Lawmakers propose bill requiring all Californians to have health ins.

Lawmakers propose health coverage plan
Bill would require all Californians to have insurance
Victoria Colliver, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, February 17, 2005


If you drive a car, the law requires you to have auto insurance. By the same token, shouldn't the state also force you to have health insurance?

That's the thinking behind legislation expected to be introduced this week that would require Californians to carry basic health insurance. Those who failed to comply would have their wages garnisheed or lose their tax refunds.

The bill's authors, Assemblymen Joe Nation, D-San Rafael, and Keith Richman, R-Northridge (Los Angeles County), hope a mandate will reduce cost burdens both on those who are already insured and on the doctors and hospitals that care for the uninsured.

"We believe a basic level of health care is a right, but we also believe it's a responsibility of individuals to take care of themselves and not be in a position where they require society to pay for the cost of their emergency room visit," Nation said.

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/17/BUG5QBCIDR1.DTL&type=health


This article is a few days old, but I didn't see anything posted here already. What do you think of this approach?

So, according to the description you provide, a person who can't afford health insurance now will, in the future, have to pay a fine for not being able to afford health insurance?

Are they going to legislate wages so that people can AFFORD health insurance? Are they going to cap premiums and copays?

Blaming marginal and/or chronically ill people for not being able to afford health insurance is just plain stupid. What are they going to do, open debtors prisons for the underpaid and uninsured?

Elitist assholes.

this is the dumbest fucking idea in a while.

things at the national level and forget to keep an eye on my own states government.

I did hear of this issue a while back. I heard some folks over the radio discussing the negative effects of it in terms of how do low income folks pay for such a plan etc..

The truth is, I would have welcomed an inexpensive but thorough "group/state" healthcare plan YEARS ago. A Single payer something or other. I never could understand why such a plan didn't exist for everyone. It would have to be very inexpensive so that lower income folks could subscribe, or one where premiums are paid on a sliding scale--according to a person's ability to pay.

FORCING a healthcare plan into a LAW/mandatory seems way too heavy handed to me. Hell, I don't even believe it should be LAW to purchase auto insurance...advisable yes, mandatory no.

I'm surprised to see a Democrat's name attached to the bill...oh, wait, I'm really NOT surprised anymore. Dems and rethugs working together is SO "Today" :eyes:

Why don't they go the complete route? Heavy fines for poverty, with jail sentences if the fines get too high. Yeah, that's the ticket!

</sarcasm>

Didn't Newt Gingreen' say something like that himself? Some remark about poor houses or debtors prisons for the "unfortunate"???

I've tried to find his quotes, with no luck. This is exactly where the fascist pigs WANT the poor to end up. Either in prison/detention or in Ghettos--where they can watch us.

You know, this kind of attitude from the right and from some on the left even, isn't all just because of Bush. He doesn't operate in a vacuum...it's his followers and sycophants/bootlickers, other fascist ideologues that are pushing these god-forsaken agendas.

Not only that, but I've come to be outright horrified to learn that there are SO MANY regular citizens in this country who LIKE HIS AGENDA. Unfortunately, these Nazi minded folk have always been with us, just under the surface. With Bush and his ilk in power that portion of the population is having a field day coming out of the closet with their support.

For me, this means I can't trust everyone I meet anymore--the lightness of being has been snuffed out. ALL of my daily comings and goings are tainted with the suspicion that I'm dealing with someone who might just like to see me dead, or gone in some other way... It's a hell of a way for me to have to live my life....

i trust very few people. like orwell's 1984.

i scrutinize. i listen for nuances. i don't want to live my life out like this. i don't want my daughter to live her live under this cloud.

I listened to a radio talkshow host the other night mention the numbers of people he knew that have left the country. I would consider it myself IF I were able to do it and could find a place that was peaceful enough to cope with the change.

The host said this: While he wasn't going anywhere; this was his country and he loved it, he DID understand completely why some people did leave. He said, 'heck, people only have so many years to live; one can only wait so long for the society they deserve or long for'...

I thought he captured my exact feelings in that sentence. I've already waited my entire life for an ever improving society...I don't have many more days assigned to me; when will I be free and feel safe again?

My sister talks about selling her property and buying into some low scale resort thingy in some central or south american country...LOL-->I'm not sure she could cope with the bugs but at least she's thinking proactively.

:hug: SB

myself. I've gotten pretty good at SF issues but county and State are still vast dark territories.

My partner is disabled, so I can work at home while I tend to him or not work at home. Haven't had regular medical care since I stopped teaching about ten years ago because he's insured but I'm not.

What are these people thinking.

by making do without a car. The counterpart for health insurance is making do without a life (in California, at least).

More (attempted) corporate looting of the people.

it seems like a good idea. After all, everybody should have car insurance, so, therefore, everybody should have health insurance, right? BUT: I have a cautionary tale. Recently, I tried (and failed) to qualify for private insurance. The insurers aren't allowed to deny me coverage under the law; what they are allowed to do is to charge me OUTRAGEOUS rates. The insurers also make it very hard for anyone to obtain private insurance. So I changed my job status from an at will employee (work when I want to, no benefits), to a part-time one with some health coverage. It's not the best system, but then again, I won't have to work forever. I don't agree at all with the bill's authors. Their idea strikes me as punitive and wrongheaded.

"Catastrophic insurance" is just that, a catastrophe. You pay and pay and get nothing for your money. What a rip off. I may look sick on paper, but I sure don't look sick in real life, yet I have to pay 75% more than the advertised rates.

But at least they will be insured.

Right now, if I want to drive around with no insurance that will replace my car if I total it, I'm allowed to do so. The required insurance is liability insurance: If my negligence causes an accident that totals your car, you'll have a right to recover the cost from me, and the required liability insurance ensures that there'll be a source of that money. (I may be broke but my insurer isn't.) I'm allowed to take chances with my own car but not with yours. If I can't afford to buy the liability insurance, then, as others have noted, I just don't put you at risk (i.e., I don't drive).

What this plan amounts to is universal health insurance implemented in the worst possible way. It would be financed by a regressive tax, in that each person would be required to pay at least the same minimum amount for the basic required coverage. Patients would still be dealing with for-profit companies, though, so we'd have many of the disadvantages of the present system, including health care decisions driven by financial rather than medical considerations, and huge waste of resources for the processing and contesting of claims by private companies.

The only bright spot here is the one mentioned by one of the sources quoted in the story -- maybe the bill will focus more attention on the problems of the present system, especially the millions of people without health insurance.

Every chronically ill, or chronically underemployed Californian
should pool their funds, and puchase a contract on the life of every politician and pundit who supports this insane idea.

In the end, they would be far better off.
Don't think of it as class war, think of it as class self defense.

My letter to my assemblyman, the speaker, and Joe Nation:

I have to teach college at two different campuses because you guys let community colleges get away with having two-thirds of their faculty part timers so they can avoid giving us health insurance and I can't afford to buy it on my own. I can't even afford to pay my student loans.

Is Joe Nation fucking retarded or did he get a big contribution from insurance companies? Please leave stabbing working people in the back to the Republicans. We need the democrats to fight for us, not the chamber of commerce.

I'd be hard pressed to explaint what the advantage of having a democratic majority is when you join the republicans in pulling us down to a third world standard of living.


Joe Nation's boss, Fabian Nunez:

Assemblymember.Nunez@assembly.ca.gov


Find your assembly member:

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset7text.htm

Contact the asswipe who is co-sponsoring this idea:

Joe Nation:

Capitol Office
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0006
Phone: (916) 319-2006
Fax: (916) 319-2106



District Offices
Sonoma County Office:
50 D Street, Suite 305
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Phone: (707) 576-2631
Fax: (707) 576-2735



District Offices
Marin County Office:
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 412
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: (415) 479-4920
Fax: (415) 479-2123

We should start a website to fight it. My husband teaches "part-time," meaning on quarterly contracts for the auxiliary services of a state university. His employer has been ripping off the teachers for years, violating all kinds of laws including wage and hour laws. After many, many years of teaching, the school finally started a pension plan -- too late for my husband and many of his colleagues. But that does not stop the school from blatantly discriminating based on age and other things.

I intend to write my state senator and take other action about the situation. I encourage you and your colleagues to go to the library, read the California Education Code on Community Colleges (might be Title 7, not sure), think about what you would like to see changed, and then write your assemblyperson and state senator to get them to change the laws. It will take time, but it is very important to do this.

P.S. I advise you to look at the Education Code, especially sections of personnel because it probably grants rights to full-timers above and beyond pensions that you should ask for -- rhings like the right to due process if you are unfairly disciplined or terminated or not rehired, like academic freedom, etc.

People want college to be accessible, but they don't want the taxes to make it so, so we have to cut corners. Part timers are the corners. Oddly, schools always find money for new buildings and exorbitant administrator salaries. The president at one of my schools makes more than Dick Cheney.

That's always the problem. Administrators are overpaid fat cats at every level in the educational field.

The one semi-good side for me is college administrators are often self-serving bureaucrats, but at least they aren't incompetent authoritarians like those in K-12. Most principals and administrators there are tempermentally and intellectually similar to the ass pimple in chief who is visiting Europe this week.

that option so we just need to make em get some. There. Everything is ok now.

Lame attempt to solve a complex social problem by compromising between a socialistic solution - Tax everyone and have the government use the proceeds to provide basic coverage for those who need it, and a schizo-capitalistic one - Force people to buy from private insurers as a condition for what - living in the state?

It sounds like the worst of both worlds. Kind of like building a car with the engine in the back and front-wheel drive.

I could be wrong on this one since I believe it is a new question. If the government takes something from you, they have to give you something in return. The only exception is taxes. The government could impose a tax and buy everyone health insurance with it. They can impose taxes without giving you something in return. But, under California law, it is very difficult to impose new taxes, so that is not likely to happen.

Think of some examples. The government can require you to buy car insurance in exchange for giving you the privilege to drive. Likewise, employers can be required to pay worker's compensation insurance and unemployment insurance for the privilege of hiring people. But, it's your mortgage company, not the government that requires you to have homeowners insurance. We even refer to the payments for Social Security as a "tax."

We are on CSMP because Hubby can't get insurance. He needs insulin and has less than 30% kidney function. Unless there is an inexpensive alternative, we are screwed. I just added up our medical costs for last year...$12,000! I only make $10/hr before taxes.

If they want everybody to have insurance, they need to make it available and affordable for all people.

IDIOTS!

And that is but one example

I like this far beter, how about we make Medic Cal the State system and ABOLISH health care for profit (after some reforms with Medic Cal of course)... in other words, we make this a Universal Health Care system


Ah but big pharma and the Hospitals will hate this little idea....