanny/freddie mortgage in Phoenix?
Many to most homes (at least between 2012 and 2014) were bought with cash. People paid taxes that go to support fanny/freddie, even bail them out...but they have to use cash because they had to pay sometimes double the asking price to pick up a home since there was a period of high demand.

How have single payer systems fared in the rest of the world?
People taxed and offered free health services...has that decreased long term consumption (demand) of health services? Lead to far more healthy people needing less health care whatsoever? Also making everyone more productive, thereby working more, able to pay more in taxes, thereby creating an environment where spending on healthcare as a percentage of GDP has decreased?
Nope.


Only according to what the government defined as "patient care," or as you said in the OP "medically necessary," as it's defined by the government in what it is willing to pay for, according to what it can afford to pay, based on tax revenue and debt.

Government intervention increased the size and power of the insurance companies that lead to less transparency in medical costs.
Government intervention lead to doctors and hospitals being unable to function as private businesses.
What is easier to figure out, how much a box of gauze costs, and why, between walmart, walgreens, and 7-11, or how much a box of gauze costs, and why, between your doctor and local hospital, or how much a colonoscopy costs, and why, between your local hospital and specialist?

What do you think will be easier to get: the insuring agreement of your health insurance policy from your insurance provider? Or a FOIA request regarding new changes to the insuring agreement or conditions between your doctor and the government "quasi-public agency" which determines actual costs of your healthcare and what the doctor is allowed to offer you in terms of healthcare?


All of which exist because of historical government (state and federal) intervention.


So you believe the solution to local bureaucracy, since insurance is mostly state controlled and there isn't interstate commerce of insurance, ("billing, marketing, underwriting & other actives") is to replace it with national bureaucracy...and that will lower costs?


I think a lot of people would see some good in this.
Unfortunately I think the vast majority that do/will are already in the hospital with massive head trauma or wearing helmets on the short bus on their way to school so can't chime in.

medicaid is an income based program, with premiums based on your inome, and it does not cover ALL types of care

you dropped it, but it wasnt your only option for insurance, it just wasnt the price you wanted to pay

there are some who need care and cant afford the care they NEED, I would not mind seeing that change.

It actually happened on the Continent of Africa,, so her name is probably just fine.

A student who received a staggering $1,080,000 instead of her usual $108 monthly university financial aid is in hot water after going on a massive 73-day spending spree with her friends. Accountancy student Sibongile Mani, 27, who was on benefits to allow her to study, was said to have undergone a Cinderella-like transformation overnight after the cash blunder. Mani, who studies at the Walter Sisulu University in Mthatha, Eastern Cape, South Africa, gets $108 each month put into her bank account, which she is supposed to use to pay for food and book. But instead, Intellimali, the company that administers the financial aid allowances at the university, messed up and sent $1,080,000 in cash to ...

http://www.yahoo.com/news/m/2b86951b-1830-31af-81af-7b1981dc4ea7/ss_poor-student-lives-the-high.html

...would you have called financial aid?

about one third 31% of our health spending goes to administration

so i'm a bit confused, are you saying you're pro fascist, or just anti communist?