.
.
.
Healthcare coverage for all Californians has been killed by the “NO Vote” of CA Senator Lou Correa. Californians would have saved $100’s of Billions per year, while providing high quality accessible, affordable and preventive healthcare for all Californians.
Senate Bill 810 would have:
- Built on our current system of privately delivered health care;
- Been funded by a single, comprehensive health insurance plan that cut out the profit-driven private insurance middle man, to simplify administration and put doctors and hospitals back in charge of our health care system.
- Worked by creating a universal health care trust fund that pooled together the money that government, employers and individuals spend on health care each year.
Instead of paying premiums to private insurance companies, Californians would pay premiums into the trust fund that would guarantee coverage to all Californians. Patients would freely choose their private doctors and hospitals that are entrusted with managing their patient’s health care instead of health insurance executives.
.
Estimated Annual Lost Savings in $100’s of Billions by failure to pass SB 810:
| Year | In Billions | |
| 2009 | $ 138 | |
| 2010 | $ 153 | |
| 2011 | $ 169 | |
| 2012 | $ 186 | |
| 2013 | $ 203 | |
| 2014 | $ 221 | |
| 2015 | $ 241 | |
| 2016 | $ 261 | |
| 2017 | $ 282 | |
| 2018
|
$ 330
|
|
| TOTAL | $ 2,183 |
CLICK HERE For Full Analysis, Calculation and References.
.
ADDITIONAL LOST BENEFITS because SB-810 did not pass:
I provided comparison of costs and expenditures to determine the lost savings from failure to pass “SB 810 – Single Payer Healthcare Coverage”.
I did not add additional Income Streams, that would have helped pay and reduce the initial investment for the Single Payer Healthcare Coverage program because of transfers into the program by covered people such as:
1) Individuals and families;
2) Small, Medium, and Large sized employers. (This would have been a boost to business investments into California because California would have had lower healthcare costs than other states have.)
3) Ending the Workers Compensation program, because healthcare would now be provided under one comprehensive program. This would again have been a positive boost to businesses and job creation.
4) End of Medical Malpractice. Medical needs would have been provided for, although recourse would still be available for other remedies. Again a boost for businesses, doctors and actual medical care providers. And doctors and nurses who were leaving the medical professions because of the fear of frivolous lawsuits, would now have returned to healing patients or providing preventive care.
5) Price Volume discounts. The full purchasing power of 37.7 million Californians would have been brought to bear in the purchase of pharmaceutical, and medical devices resulting in a more effective and economically efficient purchasing system.
The above clearly demonstrates the financial justification for enacting a single payer system.
The saved lives, the preventive medicine, the compassionate, effective, efficient, accessible quality care, are further reasons as to why passage of SB 810 made critical sense.
.
Although, the medical insurance industry would have been severely reduced, the industry could have shifted into the other insurance, risk management areas i.e. Property, Business Liability, Fire, Hazard, Earthquake, etc insurance. Or additionally, the insurance industry could have provided some of its “risk management” expertise within the Single Payer Healthcare system.
Ask yourself this, if we have millions of people without medical coverage would you rather have an industry that provides medical Insurance or an industry that provides the critical and necessary medical Care?
.
Opposition & Campaign Contributions:
Senator Correa’s arguments against SB 810 were:
a) That the cost was too high.
b) That this was best fixed at the Federal level.
c) This bill was not good enough.
.
Responses to above:
a) As you saw in the analysis above, the cost of failing to pass SB-810 is higher in the billions in addition to the high human costs.
b) California has established a state exchange.
"The federal government enacted the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) which established an American
Health Benefit Exchange (Exchange) that makes qualified
health plans available to qualified individuals and
qualified employers. If a state does not establish an
Exchange, the federal government administers the Exchange.
California established a state exchange."
This would have resulted in better local control.
c) Long serving Senators for years have had, and continue to have the opportunity to propose amendments to improve the bill, or the opportunity to author their own.
.
Unfortunately, a couple of our elected CA senators appear to have been persuaded more by the $100’s of THOUSANDS in cash campaign contributions by very narrow insurance industry special interests and the health of their campaign coffers; rather than the health and well-being of millions of men, women and children who lack critical access to healthcare, and at the expense of our job creating businesses, and at the expense of $100’s of BILLIONS of lost savings.
CLICK HERE for Summary of List of Campaign Contributions From Insurance industry for Senators who Voted No – includes about $350,000 in contributions to Senator Correa (provided by Dr. Bill Honigman of Healthcareforall.org)
.
For State Assembly 69th Assembly District
FranciscoForAssembly.com (website under construction)
(My opinions only and not those of any group)
| In Billions | |
| 2009 | $ 138 |
| 2010 | $ 153 |
| 2011 | $ 169 |
| 2012 | $ 186 |
| 2013 | $ 203 |
| 2014 | $ 221 |
| 2015 | $ 241 |
| 2016 | $ 261 |
| 2017 | $ 282 |
| 2018 | $ 330 |
| $ 2,183 |
Mr. Barragan- I admittedly am not as versed on this as you, but after looking at your cost comparison calculations, I have two comments just on the nuts and bolts of your savings calc:
1. Inflation Adj- why are you not including an inflation adjustment on the $200B of est cost per Correa, but you are including it in the current cost of healthcare? This does not seem correct- if you include on one, you should include on the other for comparison purposes.
2. Cost per Correa- are you sure that this $200B is an “all in” number and comparative to your cost per person x # of Californians? The source is just Correa, so seems like we would want to know what it includes to make sure we are comparing appropriately. Is it possible that the $200B does not include payroll tax contributions to the trust fund that presumably will still be paid but is included in the per capita cost? Is it possible that Correa is not stating that as a cost to the state since it is coming out of employee’s pockets?
Additionally, since you provide a listing of campaign contributions for Correa that may taint his thinking, do you have a listing of contributions from supporters of the bill to those who voted for it? From your analysis, looks like that would at least include the California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, ACLU of Southern California, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, California Teachers Association, Labor United for Universal Healthcare, League of Women Voters, Service Employees International Union Local 1021, etc… . I would presume it would be more organizations than just them too that may not be listed in the linked document (I only included certain ones).
Again, I am not an expert- instead I am seeking info considering your projected savings are so large and there may be a connection with the money contributions and voting records (on both side IMO). I like to compare apples to apples. Thanks!
@TJLocalSA:
Thank you for your comments!
1) Inflation Adjustment. Even when you add a 5% Inflation adjustment as you suggest, the LOST SAVINGS from NOT passing Single Payer Healthcare, is still in the $100’s of BILLIONS.
Net Adjusted Lost Savings, including 5% inflation adjustment.
(IN BILLIONS of $$$’s) & Year
$138 in 2009
$143 in 2010
$148 in 2011
$154 in 2012
$160 in 2013
$166 in 2014
$173 in 2015
$179 in 2016
$187 in 2017
$220 in 2018
Just as I previously did not add an inflation adjustment, (which would increase costs), I still have NOT added adjustments from benefits from Economies of Scales & the benefits of Preventive medicine (which would DECREASE COSTS substantially).
2) $200 Billion Cost. I think the cost CA Senator Lou Correa referred to is the cost of providing the actual health care benefits. But this cost (cost through Single Payer Healthcare) is still way LOWER than not having Single Payer.
I have also seen an earlier additional approximate 4% for administration.
But, the point of adding the employer contributions that you refer to, I think pertains more to the FUNDING or Revenue (income stream) rather than the cost side (I referred to this at #1 of my original post.
3) Contributions from “For or Against”.
In my opinion, if it did NOT make sense to implement Single Payer, then it would be very important to know who was FOR it.
However, since IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO IMPLEMENT Single Payer, because of the $100’s of Billions in Savings, the fact that we would have been providing critical medical care and preventive care, and would be benefiting job creation, then what is most important to know is who was AGAINST it.
And in this case we can see that those who were against it, are the ones who stand to benefit from it, the medical insurance industry and the very few Senators receiving large contributions, in this case Senator Correa receiving $350,000.
Francisco “Paco” Barragan
TJLocalSA,
FYI; The ACLU and the League of Women Voters are both non-partisan organizations that DON’T make campaign contributions to individuals.
Thanks Anonster…my partial list was simply from pulling from the list of organizations who support SB810 in the actual bill w/o knowing if they actually spend money on contributions to politicians, so good to know.
There would not be any cost saving.
The law of unintended consequences would kick in and the house of cards would collapse under the weight of government red tape and cost over runs.
The single payer system would become a single provider system without any checks and balances faster than you can shake a stick.
Look what happened to California experiment with free market electric power. As the top 3 made cash, hand of foot with the conversion subsidies that they “gamed” , they then call foul when the market kicked in to claim a share of the profits.
The big three fought back, taking 8 billion dollars from the state and forcing all the other players into bankruptcy.
Now we have a 3 party monopoly and the highest rates in the nation.
How is your example of “California’s experiment with free market electric power,” aka deregulation, not the EXACT OPPOSITE of a single-payer health insurance system?
Three big power companies control the majority of retail electricity with the approval and backing of government. No competition (in California, highest rates)
The retail price of health services is high, not because there are many payers, but because there are few. So how can a single payer system lower costs?
Health care costs were affordable when millions of payers determined the retail cost with their interaction with providers. As the system moved to fewer payers, (government and insurance companies) the retail prices have shot up thu the roof.
Maybe the single payer system will save money, but I don’t believe it will.
And if it does save money, I don’t believe a dime will be passed on to me.
Yes, yes…the “government can’t do anything right” perspective. Trying telling that to America’s auto workers.
Thanks Paco for the response…I am a big proponent of knowing both sides of the argument and making sure that we are comparing apples to apples. I feel that both sides exagerate to make their point but I for one just want to know the facts.
1. Inflation- It only makes sense to include inflation on one side if you are going to on the other. Thank you for providing the updated figures. Hopefully you would use them in the future also.
2. Cost- Seems like there should be some hard stats on the apples to apples cost comparison. I don’t really like just taking someone’s word for it- especially with dollars of this magnitude. I would hope that someone would be able to provide these figures prior to voting on it…how can one be fiscally sound without knowing what the cost is? Maybe they have, and just not known…I think I agree on the funding vs cost now- thanks.
3. Contributions- Whether something makes sense or not is an opinion. Therefore, I believe it is makes sense to know both sides. Obviously, for someone who has already made up their mind that it is a good thing (i.e. yourself) the important thing would be who is receiving funding from sources that may benefit by not having it. For someone like myself, who is undecided and seeking information, knowing both sides is important. IMO, everyone should be in favor of all information available. I guess it comes down to a philosophy of which I believe in more information on who is receiving funding which may influence their voting record- although I would believe that a lot of money being given is given to support a candidates already established position as opposed to trying to buy their change in position. For example, Labor would probably support monetarily those who are already in favor of their aligned positions while insurance would likely support those who have aligned positions with their own positions. This is typical politics as usual which is why it would be great to get more of the money out of politics.
New Items:
1. Funding: How is the actual funding taking place? I thought that I read it was going to be a payroll tax or some similar payroll withholding. Can you expand on that for me or provide a link to the full details? I am more looking for the actual details of it. Example: X% of wages up to $XX, X% of Adj Gross Income, Employer payroll tax, etc…I reviewed the CA One Care site and cannot find the details.
2. Services: If the funding is all out of one trust fund and there are no copays (from CA One Care site), if I choose to go to a doctor who normally charges more, will the trust fund pay that doctor more or do they have to accept the lower paid amount from the trust fund? If they only get the lower paid amount, I presume I have to pay the difference direct to the doctor. This really comes down to whether my level of service will go down…If I am used to my current doctors who charge more and sometimes don’t even accept insurance (and better IMO) will my doctor now be forced to change how they do business b/c they now have to accept anyone and everyone for the rate that the trust fund will pay them? Hopefully that makes sense. If I have to pay out of pocket for the additional cost- is that included in Correa’s $200M.
3. Funding- If my personal funding to the trust fund (presumably from a payroll tax withholding) goes UP compared to my current health insurance premiums plus co-pays, is this still a fiscal/monetary benefit to ME? Not talking about for society, but just for me. If it does, please explain how. It there is an increase in cost to me personally, and my service does not get better (I have good service now), why would this be good for me and my family. I don’t want to sound calous, but it starts at home…
Thanks in advance for your response!
@TJLocalSA
I think that a lot of your “HOW TO”/PROCESS questions can be answered by a quick read of SB 810.
It also contains some past analyses that show Fiscal Deficiencies in similar types of Single Payer programs proposed int the past, but I suspect that this is the case because they have not incorporated many of the benefits, or because of the assumptions they made in their modeling, and because of the numbers/estimates that they chose to use in their modeling.
And it contains extensive lists of both those who are For or Against.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_810_cfa_20120126_145437_sen_floor.html
SB 810 would also allow for individuals to choose “Elite type of service” for additional fees.
It seems that you are still having an internal philosophical struggle about whether:
a) We should maintain the current fragmented profit-based medical insurance middle-man model, that rations care, or
b) whether we should cover and provide healthcare and preventive care for the vast majority of millions of men, women and children in a comprehensive, streamlined single payer system, and which maximizes economies of scale and price/Volume discounts, and which is less expensive while still maintaining quality of care through private providers.
I think this is a philosophical struggle that some citizens are still struggling with, in addition to considering the significant financial savings from Single Payer.
At a certain point, citizens must decide to ensure they avoid “Analysis paralysis”.
again thank you for your thoughtful questions and comments.
Francisco “Paco”
Thanks Paco- I had read the bill from your prior link and unfortunately it is light on the details of how it is paid for. I cannot tell what the insurance/contribution from residents would be. Para 45 indicates that a Premium Commission would be developed and recommend a premium structure- that really does not answer the question and only causes more confusion and likely opposition. If we knew a ballpark, then it would be helpful. I was hoping someone would know this. I think this is a big component of the bill and would hope that it would be determined prior to a vote. How much would it cost me and my family?
After re-reading the Bill, a few other interesting points:
1. Copayments and deductibles are allowed (P13) for services that are not prohibited by fed law. I presume that each doctor may be able to set their own copays, but not sure.
2. You must go to your primary care provider prior to going to a specialist (P16) which is what those who are on an HMO are used to but those who are used to a PPO, this is a HUGE change. Those who are on PPO, often site this is a reason for being on the PPO. Does not seem like the bill allows for a self referral. A specialist can be the primary, but often that does not work for the patient’s general work…
3. If a health care provider chooses not to be paid for by the “system” but instead charges directly to the patient, they are prohibited from accepting payment from CHS (P36)…This essentially means that those who want to go to a “elite” provider has to pay full out of pocket with no insurance reimbursement if their provider determines that the uniform payment is not sufficient to reimburse them for their services. This would significantly increase the cost for those who love their existing doctor and are able to currently utilize some insurance reimbursement for their services. This is a big deal, assuming I am reading it correctly. As one would presumably still have to contribute to the premiums as yet to be determined but would not be utilizing the services of it except for the most expensive of services (acts more as catastrophic insurance) OR it would force people to providers who do not charge separately and may or may not provide the desired level of service. Perhaps if each provider is able to set their own co-pays, then maybe they can make it up through a higher co-pay possibly.
I personally don’t think things items are leading to analysis paralysis, but instead are just prudent questions that should be asked/answered prior to making a such a philosophical change in how health care services are funded in the state.
@Asslicker Longboobs,
First of all, I want to thank you and commend you for the tremendous amounts of time and money that you have spent in ensuring that Californians receive accessible, affordable, compassionate, effective, efficient, and high-quality healthcare; and which we know would also save not just lives but billions of dollars.
I think that you are a blessing to the men, women and children whose cause you are championing.
Secondly, to Answer you, I don’t know why your supportive comment disappeared. I looked on the “TRASH” folder, but it was empty.
I will follow-up with Vern, our Editor.
Also, I actually prefer being called Francisco or “Paco”, rather than “Mr. Barragan”, because this is what my family, friends, and most everyone calls me. I guess this is also the egalitarian side of me.
You reminded me of the following: a good friend of mine had an Akita that went crazy whenever she saw Pizza boxes, cause she loved pizzas, or “human food”. We used to say that If Kiku “the Akita” could speak, she would probably say, “You can call me anything you want, just don’t call me late for dinner or Pizza.”
Again thank you for your tremendous efforts on behalf of our community!!!
Francisco “Paco”
barraganfj@gmail.com
Thank YOU, Paco! You are a very kind soul! And I love your Akita story. My dog, Bear, goes absolutely bonkers for pizza – to the point of jumping up and snagging it out of people’s hands before they know what even happened!
One day SB810 will pass. I’m glad to see so many folks not giving up hope.