California government healthcare plan shelved


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The head of California’s assembly on Friday shelved the senate’s proposed government takeover of that state’s entire healthcare industry, saying that the plan was “woefully incomplete.”

The plan, which was estimated to cost $400 billion, several times California’s annual total budget, had not included any way to pay for it.

At first glance it appears that common sense has arrived in California. A closer look shows no such thing has happened.

“We are disappointed that the robust debate about health care for all that started in the California Senate will not continue in the Assembly this year,” Democratic Sens. Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens and Toni Atkins of San Diego, the bill’s authors, said in a statement. “This issue is not going away.”

The legislation was championed by the state’s nurses’ union and the Democratic Party’s more liberal wing. “The California Nurses Association condemns the decision by Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon to destroy the aspirations of millions of Californians for guaranteed health care,” the union’s co-president, Deborah Burger, said in a statement that also critiqued the timing of Rendon’s announcement, which was sent out shortly before 5 p.m. “Announcing this decision at 5 p.m. on a Friday afternoon is a cowardly act, developed in secret without engaging the thousands of Californians who have rallied to enact real health care reform.”

Rendon suggested the Senate draft a new version of the bill that addresses how to finance the plan and more clearly details how it would work. He also suggested the plan could be taken to voters in the form of a ballot measure. In the meantime, he said he would not advance the bill through the Assembly committee process. “This action does not mean SB 562 is dead,” Rendon said. “In fact, it leaves open the exact deep discussion and debate the senators who voted for SB 562 repeatedly said is needed.”

Even if they rewrite it to include a plan to pay for this government-run healthcare system, it won’t work. It never does. The program will still cost far more than they can afford, and it will still bankrupt California, as has socialism in Russia, Venezuela, Europe, and anywhere it has been tried. Every. Single. Time.

Not that these plain facts matter to the political leaders in California. They and their voters want free stuff, and darn it, they are going to give it to them!

Share

11 comments

  • wayne

    California won’t have to re-visit this, Mitch McConnell is carrying their water for them.

    Mark Levin:
    “The road to single payer healthcare has been paved…”
    June 23, 2017
    https://youtu.be/fmJ_L0ZNSB8

  • LocalFluff

    “Free” healthcare means low accessibility. If prices don’t take care of the allocation, your place in the waiting line will. And of course, some “groups” will get priority access. It need not cost California’s government a dime to socialize healthcare. The price will be paid in blood.

  • Orion314

    at the very least, dead Democrats don’t seem to vote quite so often….

  • pzatchok

    unless they planned on taking over the whole of the healthcare industry from top to bottom it would never have worked.

    They are just throwing cash at an industry that can charge them anything it wants. And it will raise them charges up all the way.

    As long as they think rich people and companies pay taxes then they will always think they can get something for free just by raising the taxes.
    They do not understand the companies place every bit of taxable profit back into the business as a non taxable expense.
    The same with personal income taxes. If you pay them your doing something wrong.

  • I was hoping the Assembly would pass the bill and Gov. Moon Beam would sign it into law. Then we’d enjoy the spectacle of California politicians having to tell their constituents what ‘free’ stuff costs.

    In Oregon a soda tax recently passes and the proceeds are going to pay for state employee retirement benefits. It is slowly dawning on people that they are being turned into servants of the State to benefit a small number of people.

  • wayne

    Mapping How Americans Talk –
    “Soda vs. Pop vs. Coke”
    https://youtu.be/4HLYe31MBrg

  • Wayne: This video would have been a perfect evening pause. Instead, you post it as a comment in a place that is somewhat off topic. Grr!

    Why don’t you email these to me instead so I can schedule them!?

  • wodun

    The problem with single customer, other than only pleasing one customer instead of hundreds of millions, is that it is impossible to provide everyone with the best care. Health care can’t be a right, if the best care can’t be provided to everyone.

    This is a problem with a free market system too but with single customer, there is one customer deciding where money goes rather than hundreds of millions. The free market is more responsive and allows for expansive growth and serendipitous unpredictable discoveries.

    As technology and knowledge increases, there should always be more treatments, devices, and medicines being introduced to the market. This means the total amount the populace expends on healthcare will increase, or at least that the number of services bought will always increase.

    Single customer will not only inhibit the creation and innovation of these services but would be unable to pay for people getting them. Since there is a single customer and any specific person’s needs don’t matter, things that can’t be paid for either wont exist or wont be available to the general public. Free market effects that we see in other industries that drive costs down wont take place.

    We live in a golden age of technological and scientific expansion. This means treatments and services are also expanding but it also means that the government can not possibly pay for everyone to get the best care and with the government as the sole customer directing where money goes, expansion of services and treatments will grind to a halt.

    Unfortunately, it is just impossible to pay for everything every single person needs or wants from the healthcare industry.

  • wodun

    Here is an analogy.

    The environmental movement has been pushing for the purchase of more public lands to “allow the public to use them”. Sure, they don’t really mean everyone and want to purchase lands to prevent some people from using them but that is a different rant.

    So local, state, and federal governments acquire more land. Awesome! Except they don’t have enough money to properly maintain these lands. Each time land is added, the budget gets stretched even thinner, meaning any given piece of land gets less attention then it needs.

    Sure, they will set aside or acquire funds to put out forest fires but they won’t be looking after the health of any given tree or plant that lives in the forest. There just isn’t enough money. But when they buy land, they have the responsibility or caring for it. They are just incapable of doing it.

  • Edward

    It’s too bad that this didn’t pass. I cracked a tooth, this weekend, and I would rather get it fixed for “free,” on this stupid California healthcare plan, than for the high price that it will cost me (an arm, a leg, and the rest of my teeth).

    On the other hand, free healthcare may not be so free after all:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw (20 minutes)

  • Steve C

    They want to wait and see if the Fed bails out Illinois before the go totally into the hole.

Leave a Reply

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