Single-payer health care would cost more than California budget

[james_1957]

Creating a single-payer health care system in California would cost $400 billion a year — including $200 billion in new tax revenue, according to an analysis of legislation released Monday by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The projected cost far surpasses the annual state budget of $180 billion, and skeptics of the bill say the price tag is “a nonstarter.”

Half of the $400 billion would come from existing federal, state and local spending on health care. An additional $200 billion would have to be raised by imposing a 15 percent payroll tax on California employers and employees, the analysis found. But the cost of the new tax would be partially offset by reduced spending on health care coverage by employers and employees — which is how nearly half of Californians receive health insurance.

“This is the gigantic brick wall that everyone who was paying attention was letting us know we were about to run into,” said Micah Weinberg, a policy researcher and president of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Single-payer-health-care-would-cost-more-than-11164959.php

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

CALPERS will have to fight for its life if this movement gains any steam at all...

 

[Rightguide]

California's Democrats have already placed the state's economic future in doubt. It cannot afford its public employee pension benefits, the high-speed train plan, let alone a new all-encompassing health care plan. The state is already well into the process of killing its golden goose.

 

[Conager]

But they will save so much money replacing greedy profits with fraud and abuse and outrageous executive salaries and bonuses with a massive, inefficeint bureacracy staffed with SEIU members and headed by well-connected, corrupt, politically appointed administrators drawing huge salaries and bonuses.

The details on how this all works is detailed in the worx of a brilliant economist by the name of Karl.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Canada with a similar sized economy and population spends about 220 billion a year on healthcare. Just over 10% of GDP. Less than the 16% the US currently spends. Works out to be about 5-6k per person. Canada's health care stem is non-profit so you can add 15% of the cost to A US for-profit system.

 

[HisArpy]

The difference between Canada and California will be the cost of living. It's EXPENSIVE to live here.

 

[Aquagal]

The difference between Canada and California will be the cost of living. It's EXPENSIVE to live here.

Where is the Sunset Coast?

 

[rocket_surgery]

Where is the Sunset Coast?

West coast of US. Or west coast of pretty much everywhere.

 

[Aquagal]

West coast of US. Or west coast of pretty much everywhere.

Depends on what western US coast you're speaking of.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The difference between Canada and California will be the cost of living. It's EXPENSIVE to live here.

Canada is an expensive place to live. Cheap compared to the UK and Europe but expensive by NA standards. Food is way more expensive. But most places in the US are way cheaper than Canada. Cali. and Can. do match up quite close in economy and pop. sizes. Costs too.

 

[HisArpy]

Where I live, a million bucks gets you a fixer upper 2-holer outhouse. Complete with termites and no TP and a busted seat. Of course it has an ocean view but still...

It is EXPENSIVE to live here. Not costly, EXPENSIVE.

 

[KingOrfeo]

But they will save so much money replacing greedy profits with fraud and abuse and outrageous executive salaries and bonuses with a massive, inefficeint bureacracy . . .

Well, then, they might as well leave the private health-insurance cartel in place.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Where I live, a million bucks gets you a fixer upper 2-holer outhouse. Complete with termites and no TP and a busted seat. Of course it has an ocean view but still...

It is EXPENSIVE to live here. Not costly, EXPENSIVE.

Okay, oaky! If you would rather fork out shit loads of money for a run down shithole with a view over healthcare that's your issue.

 

[Aquagal]

Where I live, a million bucks gets you a fixer upper 2-holer outhouse. Complete with termites and no TP and a busted seat. Of course it has an ocean view but still...

It is EXPENSIVE to live here. Not costly, EXPENSIVE.

Oak termites. Spendy. Coast. Sunsets.

Santa Barbara.

 

[HisArpy]

Okay, oaky! If you would rather fork out shit loads of money for a run down shithole with a view over healthcare that's your issue.

I only need the doctor once in awhile. I need a place to sleep every night. Given that, the choice is easy.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The difference between Canada and California will be the cost of living. It's EXPENSIVE to live here.

Nominally, perhaps, but they let you pay rent and taxes in maple syrup!

 

[HisArpy]

Oak termites. Spendy. Coast. Sunsets.

Santa Barbara.

Most of the central coast is "spendy" although there are affordable homes here too.

Zillow puts the median home price in Ventura as somewhere just shy of $600K. That gets you a single-story tract home, 3+2, 1200 sq ft, built in the 60's on about .16 acres, usually a fixer.

Thousand Oaks median price is about $750K.

Median in Santa Barbara is just over 1 million. And the houses are a LOT smaller. Usually 2+1, 900 sq ft, single-story, built in the 40's-50's.

San Luis Obispo runs about $650K median price.

SF median price $1.2 million.

This place ain't cheap no matter where you go although some of the places in the Sierras are less expensive.

 

[Aquagal]

Most of the central coast is "spendy" although there are affordable homes here too.

Zillow puts the median home price in Ventura as somewhere just shy of $600K. That gets you a single-story tract home, 3+2, 1200 sq ft, built in the 60's on about .16 acres, usually a fixer.

Thousand Oaks median price is about $750K.

Median in Santa Barbara is just over 1 million. And the houses are a LOT smaller. Usually 2+1, 900 sq ft, single-story, built in the 40's-50's.

San Luis Obispo runs about $650K median price.

SF median price $1.2 million.

This place ain't cheap no matter where you go although some of the places in the Sierras are less expensive.

I already know all that info.

No one wants to live near Fresno. Gross.

 

[HisArpy]

Now why would an Alaska gal already know all that stuff?

You ain't going to come here and hustle our cows or anything like that, are you?

 

[Aquagal]

Now why would an Alaska gal already know all that stuff?

You ain't going to come here and hustle our cows or anything like that, are you?

I know Cali. My cattle rustling days were there.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Economist Shows That Single-Payer Health Care in California Would Protect Business and Save the Public Money.

That assessment [of the California Senate Appropriations Committee] filled a void in the political debate surrounding SB 562, because the bill does not specify a revenue stream and its sponsors have not released their analysis of how Californians would pay for it and gain health security under a single-payer system. But according to Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts economist who conducted that very analysis for a single-payer system in New York and has studied health costs in other large states, California's analysts erred by understating health care cost savings and failing to subtract current health care spending from their projected payroll tax increase.

“I read the legislature's analysis and was disappointed,” he said.

“First, it has a high number for total costs because it assumes no savings from bulk purchasing of drugs and medical devices even though the rest of the world buys these at barely 70 percent what Americans pay, and the VA [Veterans Administration] buys drugs at 59 percent. Second, it assumes very small savings from lower administration (among both providers and insurers). Finally, it assumes a very large increase in utilization, which is a cost but also a benefit since going to the doctor saves lives, and barriers to access are associated with about 200,000 extra deaths in the U.S. each year. (This figure is from a county-level analysis of mortality versus the proportion reporting they could not go to a doctor because of costs.)"

But the analysts’ bigger mistake was on the spending side—by omitting any mention that Californians would subtract current health spending from any tax increase. For example, the average Californian earned $64,500 in 2015. At first glance, a 15 percent payroll tax increase appears to add an additional tax of $9,675 a year, or $806.25 monthly. However, if one is already paying $650 or so monthly for a health plan and several thousands more on deductibles and co-pays, one can see how that current figure is actually more expensive than what would need to be raised under a single payer system. Friedman said this omission is crucial.

“The analysis does not discuss the different burden of health care with a payroll tax (or an income tax) compared with the current system which works like a lump-sum tax: everyone pays the same amount regardless of income,” he said.

“In California in 2015, family insurance premiums (employer and employee) cost $18,045. For a worker earning $64,500, that is 28 percent of earnings, plus the cost of co-pays and deductibles. Indeed, at $18,000, workers would do better even with a 15 percent payroll tax up to earnings of $120,000. And, if we assume the employer plan had an actuarial value of 90 percent, and out-of-pocket costs are $2,000, workers are better off with a 15 percent payroll tax up to $133,333.”

Friedman said single-payer would save the public and businesses money via cutting bureaucratic costs and negotiating for drugs. “The major criticism of these single payer plans is that we won’t get the savings that we anticipate from reducing administration—and I think that’s just crazy,” he said.