California Cannot Get Single Payer “Health Care” Together Either

As Senator Bernie Sanders and his leftist cronies advocate their “Medicare for All” scheme for the entire United States in a push that started Sept. 13, I have already discussed failures in two primarily blue (Democrat) states to implement single payer “health care.” Once again, I use quotes around the term “health care” because the health part of the term is highly questionable as I have outlined in a previous post. http://pollyhealthcare.net/but-everybody-is-doing-it/

To review:

  • The state of Vermont was on track in 2014 to establish a single payer “health care” system but Governor Pete Shumlin had to put a kaibosh on it when he saw the actual costs involved and the increases in taxes that would result.
  • Then, in the general election of 2016, Colorado voters gave single payer “health care coverage” the “thumbs down” by a margin of 78.9 percent in a state also known as leaning liberal. That single payer scheme was projected to cost approximately $36 billion and was expected to “[dwarf] the state government’s budget.”

Yet the battle to implement single payer “health care” in California rages on with two sides of the Democrat party (far-left and moderate) at odds with each other. Here is a brief history of what is going on in the Socialist Republic of California.

According to a July 2017 article by Reid Wilson in The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/340319-battle-breaks-out-in-california-over-single-payer-healthcare), Anthony Rendon, the California Assembly Speaker, apparently brought a march to single payer “health care coverage” to a screeching halt the last week of June by “shelving” a proposal to establish such a system. The article states that the cost of implementing such a system in the Golden State was estimated at $400 billion (although the article describes a number of schemes the proposal’s supporters explain that could lighten that cost burden).

Apparently Rendon’s objection to the proposal was that it lacked a funding mechanism, so there was no real “plan” to budget for such a grand scheme of coverage. In the aforementioned article, Rendon told The Hill, “There was really no there, there. It was a statement of principles, a list of values, a lot of values that I share, but it certainly wasn’t a bill.”

So this single payer “health care” bill is apparently parked for now. This has raised the ire of the far-left that desperately wants to implement universal single payer “care” in California. In fact, some of those supporters are so desperate to implement this scheme there that they are making death threats, according to Rendon.

I wonder if any of those death threats, which I am sure are anonymous, are coming from people involved in the California Nurses Association, a nurses’ union that has pushed the “bill.” After all, are not nurses supposed to be healers? I would certainly find it ironic if that is where the death threats are coming from because, as far-left as some nurses may be politically, I would hope that they are not the guilty ones in crossing that line. Of course, no one who supports the bill should be crossing that line. Period.

Now, my next comment may sound shocking to you coming from me, but I do agree with the single payer supporters on one issue – the optics of those businesses that support the Assembly speaker through the Democrats’ political action committees such as health insurance companies, no doubt. No matter what side of the political spectrum one is on, I think being supported by certain businesses and then working on legislation that could affect those businesses in any way, just looks bad. A lot of people scream that businesses should have the right to support candidates who stand for their interests, but it creates these suspicions. That also goes for Republicans taking money from the big shots in health insurance and pharmaceuticals as well because, as we have seen, only a few Republicans really stand for a full repeal of Obamacare and establishing a truly free market in health care where players in that market can innovate and bring down the cost of medical and surgical services in a way that actually benefits patients.

If only all sides could be sure the motives of our elected leaders are pure.

I, for one, think that Rendon’s objections to the single player proposal at this time are probably pure, because it is actually just plain common sense. One does not go flying off with establishing a system in any state that does not have a clear plan for financing as well as awareness of the pitfalls.  That would be a sure-fire recipe for financial disaster down the road – both for California as a state and for the patients who would come to depend on such a system.

The Hill article states that the proposal is not technically dead at this point and could be taken up again in the future. However, it is not going anywhere anytime soon. However, another article I read in The New Republic published June 30, 2017 (https://newrepublic.com/article/143650/killed-single-payer-california), made a very telling statement about the future of the single payer proposal in California. The author, Clio Chang, stated the following:

“In a state where Democrats have super-majorities in both legislative chambers and a Democratic governor, the conventional wisdom is that if California can’t pass single-payer, it can’t be passed anywhere.”

Remembering the epic fails in Colorado and Vermont, I hold out hope that single payer “health care” will also eventually fail in California. This does not mean that I do not want everyone to have health care they can afford and won’t be bankrupted if they have a serious illness or injury. As I have repeatedly said in previous posts, there are much better ways to achieve affordability in health care through the free market.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *