Schwarzenegger affirms veto of universal health care measure

[shanti]

Schwarzenegger affirms veto of universal health care measure
By Clea Benson -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:49 pm PDT Tuesday, September 5, 2006

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger confirmed Tuesday that he plans to veto a bill allowing the state to provide health insurance for all Californians, saying he is opposed to "government-run health care."


Read the full story here:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/14318012p-15237866c.html

[bertha katzenengel]

1. jesus fucking christ

:nuke:

[bluestateguy]

2. Angeledis' people better start working on the ads NOW

nt

[rinsd]

7. What would they say?

Sure I don't support this particular bill either but I am willing to work toward universal care?

[Shakespeare]

3. Fuck you, you mouthbreathing neanderthal asshole.

Of course, he'll never have to know what it's like to be without healthcare when he needs it. Good thing you had plenty of cash and coverage when you needed heart surgery, Arnold--how kind of you to not extend that same right to the rest of the state.

[rocktivity]

4. Way to get re-elected, Arnie.

Pete Angeledes, WHERE ARE YOU????

:headbang:
rocknation

[shanti]

10. it's phil angelides

and fwiw, he hasn't taken a stand on this...

[bluestateguy]

11. He reminds me of Kathleen Brown all over again

I swear Bob Shrum must be still secretly running campaigns.

[gibbyman]

5. No Help No Care

[jellybeancurse]

6. you've got to be kidding me

:wtf:

[Deja Q]

8. Yet government wants to protect us via Homeland Security.

Well, I'm opposed to corporate-ran health care. I'm HMO-phobic. Who isn't these days? And it's hardly a phobia anymore; it's causing more problems to peoples' health than anything else! (costs and related stressors...)

[Rex]

9. Of course he is, that is why Arnold will rot in Hell one day.

Can't just GIVE away health care...what would Jesus say?

Hey Ahhhrrrrnold Swollenpecker, you suck as an actor and a governor. A fucking joke if there ever was one.

They should have picked Gary or the pornstar, IMO.

[Demeter]

12. Is It Government Run, or Just Government Paid?

There's a big difference.

[rubberducky]

13. If this doesn`t sink him in the elections, nothing will.

[ck4829]

14. I take it Arnold isn't Pro-Life?

[crikkett]

15. well, the upside to this is a popular push for employer h.c.mandates.

It would have cost big business less to go with universal health care
so sez
http://www.healthcareforall.org

[reprobate]

89. FWIW most of big business is FOR universal health care.

Except of course for the insurance industry. And they are HUGE campaign contributers, therefor they get what they want.

The american people can go fuck themselves for all the industry cares. Just so long as we keep paying those premiums.

I'm becoming more socialist every day that republicans exist as a force for evil in this world.

[crikkett]

16. PS vetos can be overturned

anyone know the numbers?

[rinsd]

20. 2/3 of both houses. Hasn't happened since 1978 (nt)

[crikkett]

30. well it's about time it did then, isn't it?

speaking out of my butt because I'm tired of feeling defeated all the time.

[rodeodance]

17. bet the state gov runs his health plan!

[crikkett]

19. That is a GOOD ONE!!!!

Can I use it in my LTTE?

[RangerSmith]

23. I doubt very seriously a man of his means

even cares about the plan offered by the State.

[gaspee]

18. What a country

The US will always be a third rate country and a disgrace up until health care is recognized as a right and not a privilige. Until the people making 5.15 an hour receive the same health care as the guy making 150,000 a year, America, the land of the free is a scam.

When the federal government is cutting the WIC program and cutting the school lunch programs and raising the military budget, it's enough of a disgrace.

When people are put out into the street because they suffered a major health crises and can't afford treatment, it's not a shame, it's a crime.

Socialized medicine is the ONLY answer to the growing health care disparity in this, the richest country in the world.

Certain industries should be run by the government for the benefit of all citizens. Public drinking supplies, health care, law enforcement, fire departments, prisons, child welfare.

When profit is brought into these basic human services, a good 1/3 of the people in the country are going to be left behind. Do you think the Cheney's really needed their 8 million dollar tax cut? Of course they did, say the bufoons on the right. As they step over the homeless dying on the streets of our cities with their private security.

America, what a country.

And the biggest scam of all is how all these fortunes of the wealthy were amassed. Natural resources that are supposed to belong to the people. Oil, gas, railroads, media (yeah, the people own the airwaves, sure, all righty!) goverment crony contracts, and on and on and on.

Capitalism is socialism for the well-connected. Oh wait, I'm starting class warfare according to the right. No, they are the ones perpetrating class warfare as the treat the "masses" as their personal slaves on the American Plantation.

[toopers]

75. Why is health care a right?

EOM

[gaspee]

78. Are you serious?

You don't think health care is a human right?

You would step over a dying person who couldn't get health care and couldn't get treated?

You think wealth should cover life and death?

Nice. really nice. I think you might be on the wrong board.

[Lars39]

80. A healthy population is ultimately beneficial to a country.

[xchrom]

21. and yet, california will re-elect him.

[Le Taz Hot]

22. Sorry, but this is actually a good thing.

This was NOT a popular bill as it would force those with perfectly good health insurance to give it up for some ill-fated, poorly-thought-out, over-regulated state-run boondoggle. Don't get me wrong, I think we absolutely MUST do something for the millions of uninsured and underinsured in this state, but this wasn't the vehicle by which to accomplish this. Most people that I talked to were absolutely against this one.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. Just want to get this straight.

Why is it a boondoggle?

Suddenly the physicians won't be as good as they were before it passed?

Since 30% have decent HC, the other 70% can pound dirt?

[Le Taz Hot]

40. Who said the other 70% can pound dirt?

I swear people don't read through the first 3 words of a post on DU anymore. My understanding was, and maybe it is inaccurate, but reports stated that private insurance would be prohibited from selling health insurance in California. This REEKS of government intrusion and its anti-choice. I have no idea what the rest of your rant was about.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. "Boondoggle," "govt. intrusion" and "anti-choice."

What little healthcare the govt has parsed out has been many times more efficient than private insurance companies.

I'll take everyone being covered... and then fix the inequities. Otherwise, 6.5 million Californians continue to go uninsured.

Poor insurance companies. :cry:

[Amonester]

47. Don't be so hard on the profiteering CEOs! They HAVE to remain

COMPETITIVE so their "retirement plans" will keep 'em, supercrooks, in line with those of the "defense" and "energy" sectors...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0831-02.htm

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

GOP = Gangsters Of PNAC

[hogwyld]

44. Well, I have HC also, but would give it up in a heartbeat

If it helped my fellow citizens otain the coverage they need. Why is it always the privledged few that have what they need trying to stop equality in health care for all?? Psst. I've got a secret for you, the insurance companies are not our friends, and they are not looking out for our best interests.

[MelliMel]

79. Yeah, like the doctors would ever get paid.

The state is notorious for taking its own sweet time paying doctors and hospitals. Doctors are human too. How long would you do your best job without being paid in a timely manner?

On top of that, why should people with health insurance be forced to give it up?

Universal health care is a great idea, but not as this plan was written. In the UK people have the option of buying private insurace in addition to the state run program. If people want to pay more in addition to paying into the state system, let them.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

83. Well...

How long would you do your best job without being paid in a timely manner?
-About two minutes.

On top of that, why should people with health insurance be forced to give it up?
-They're not. It's called Universal for a reason.

In the UK people have the option of buying private insurace in addition to the state run program. If people want to pay more in addition to paying into the state system, let them.
-Is there a part in the bill that outlaws supplemental coverage? Or insurance companies? :shrug:


The key to getting a good UHC plan is to have it implemented- SOMEWHERE. Once folks have HC do you think they're going to vote for someone who's going to take it away from them? Not to mention, covering everybody makes HC *gasp* CHEAPER for everyone- thereby making supplemental insurance cheaper, too.

Nearly 50 million Americans don't have HC, 6 million of them Californians. Tell them about the bill's imperfections. Institute it and fix it later.

[happyslug]

86. First this plan PERMIT supplemental insurance

Thus if you want to supplement the program you can do so (Through why is a more difficult question since even private rooms are covered under the plan that I have read).

As to late payments, yes Governments are slow to pay, but you know who is slower? Medical Insurance companies. While auto damage claims are paid very fast, that is because the damage is easy to find and set a price on (and only for damage to the Car, personal injuries often takes months if not years to be paid). The reason for the delay is simple, people who are paying what to make sure the payment is going for was covered and that takes time.

[reprobate]

92. Doctors won't get paid? What fantasy land do you inhabit?

With medicare the doctor files the claim electronicly and is paid promptly.

Please step away from the republican Kool Aid.

[MelliMel]

96. Many doctors complain

that Medical and Medicare are slow to pay. Especially MediCAL.

[rinsd]

26. Really?

Everyone in CA would be enrolled in this? it wouldn't be voluntary?

[Seeking Serenity]

27. The story from Yahoo said

that "(t)he bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl would create a state-managed health insurance program open to all Californians and bar private health insurance plans from selling services offered by the new program."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060905/pl_nm/california_healthcare_dc

It's one thing to make sure everyone has health care coverage. It's another thing to remove any kind of choice from those who want other.

It's anti-choice, and I don't like it.

[leesa]

35. Why? You can still buy your private insurance. You're peddling hysterical

nonsense.

[greccogirl]

90. Because as the Yahoo story

said, having private insurance would be illegal. Just like it used to in Canada before a man who had to wait I think 18 months for a knee replacement sued over the same thing (it being illegal to get private insurance) and became addicted to painkillers. I believe it went all the way to the Canadian SC and it was struck down. I might be wrong but as I remember it is now legal in Canada to buy private insurance where it wasn't before. The California plan would be the same - illegal to have any other insurance but this.

[rinsd]

50. Then Ahnuld will likely suffer little for this veto.

"It's another thing to remove any kind of choice from those who want other."

[hogwyld]

45. It shouldn't be voluntary

The rich fatcats will have their gold plated system, while the wretched refuse would have diminished funds for their system. Everyone should have the same level of care, and it should be funded sufficiently so as not to limit treatment options.

[rinsd]

48. That is exactly why people don't go for universal health care

You cannot convince the 100 million or so Americans that do have health insurance to give it up to be crammed in a state run system.

[kineneb]

54. poor boo to them

get an uninsured person with a communicable disease to go cough all over them...we all are only as healthy as the least the least healthy person (think Typhoid Mary)

It is not a choice issue, but a public health issue. Society as a whole looses when some of its members lack adequate health care.

[rinsd]

56. Yeah ....that's an argument

I state that 80% of people already have health insurance and are likely to be unwilling to part with such to go into a new government program and you offer up platitudes.

[kineneb]

57. but how good is their insurance?

does it actually cover anything? I had private insurance until recently, it was very expensive, and had such a high deductable that it wound up being useless. I gave up on it and reapplied to get CMSP. I have a share of cost that is outrageous for our income level, but after that sum is paid, everything else that month is completely covered. And Hubby has Medi-Cal, thank goodness, otherwise his medicines would be impossible to get.

If everyone could be covered by a Medi-Cal-like system, they would get as good or better care then they get today, because there would be more money in the system for coverage. As it is, only those who are poor or become poor can use it.

Oh, and private insurance is no longer an option for us, Hubby is on dialysis, and I have mental health issues (try being a caregiver for a while). So we are permanently out of that system.

[rinsd]

60. Now there's an argument

"If everyone could be covered by a Medi-Cal-like system, they would get as good or better care then they get today, because there would be more money in the system for coverage"

That is assuming the tax levied are high enough to ensure funding. That also means workers who received insurance as part of their compensation suddenly will lose money. Many workers will not see a rise in salaries commiserate with the company's expenditures on health care, to think otherwise is foolish. So you have a new tax which would have to be significant enough to fund the operation coupled with loss of benefits, this is not an easy sell to people already with insurance.

[jaybeat]

81. More $$ = More Choice; Everyone In = Cheaper for All

If you have more money, you can afford a better plan. (Better than the government's plan or better than your less well-off neighbor's private plan.)

If you are young and healthy, a private plan will cost you less than if you are old and sick. (That's one reason we have Medicare; because private insurance simply wouldn't cover most senior citizens by themselves, or would charge unaffordable premiums.)

If you have pre-existing conditions, or chronic illness, you may not be able to get good coverage, no matter how much money you have.

If you have a good job, you can get good coverage very cheaply, or even paid for 100%. If you don't (or you loose your job), you can't.

Bottom line--some people have more "choices" than others. If we let those who have these "choices" opt-out (voluntarily take themselves out of the risk pool), then everyone who is left will get worse coverage, which will cost more, even if it is run more efficiently (which we can assume, give that the most efficient health insurance program--by far--is Medicare, a--*HORRORS*--government-run health care program).

As far as employees not getting compensated for the coverage they used to get from employers, that's easy--tax the employer. And before anyone says that's "anti-business," remember that employee health-insurance premiums are 100% tax deductible to the employer, and since the cost should be less per person than the median private insurance premium, employers who provide decent coverage will *save* money. Provide individuals and the self-employed with the same rates and the same tax deduction, and you've got a system that is fairer and cheaper for all.

And, that doesn't even include the savings you'll get from the costs (currently) of all the people who have insurance subsidizing care for everyone who doesn't, and from increasing the risk pool for those currently on Medicaid, etc., etc.

BTW, do people in Canada, UK, and other countries with a single-payer system complain about not being able to "choose" a private plan? (I really don't know, but I would be interested in hearing from someone who does.)

Cheers,

Jay

[Beaverhausen]

58. Not if they are covered under an HMO

HMOs suck - I would guess that those covered by them would be willing to go into the new system.

[happyslug]

84. That is NOT the statistics I have come across

The Stats I have found indicate about 60% of the population has Health Insurance, with another 10% getting their health Insurance through Welfare, leaving about 30% uninsured.

[papau]

28. Bull - only those who want to protect ins companies were against this

bill.

There was no boondoggle - nor was it poorly-thought-out or over-regulated -

Where in the world did you get those talking points?

Benefit structure was excellent for both individuals and for the public health. Those wanting gold plated care could still get it - they just paid directly rather than sticking the rest of us with the bill via Medicaid cost, ER funding, and underwriting that was cost control by denial of claims to those who did not have a lawyer on staff.

The funding of the benefit was left to a second bill that would raise the needed revenue for the government - so it is hard to find fault with the funding when we do not know what it was going to be -

[Le Taz Hot]

41. I want to protect MY insurance

because for one of the only times in my life, it happens to be excellent AND by complete coincidence, I want to protect my job and thousands of others as well. Look, I know its un-PC on this supposedly liberal board to go against this bill but I just see it as government intrusion. Cover the uninsured? Of course! I've BEEN one of the uninsured, many times, the last time was only a year ago, but to do it by forcing people to go to a government-run program and lose private sector jobs too? Too high a price. Just my opinion, dude/dudette. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Solon]

59. What? Do you work for an insurance company?

I imagine its as a broker, for claims(the Health care side of it) only takes up about 30% of the workforce of insurance companies. Also, one thing I don't understand, you keep saying you don't want to lose your insurance, what about it is so good that you want to keep it?

Are there NO co-pays/deductables?

What are the Premiums? More expensive than a public system, that's a guarantee.

What about preexisting conditions, are those covered by your insurance?

In fact, is it assured that you will keep the insurance, in case of layoff, unemployment?

Let's put it this way, lets say the state DIDN'T outlaw private insurance, but offers EVERYTHING that insurance companies don't, and you can opt out of the system, but not the taxes, would you?

[rinsd]

61. That's exactly why I think that particular bill stank

"Let's put it this way, lets say the state DIDN'T outlaw private insurance, but offers EVERYTHING that insurance companies don't, and you can opt out of the system, but not the taxes, would you?"

I would have little problem with the above.

However that means all the cost savings arguments dependent on the state being the sole provider/buyer will not be as strong.

[Solon]

62. Look, having private insurance is like Russian Roulette nowadays.

If EVERYONE pools in the money for a public health care system, then its cheaper individually. There are hundreds of insurance companies in this country, and well over a dozen in California. The cost-pool possible through these companies simply CANNOT compete with any type of public health care system. They cannot offer everything I mentioned above, and they definately cannot offer it at the same costs. Even IF you were exempt from the taxes, would you still pay twice as much for a private carrier, that simply cannot offer the same coverage?

[rinsd]

63. I think you misunderstood

I wouldn't have an issue with the tax. The issue is the claims of cost savings by virtue of being the only game in town, that ceases to exist when you make this an opt out program (in terms of service, not the tax).

[Solon]

65. Oh...

I think the idea of outlawing private carriers is actually unnecessary, but only IF the opt out doesn't involve opting out of the tax. In other words, using the so called "Free Market", all private insurance carriers would pretty much get out of the business, fast. At most, the system would be two tiered, a totally private system for completely elective procedures, plastic surgery, lipsuction, etc. which insurance doesn't cover anyways, and neither would a public system, at most, they will cover reconstructive surgeries(cleft Palates as an example).

Then there is the public system, which will cover doctor's visits, prescriptions, etc. that are considered medically necessary. The bonus, as it were, is that the costs would be greatly reduced, for two reasons, first, the profit motive is gone, and second, being the only game in town, as long as its a public system, means the risk pool is greatly increased.

[rinsd]

68. Intersting points

Though I think a two tier system is more likely thatn private disappearing altogether. I think private carriers would probably be reduced but they would still have a market...kind of like AFLAC.

"The bonus, as it were, is that the costs would be greatly reduced, for two reasons, first, the profit motive is gone, and second, being the only game in town, as long as its a public system, means the risk pool is greatly increased."

Did you mean decreased in terms of the risk pool?

[Solon]

70. I meant cost pool, or however else its termed...

but yeah, your right, the risk pool is decreased, and so is individual cost.

[rinsd]

71. Cool. Things to ponder...thank you.

To be honest my biggest worry in government managed health care in the incentive to then make public health legislation to cut costs(ie: save people from themselves).

[Solon]

72. True, but if you think about it...

MOST of the country/state would be de facto customers of said system, and I imagine most would take a dim view of any politician who tries to cut costs from the system. The problem is getting the system in place, once there, I imagine we would be a lot like Canada, any political party or politician who murmurs anything to suggest a cut in the public health system would find themselves out of office, or unelectable.

Unlike Medicare, which largely covers the elderly, or AFDC, which covers the poor, there is NOTHING about this UNIVERSAL system that would lead to people stigmatize those who use said system.

[rinsd]

73. Oops I wasn't clear....

I didn't mean cutting costs to the system in place, that I agree would become the 3rd rail of politics along with SS.

I mean outlawing smoking, fatty foods, non exercise etc. I mean curbing people's behavior choices justified under the auspices of clamping down health care costs.

[Solon]

74. Problem is that most laws that try to regulate behavior in that way...

usually end up failing entirely, or are declared Unconstitutional. The only exception is the Drug War, which is a farce, as we all know.

I say it is more likely that the Government would take a more vested interest in food quality, and the FDA may tighten up restrictions on fats and stuff in snack foods, etc. But that doesn't really directly effect us, I just hope they don't legislate Olesta or something similar with the same, shall we say, explosive, side effects. :)

ON EDIT: If the FDA bans the use of HFCS(High Frucose Corn Syrup) in soda, that would be a BIG plus in my view.

[Le Taz Hot]

66. I wouldn't normally do this but I will answer your questions

Yes, I do work for an insurance company and no it's not as a broker or in claims.

There are NO co-pays for office visits. Deductable is minimal.

Yes, pre-existing conditions are covered and I have MANY. I couldn't get insurance without the company I work for.

My premiums for my husband and myself are $200.00 a month. When I tried to insure JUST myself, and this was 10 years ago BEFORE several health problems cropped up, my premiums would have been almost $800.00 a month and that was not covering my husband.

Yes, I would opt out of the system and I'm already paying taxes.

Are we done with the interrogation now? :eyes: Does this satisfy the pseudo liberal brigade or must I swear fealty as well?

[Solon]

67. What company covers preexisting conditions?

Seriously, I don't believe it, no insurance company I have ever seen covers that. Either you are lying, or your insurance is WAY too good to be true, are you sure you looked at the fine print?

ON EDIT: Seriously, I'm interested, I HAVE a preexisting condition, that requires surgery, and NO insurance company will even cover me, so seriously, give me a name, I want to look at the policy, I'll gladly pay the insurance, I simply can't afford the surgery otherwise.

[jaybeat]

82. But how much is the *total* cost? And why can't we get that deal?

"Yes, I do work for an insurance company and no it's not as a broker or in claims.

No one is saying that's a crime.

"There are NO co-pays for office visits. Deductable is minimal.

Nice.

"Yes, pre-existing conditions are covered and I have MANY. I couldn't get insurance without the company I work for.

Nice, but what if you loose your job? Get hurt and can't work? Have to relocate and quit? Then you might want to join the unwashed masses, eh? (Sorry, that sounded mean.)

"My premiums for my husband and myself are $200.00 a month. When I tried to insure JUST myself, and this was 10 years ago BEFORE several health problems cropped up, my premiums would have been almost $800.00 a month and that was not covering my husband.

Ah, but how much does your employer contribute? What's the *total* cost of those premiums? And if your employer pays it to an insurance company (and gets a tax deduction for it), why couldn't they pay the same (or less) to the government, for a more-efficient plan that also has the societal benefit of covering everyone?

"Yes, I would opt out of the system and I'm already paying taxes.

But health-care costs are already a "tax" on *everything*. There is more health-care costs in a cup of coffee at Starbucks than there is coffee. Look at GM. Look at every other US company trying to compete with companies overseas that have educated, professional workforces, who are covered, by the government, from cradle to grave, no matter who they work for. Single-payer health care would actually be the equivalent of a huge tax cut for *everyone*.

"Are we done with the interrogation now? :eyes: Does this satisfy the pseudo liberal brigade or must I swear fealty as well?"

Nobody likes feeling picked on. I don't think anyone should be attacking *you*. Your ideas/opinions/points of view, however (just like mine and everyone else's), are fair game, no?

Cheers,

Jay

[Le Taz Hot]

97. "unwashed masses?"

Honest to goddess, you guys have gone off the deep end. I'm bored with this now.

[Solon]

100. self delete

[greccogirl]

93. I have an HMO -

and it is wonderful coverage. It costs us $550 a month for family coverage, and it was a lot cheaper before I became disabled and was working. Then it was less than $20 a week.

They allowed me to go to another state for a transplant to save my life and the medical bills were nearly a million dollars. To date I have paid less than $2,000 on co-payments, and my medication is VERY expensive - over $1,000 a month alone for anti-rejection meds, and I only have to pay a $20 co-pay. I paid nothing at all on the hospital costs which were astronomical.

I'll be eligible for medicare next year and it will become primary payer and believe me, I hate that. I'd rather forget medicare and keep what I have.

The transplant center I went to was one of the top in the U.S. (after waiting fruitlessly at another one) and I was getting pretty sick before I decided to go where I went. It only took a phone call to get approval, and their finance people were go-betweens for me.

It's been two years and there are still a few small bills out there that were rejected due to paperwork errors, typos on plan id numbers, wrong diagnosis and claims people not having the proper access code. But ALL of it was out of network.

[shanti]

31. ???

i heard that one would keep whatever doctor they had. is that not so? say if i had kaiser, i could keep kaiser? i know so so many people without health insurance, and i remember not having any when my kids were young. now THAT is scary! :(

[happyslug]

85. I have READ the Bill, it only outlaw Insurance for items COVERED

The Program is based on the various Canadian programs, you have a central bureaucracy that processes all claims. The costs to run this system will be about 2-3 % of the fee being charged (The same rate Medicare and the Veterans Hospitals have). Presently administrative costs existing insurance program run about 15%, mostly to make sure the person who sent in the bill is eligible for THAT private insurance program. The VA and Medicare avoid these costs by just paying any legitimate bill presented to them, they do NOT have to determine if you actually are insured by them for being universal they can make that assumption (I.e. since EVERYONE is in the system, if ANYONE undergo medical treatment that is a covered medical procedure they will pay the bill).

Now to make such a system work EVERYONE MUST BE IN THE PROGRAM, thus all private health Insurance THAT COVERS THE SAME PROCEDURES must be made illegal for the system to work.

Now, if you want additional coverage, the bill permits such additional coverage, through what they would be escape me at the present time for the bill even agrees to pay for private rooms for patients (As opposed to the Semi-private rooms most private Insurance pays for now and the ward system most people used before most people started to have private health Insurance in the late 1960s).

Krugman has some nice article on the cost saving one can do if you adopt a one payer system, look him up and if you have the New York Times on line subscription read his articles on the Subject.

[greccogirl]

94. In Canada someone sued

on this very issue and won - I think it went to the SC of Canada. They cannot outlaw private health insurance anymore.

[happyslug]

95. I Believed that case involved outlawing supplemental insurance

It has been a few years since I read the case, but that is my impression of the case and involved interpretation of the underlying stature NOT any constitutional issue.

[greccogirl]

99. It was illegal to buy secondary private health care insurance. I believe

a gentlemen had to wait something like 18 months for knee or hip surgery and he couldn't use or buy secondary insurance to cover it - and he sued. It was overturned at the SC level there.

[flaminbats]

88. how can health insurance be OVER-regulated?

I don't know about you, but the only times I can get action from my insurance company, even for something they claimed to cover, is when I call my state public service commissioner or state insurance commissioner!

otherwise the insurance company doesn't pay...and the bill goes to me! But why do I still pay these monthly premiums? Why did I pay them when I was young..but now only pay higher premiums because of a medical problem I couldn't prevent? Why can't I go to another insurance company when the one I'm with just keeps sucking as much life and money out of me as they can?

I know why...because insurance companies shouldn't obey laws..they shouldn't be thrown in prison for theft and fraud! insurance companies shouldn't provide service to people who pay premiums. they should be allowed tell customers who get cancer or diabetis..thanks for your money, but those medical conditions are no longer covered. :shrug: We can still take even more money from you..if you want to remain insured! :puke:

[reprobate]

91. Check out the facts before opening keyboard.

Look at the government run health care programs just in this country.

The VA is far more efficient than private insurance and it negotiates drug prices so they are WAY cheaper than what you pay even on private health insurance.

Medicare has a cost overhead of 3%. Compare that with the cost overhead of private insurance which can run up to 35%.

Just because republicans and insurance companies claim that government run health care is terrible, doesn't make it true.

It usually is far better. Health care financing is NOT the place for a for profit industy. The only ones who gain are the management and stockholders of the insurance companies.

Having spent 20 yrs in the industry there are bunches of horror stories I could tell you. The kind of story you just won't find in either VA or medicare participants.

[calimary]

98. Perhaps, but that's also the one main argument that always seems

to stop ANYTHING, even the smallest move toward "forward," in its tracks: we HAVE to do something about whatever problem it is, but this isn't the way to go about it.

I'm not trying to flame you. It's just that the alternative is - we do nothing, and once again, we wind up with comparable results. This measure actually had a shot. Enough people vetted it and found it suitable for it to clear both chambers in Sacramento and make it to the governor's desk, powered by sufficient thrust from sufficient numbers of citizens to push it that far. A bird in the hand, versus two who'd rather think like bush, if you will. I'd much rather see something actually enacted, and then fine-tuned once it's in place - and actually HELPING people. This one's real, and viable, NOW. How long do you suppose it'll be before we ever reach this point again - with such a measure that seriously attempts to address, confront, and solve an increasingly critical problem?

Besides, we wind up paying more, anyway, in the long run, by NOT getting squat through any legislatures, state or federal, with the costs-to-society from so many millions without medical insurance, the overload in emergency rooms, the higher costs passed down to consumers anyway, because hospitals won't eat those expenses for the uninsured, and other ramifications of NOT having ANYTHING on the books at all to address this problem.

[stepnw1f]

25. Fascist Bastard....

anything good for folks can't be allowed. Doing the private sector's business again by disallowing Americans to aid each other. Fascism.

[theophilus]

29. Well, now that Arnie has come out so strongly against this "government

run healthcare" idea, I'm sure that he will actively oppose other "government run" health "scams" such as Medicare, Medicaid, Military medicine, Veterans Medicine. There might be a whole lot more of these nasty government run programs out there. Stamp 'em out, Arnie!!!!!!! I'm sure you'll get at least a few hundred votes......for that.

[genieroze]

33. Diebold will take care of the rest.

[area51]

38. Ah-nold against "govt. run healthcare".

theophilus said:

"I'm sure that he will actively oppose other 'government run' health 'scams' such as Medicare, Medicaid, Military medicine, Veterans Medicine."

You took the words right out of my mouth. :thumbsup:

[genieroze]

32. Now he shows his elitist rethug colors.

Ve vant stem cell research so only the rich can afford to get cured, ya ve do.

[samsingh]

34. what an incredible ass hole.

[Miss Chybil]

36. And it's all about what he believes...

not what his employers believe. Seems to be the common theme of American government lately.

[leesa]

37. Walking a tightrope. Pissed off big business with the emissions bill

but gave the insurance industry more whipped cream and ice cream. Will it be enough for the Piggy Captains of Industry?

I'm sure he's giving away lots more of our money in his infamous back room deals.

[Disturbed]

39. ASSHOLE!

GRRRRRRRRR........

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. Deliberate "confusion," typical of Republicanites

As I understand the bill, it was a single payer system, like that of Canada, NOT a government-run health system like that of the UK, which has been in trouble ever since Margaret Thatcher decided to start meddling with it and de-funding it, something that Tony Blair has continued.

By the way, judging by what I read in the papers while I was in England last month, even with the British National Health Service, people are allowed to "go private" and purchase what the NHS won't pay for. I don't know whether this was part of the original setup or something Thatcher introduced, but it appears to be result in a two-tier health system.

[hogwyld]

46. That is exactly why private health insurance should be

disallowed. To prevent the same multi tiered system. Everyone should recieve the same, high level of care whether they Ahh noolds money, or it's joe wino on the corner.

[Vidar]

49. I hope Angelides runs with this.

[rinsd]

51. Run with what?

Angelides doesn't support this bill.

80% of Californians have health insurance.

[Vidar]

52. I'm in Michigan. Didn't know that.

[Beaverhausen]

53. this bill would not only insure the 7 million without insurance...

...it would ensure better healthcare for all Californians.

Just having insurance doesn't mean one has good healthcare.

Lots of info here:
http://www.healthcareforall.org/

[Vidar]

55. Thanks.

[Delphinus]

64. f*ck!

I thought this would be a great starting point to show the rest of the states how it's done. I was so hopeful. :(

[Megahurtz]

69. What a Fucking Asshole.

But it totally figures. This State is getting more and more fucked up by the day.:nuke:

[goforit]

76. It's time to storm the Bastille!!! Time for the P-E-O-P-L-E to rise!!!

[yojon]

77. Mein governator

[NotGivingUp]

87. yes, you ARE a tumor, arnold.