6th largest economy, not 10th.
The amerikan people cry that having a single payer health system would cost us higher taxes, and they are right! It will cost the amerikan people higher taxes, and the amerikan people are never going to see single payer healthcare, K-Phd. education nor many of the other things that other advanced countries enjoy as long as the amerikan people knuckle under and continue to pay corporate welfare through the United States Congress. The amerikan people pay the 400 wealthiest families in the US to remain wealthy subsidizing this country's military and homeland empirical land and resource grabs. We subsidies the fouling of our air, land and water, then we pay for the cleanup of saId air, land and water if the US Congress or State Legislatures even bother to clean up the corporate messes. We also subsidize the corporate mercenaries lined up against the amerikans who are protesting the fouling of the air, land and water. The US Department of State uses highly paid mercenaries to do it's dirty work around the world, which also means they don't have to report their dirty deeds to Congress, as they would have to if they used US Military forces.
Just the yearly cost to the american people for the Pentagon/The Department of War and the Department of Homeland INSECURITY easily exceeds over $1.6 Trillion a year! $1.6 Trillion, what would that buy the amerikan people in the way of single payer health care, K-Phd. education, infrastructure, fighting pollution? Yet, the amerikan people seems to be fixed on providing a lavish lifestyle for the few, so that the many may suffer! Does that make sense to you? Well, it doesn't to me!!!
If you don't have a " buy in " from the margins of society, you"ll create a class of " sellouts " from that same segment of society.
We cannot afford 20-25% of the population feeling an abandonment, from the time they are born in America, to the time they die from a willful, chosen negligence. That means funding pre-natal care, funding pre-school and the list goes on, and grows out. It is just the moneywise and smart thing to do.
The ultimate costs, if you don't have a " buy in " will be a police state. Crimes of survival, both petty and serious, will fill/eat up our budgets with public security and safety issues. Communities will hit the panic button and demand a Trumpian lock them up, lock them up, model of organization. Dystopian lunacy and Saudi-style crackdowns, writ large.
We are already suffering, collectively, from inadequate funding of the poor and working class in safe housing, good schools and other basic amenities. The failed state will make paying for universal healthcare and a fair start for all, look cheap by comparison. And, there are plenty of examples all over this planet of what that looks like. And, it is more than poison in your water, etc.
The citizens of the richest country in the world cannot afford to be cheapskates, any longer. This could be framed as a moral issue, but it must be framed as a cornerstone of a united country. If it isn't we are all toast. Think of burnt toast, here.
Not to throw a burr in the laundry, but Liberal and Establishment Democrat are contradictory terms, the former being in solidarity with the nurses fight for Single-Payer, and the latter having evolved over the last 40 years into a Corporatist neoliberal GOP-Lite.
California cannot credibly threaten to secede, and the federal government cannot credibly threaten the state's Medicare population. What state, or country, are you from?
RoseAnne DeMoro and National Nurses United ROCKS! Hardball! YES! YES! YES!
Pharmaceutical and insurance corporation lobbyists are quite possibly the most dangerous propagandists active in this country at this point. Thank you for fighting back with truth.
Since you don't seem to have an understanding of that statement..
verb (used with object), assumed, assuming.
to take for granted or without proof:
to assume that everyone wants peace.
Synonyms: suppose, presuppose; postulate, posit.
I wonder how much Tony Rendon was paid to single-handedly stop that bill? Shouldn't someone be checking his finances to see if there has been a sudden, huge donation to his re-election campaign?
This is an example of what John Atcheson was talking about in his recent article on this news site. The Dems have been bought off a long time ago. There are still some good Democrats out there but the party itself is a joke. They have taken the place of the old Republican Party before it went bat-shit crazy, unhinged, as most of the GOP membership is today. Thank you Koch Brothers and other one percenters for destroying this country and thank you masses of ignorant, bigoted, hateful Americans for voting into office these corporate whores and pimps for big business.
The French in the late 18th Century had the right idea on how to handle their corrupt King, the rich nobles and the Church leaders who were sucking the life out of the people. But they had the Age of Enlightenment and the writers and philosophers from that movement to lead them. The enlightenment has been replaced by a regression to the Dark Ages lead by pseudo religious TV evangelists and other self serving, self enriching "religious" leaders who support scum like Trump and the extreme right. Indeed, in many ways these pseudo religious bigots are leading the extreme right.
Where does the idea that the Federal Government will withold Medicare/Medicaid funding if we enact Single Payer come from? States having more autonomy is more of a conservative idea and I'm not sure I see the majority of Republicans outside our state trying to cause so much trouble. Have there been any threats? What about a direct conversation with the Federal Governement? - maybe the bill can be structured so as to reduce their burden and they'll be happy to let us try.
I'm not the least bit interested in succession or threatening succession (which is crazy and I wouldn't want it) and I don't think it would be of any practical use in the conversation.
That was from the Committee analysis, a specific quote from it in fact. I provided the link even if you'd like to actually inform yourself about the bill's legislative history. Oh, and it happens to be from the committee with jurisdiction over appropriations, you know, the Committee called Appropriations, chaired no less by the bill's author. So, what's your point? Did you see or bother to read the post I was responding to? Nobody here screaming sellout has offered an explanation for why the committee with jurisdiction over, well, appropriations didn't develop appropriations mechanisms to fund the bill.
Great read (Pollin's response at the Intercept), thanks. Pollin gives a very clear defense of the current strategy to get to Single Payer in California. In contrast, reading Rendon's statement (https://speaker.asmdc.org/press-releases/speaker-rendon-statement-health-care) results in a big nothing-burger. If he is so strongly opinionated as to derail this bill (for now as he says), then he can put down a LOT more words as to what he is looking for the next time. I'm tired of politics in the back rooms - I want discourse in the public record.
I'm not in Rendon's district (https://speaker.asmdc.org/district-map) but I sure hope he pays a political price for his decision and the lack of transparency.
I just read Pollin's response in the Intercept and he addresses this point on worrying that the Federal Government would withhold funds:
"These are the federal government funds that Kevin Drum claims will never arrive into California’s coffers as long as Trump is president. It is true that the Trump administration, or any other federal administration, may attempt to violate the law. But if one supports single payer, why would one assume right off the block that existing laws will obviously be abrogated and that California will have no recourse when this happens?"
Somehow, I never read as cogent an argument from Rendon, Dayen, or KC2669 - I wonder why that is.
One of the things that really infuriates me with this story is that I don't see how anyone can say that Rendon is doing his job correctly. You can even take someone's argument (like David Dayen in the Intercept or KC2669 here) that Lara is not doing his job correctly - so what? I work as an engineer and sometimes I am assigned to review the work of other teams on different projects in a formal way and if I am going to make any comment or push back, I am expected to give a lot more explanation than just "you didn't do this part right". Why should Rendon's job be any different?
I want to (finally) respond to your comment real quick on the numbers in the Pollin report and why even the bill's author--again, the chair of Appropriations--didn't adopt them in the committee analysis. I'm going to focus on one huge element, transition costs. As noted on page 5 of the report, its authors didn't model or attempt to deal with financing the transition costs to single payer. It was a major placeholder in the Senate bill and the reason is simple: it's a legitimately challenging issue to work through.
There are a ton of uncertainties. As the committee analysis itself notes, nobody knows what will happen with insurers, what incentives they'll need, to retain coverage under a bill that essentially outlaws them. We can speculate they should continue offering policies for a set number of years, but what happens if they stop investing in administrative staff after the bill is passed or pull out of markets altogether, deeming it not worth the investment? Kaiser alone employs 100,000 people in Northern California, a huge chunk in the Sacramento region. You are looking at potential disaster one way or another if that happens. Are the provider networks going to crumble? Are doctors now forced to open separate practices and how long will that take? What happens to patients? What happens to thousands of gainfully employed, middle class employees? California would likely be on the hook to incentivize insurers to keep things operating for those presently receiving coverage and it likely isn't going to be cheap. Nobody in the healthcare reform world seriously doubts this.
The Pollin report is nice, but it essentially imagines a system absent a lot of issues that are pertinent to SB 562, by its author's own acknowledgment. Just the fact it assumes California would receive waivers from the Feds is a problem in itself. Tom Price is not a fan of single payer, a huge opponent in fact. The likelihood of him going through the waiver process when he's hard at work trying to gut Medicaid is the same as the one where you purchase an invisible pony from me, zero. And, absent the waivers, the whole enterprise is dead. That's why the bill, even if passed, wouldn't go into effect until California's Secretary of Health and Human Services obtained the waivers and other financing necessary for the Healthy California Trust Fund (100670(a)).
There is also a major problem with private hospitals and such. Where I live they just cut labor and delivery services at the local hospital out of the blue just to fatten their bottom line. That kind of behavior is also a major issue that is harming people by driving down quality of healthcare while driving the price of said care up.
Read my response above on Pollin's report. It doesn't even address transition costs. Don't you find it curious that Pollin's numbers weren't formally proposed by Chairman Lara when considering the bill?
Also, I find it laughable he's even trying to make the argument Tom Price and Steve Mnuchin from Treasury are going to approve California's waiver. The law doesn't say waivers have to be granted (42 USC 18052(b)), rather, it stipulates they can be ("may") if certain conditions are met, the biggest being a waiver has to be deficit neutral. There are other conditions per the regs. Among them are public notice, hearings, and comment analysis; actuarial analyses and certifications; a ten-year budget plan; an analysis of on the effect on insurance coverage in the state; a waiver implementation plan.
Given California isn't even close to doing any of those things, I don't know what to tell you other than Pollin is being naive, or just looking for an audience at worst. Hell, that's the reason why the bill wouldn't even go into effect, even if passed, until the Healthy California Trust Fund has funding. This is like me saying Trump will release his tax returns if we just ask nicely, then blaming reporters for not saying "please." You'd say I was naive at best, if not an idiot (and I make no claims to not be either).
If you read comments here you'd realize the ACA wasn't about healthcare for all ( or almost ). It's a giant jobs bill, and giveaway to the same old Corporate crowd, without any honest discussion of cost. Which nicely sidesteps the profit question, which that lack of discussion, then smothers in the " it's socialism " ( read anti-capitalist ) crib.
The same is true for what's called TrumpCare. It's a massive tax cut for 10% of the U.S.'s wealthiest households and many Corporate stakeholders, somewhat deceptively disguised as cost containment for a " runaway and out of control " healthcare system.
This is classic pettifogging ( " guibbling over trifles " ) over process by the Corporate State to obfuscate and delay an inevitable civil war between profit and the lives of millions of real people.
Simply put, what is your argument for why Rendon can't state an argument for what he needs EXACTLY from the Senate so he can move forward and lay out these details of what he wants in a publically accessible place on his web page? He can't possibly really be for single payer acting the way he is.
E.g. if transition costs are one of the big concerns, lay out the detail of what he wants. I'm sure other countries that converted to single payer (Canada, Taiwan) have data that can be reviewed and extrapolated to our CA economy.
I don't disagree that there are roadblocks down the road. All of your points and all of Dayen's points could easily be put in the context of how to best get there given potential roadblocks as opposed to let's not even try. No one's talking about breaking fundamental laws of physics here - it is doable after all.