Gavin Newsom Calls for California To Provide Universal Health Care
The plan will rely on giant tax hikes on businesses and Californians.
California should become the first state in the nation to guarantee universal health care, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday as he outlined plans for a $286 billion budget.
The program would be open to all residents of the state, regardless of immigration status. If the legislature goes along with Newsom's plans—some progressive California lawmakers have already introduced a bill to enact the idea—the system would take effect in 2024. Newsom says it will cost about $2.2 billion annually.
.@GavinNewsom says cost of universal health care expansion would be $2.2 billion annually after this year's investment of $614 million.
— Emily Hoeven (@emily_hoeven) January 10, 2022
Undocumented immigrants account for a large percentage of California residents lacking health coverage. Last year a Berkeley study found that about 3.2 million Californians don't have health insurance, including about 1.2 million who cannot access various state programs because of their immigration status. Most of the rest are eligible for coverage under the state's generous Medicaid program (Medi-Cal) or are able to receive subsidies to purchase insurance through the state-level exchange set up as part of the Affordable Care Act.
Newsom's proposal would do away with the restrictions in Medi-Cal that block undocumented immigrants from the program. The aim is to break down the barriers between various programs that already exist in the state's budget, state Rep. Ash Kalra (D–San Jose) told The Los Angeles Times. "What we're trying to do is get rid of these dozens of buckets of funding—whether it's private insurance, whether it's employer, whether it's Medi-Cal—put it into one bucket," Kalra told the paper.
That will be one expensive bucket. Though Newsom did not touch on how he intends to pay for the program in his speech Monday, the Times reports that the legislative plan would rely on a new 2.3 percent gross receipts tax on businesses earning more than $2 million annually. The plan would also create a new payroll tax that charges workers 1.25 percent of their annual wages. All Californians earning more than $149,000 annually would be hit with an income tax increase, and any resident of the state earning more than $2.5 million would face an additional wealth surcharge of 2.5 percent.
Still, give California progressives some credit for being open about what it will take to pay for such a system. In the past, support for state-level universal health care proposals has collapsed when the cost of the promised benefits became clear. Vermont's attempt to implement a single-payer health care system fell apart in 2014 because the costs were too high. Colorado voters rejected a proposed single-payer system in 2016 when faced with the prospect of increasing payroll taxes by 10 percent to meet the estimated $25 billion annual price tag.
There's no such thing as "free" health care, after all.
One thing Newsom has going for him is a $31 billion budget surplus, which would help defray the program's initial costs. That surplus exists, in part, because of the federal dollars poured into state coffers in the name of pandemic relief—even though most states did not need the help.
It would be a stretch to claim that those federal COVID relief funds were intended to offset the cost of setting up state-level universal health care programs. But politicians are generally good at finding new ways to spend extra cash. (Newsom's budget calls for about $10 billion in new spending next year, according to the Times.)
In California, that means Newsom will get a chance to deliver on one of his major campaign promises from 2018 just before he has to run for re-election later this year. He should thank the pandemic, federal taxpayers, and the nonstop printing press at the Federal Reserve for the opportunity.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The only way to meet this huge new demand would be to lift CON laws and the artificial cap on the number of doctors. So since we're going to have to do that anyway, why don't we try it BEFORE we go single payer and see what happens?
Actually, the only way to make it work will be to force doctors to work for the state, at state-determined wages. And prosecute any MDs who "retire" or attempt to move.
Ahhhhh Canadian style
Here are 7 at-home jobs that pay at least $100/day. And there’s quite the variety too! Some of these work-at-home jobs are more specialized, others are jobs that anyone can do. hnc They all pay at least $3000/month, but some pay as much as $10,000.
GO HOME PAGE FOR MORE DETAILS.>>>>>> Click Here
I rather see this tck as communist stuyle. The state owns AND controls the means of production, in the present case, the workings of the Gabbling Nuisance in taking control of the medical/health fields under his feifdom.
This WILL lead to a nassive exodus from his domain. Followed by millions more individuals who refuse to live under his tyrannical, bungling, non-functional feifdom.
The only ones who will stay will fall into one of two categories: too poor to have to pay anything (thus wards of the state system) or wealthy enough they can hop into their proffessionally pilotted personal aircraft and head off to their appointments with whatever competent medical care proffessionals they care to see.
The rest? Maybe the Nuisance will figure it out.
I'm sure there's plenty of Mexican doctors among those illegal aliens swarming the border. Probably some Mexican hospitals, too.
Or make the federal government pay for it.
Before I left Cali, they didn't have CON laws. In fact it seemed as if becoming an MD was easier than being an electrical engineer. Which would explain why one "doctor" I tried with a degree from an island in the Gulf of Mexico was licensed in Cali while the apartment super who held a PhD in engineering from a former Soviet state had to work as little more than a janitor and handyman because ABET required it. But occupational licensing necessarily plays favorites.
Also, what if my immigration status says that I actually live in Washington. Am I still good?
Technically, that would make you homeless in California.
Would the train fare be less than you spend on health care now?
The state spends substantial amounts of money ensuring that your employer is compliant with taxation laws. So if you worked in CA but merely identified as a Washingtonian, your employer will rat you out faster than you can blink.
If you identify as Washingtonian m, what are your pronouns?
Sink, Sank, Sunk?
Comrade or dumb-ass?
Might have better luck with Drink, Drank, Drunk.
That would be Wisconsin
Look out, Texas, more Californians are heading your way.
That's not funny.
Don’t worry, they’ll ALL be techies from Shiticon—not a proggie in sight there! BWAHAHA! (Damn it I can never manage a straight face with that one!)
Ha! Phailing Phil is implementing a state bank. You know, a 'People's Bank'. What could possibly go wrong with government appointees deciding who gets loans and for how much?
Post re-districting, Team R will be effectively neutered in NJ.
Build the Wall! (around California)
In an unrelated story, Florida and Texas have announced a $30,000 entrance fee for new residents.
Even if you're coming over the southern border?
If you're coming to Florida from the south, the Biden regime will make sure to keep you out.
What about that idea that California was floating about a 10 year tax? Honestly, I think that's a great idea and it should be implemented nation-wide.
No doubt Cali wants them to raise it. Cali knows they aren't going to pay for by taxing just a half dozen people. Probably by bumping the statewide sales tax to 12.5%.
Universal care by whom? If you don't pay for it, expect to get less of it.
Medical licensure is easily portable between states, and many physicians maintain licensure in multiple states. California is not a license I hold, nor ever will.
Reminds me of the two Germanys post World War 2. The highly productive professionals in the east started exiting…until a wall was built.
A wall? But walls are racist and unfair.
I’m told anti-facist barricades cannot be racist.
If you don't pay for it, expect to get less of it.
That's the idea. The wealthy aristocrats in Hollywood and Silicon Valley will be unaffected because they'll be able to afford expensive private healthcare (or plane tickets elsewhere for regular checkups). The middle class will get squeezed.
They are already flying or being driven to private clinics south of the border. Even the middle class can afford to get treatment at the super-swanky clinics that have sprung up outside Tijuana. No waiting for the FDA to approve treatments down there.
Apparently Newsome thinks there are still too many successful businesses and wealthy people in California. U-Haul is running out of vehicles people can take on one-way trips to Texas.
U-Haul is one of the most successful businesses in the state. They are so successful they can't keep trailers and trucks in stock.
My local U-Haul dealer gets at least one call a day from U-Haul employees in California, asking if he plans to do any hiring in the near future.
I'm told that U-Haul's employment page has over 3000 openings, most of which are in California, New York and Chicagoland.
Not to worry Guys. One party regimes with a hyper-ideological agenda have a GREAT track record when it comes to universal healthcare! And California iof all places wouldn’t squander a budget surplus in short order—-would it?
Now if you’ll excuse us, we need to get back to padding our public pension system..
Governor Newsom is currently free to do this out of his own pocket.
Didn’t Tesla recently defect from Cali? The magic 8 ball suggests other businesses will do the same should this disaster of an idea be implemented in the Golden State.
Didn’t you hear, man? It’s universal! We’ll start by taxing Andromeda. (Part of our “Think Universally, Act Galactically” campaign we’re rolling out next month (order your buttons and bumper stickers now!).
The businesses actually probably would prefer it. Right now they have a bunch of expenses surrounding the cost of supplying insurance to their employees- which they are required to do as a matter of law (thanks Obamacare). When this passes, their California employees no longer need multiple potential insurance options. They don't need to pay a plan administrator and regularly negotiate new rates every couple years. They don't have to listen to their employees bitch that therapeutic goat yoga isn't covered by their plan. Nope, they just dial up the taxes on their employee's paycheck and layoff some HR Benefits folks.
Ooops...I missed the part where they would levy a 2.5% Gross Receipts tax. Hmm. They just shrank every company's margin by 2.5%?
Wow. And it is probably a levy on all business in the state.
Given grocery stores operate at about 2% margin, I hope they all go out of business and everyone in that shithole starves.
They just
shrankraised every company'smarginprices by 2.5%?It will make it more difficult for Cali businesses to compete against similar businesses located elsewhere.
Grocery stores spring up along the state border...
Idahoans go a long way to do a couple of months worth of shopping at a time as the Walmart just west of the state line with no-sales-tax Oregon.
It's funny as hell to see 50 pounds of frozen potatoes being loaded into a van with Idaho license plates, to be taken past the plant in Idaho where they were packaged!
Anyone that doesn't think the 100 million settlement tesla had to pay was a moving tax is a retard
Do you know why divorces are expensive?
Because it’s worth it.
From the LA Times Article:
"The size and impact of the tax increase will be at the center of the debate...supporters insist the taxes will total less than what employers and Californians now pay for private insurance."
It is the biggest indictment of our school systems that this whole myth of "with single payer, we save on administrative costs" still exists. They said the same thing about airlines in the 60s- how could Pan Am compete with the Soviet airline industry if it had to spend money on Advertising and competing with others.
I have been hoping to run out the clock in this state so that my kids don't have to find all new friends as they start High School, but California is really doing their best. California doesn't realize that the assholes they depend on in Silicon Valley to fund this shit just spent the last two years working outside of their office. Pretty much all the people I know at Apple, Google, Facebook and Linkedin are moving and working remote (or from out of state offices). There is no way this pays for itself in even 5 years.
Pretty much all the people I know at Apple, Google, Facebook and Linkedin are moving and working remote (or from out of state offices).
Working from home? Sure, but out of state? I find that difficult to believe. But even at that I remember...what was it, the eleventyith time Google said "this time, we're returning to an in-office schedule", there was some babble about, "Well, ok, but... so yeah, um, if you DO work from home, you're expected to be within a reasonable drive to the orifice..." or some such thing. So you can live in a small town in Idaho and work for Google?
Google requires "an exception" if you move to permanent WFH status, and it is not clear to me how common these exceptions are. But they have offices in every state in the god damn union. Boulder, Austin, San Antonio, Provo UT, Nashville, Hotlanta, Charlotte. And in other countries. You can find yourself in driving distance to pretty much any of them. Especially if you work with a distributed team, because no one will actually expect you to be in the office. (And they just pushed back the Back to Office call another month or so).
And note that Google is one of the more strict of the companies- which it can be because they pretty much set the pay scale. There are about 100 (salesforce, servicenow, workday, etc etc) other tech companies who have to compete for engineers who see this as a differentiator to save on pay and stock. They are far more flexible with this.
The value of my home in Provo, UT doubled in just 4 1/2 years. Same for Austin, TX, although I haven't purchased here yet.
Those shitweasels from CA don't know how to not spend all the proceeds from what CA did to its own housing market over the last 30 years. The sad part is that TX has no income tax and very high property taxes, so the results are higher taxes paid by every home owner.
I wouldn’t say it’s sad that we don’t have a state income tax (and thank god we passed that constitutional amendment a few years ago to keep the retardocrats from implementing one).
I would rather have a higher sales tax. Considering that the main purpose of government should be to facilitate commerce, it seems most fair to tax transactions.
Property taxes mean you never really own your home. You only hold it in trust for the government for as long as you can pay their rent.
“Reasonable drive to the orifice.” Orifice is the perfect word to describe Google HQ after the role those assholes played in fucking up my beloved hometown of Mountain View beyond recognition.
a very large percentage of our workforce moved out of state from the bay area the second people could work from home.
It is the biggest indictment of our school systems that this whole myth of "with single payer, we save on administrative costs" still exists.
To be fair, this isn't a simple math problem (though the schools are failing kids with that, too). It's a common sense problem. If you've been fed this bullshit enough, it's hard to think laterally and consider how realistic it is to save money by funneling the same amount of money through a massive government bureaucracy.
Except that after a century of this failing everywhere it has been tried, people still say it with a straight face. This is like clear as day, empirically. And yet like some moron insisting that a 10lb weight will fall faster than a 1lb weight, these people continue to spread the delusion.
Except that after a century of this failing everywhere it has been tried, people still say it with a straight face
Like I said, it's a common sense problem. When the Experts say that the numbers show it will be cheaper, it takes some common sense to understand that they're bullshitting you. That can come in the form of historical perspective, or in the form of professional experience, or just from a skeptical attitude, but it doesn't come from official facts. The official facts come from The Science and aforementioned Experts.
"It is the biggest indictment of our school systems that this whole myth of "with single payer, we save on administrative costs" still exists."
I also like to rebut people who cite state-run national health systems in Euro-land as models of performance, and how their outcomes are are so much superior to our "private" systems where we spend more per patient. It turns out our national education system also spends more per person, and gets worse outcomes. Perhaps the key factor is not "national" control.
If you really want to blow their minds, show them how the US government spends proportionally the same on the healthcare it provides as Britain does on a fraction of the population.
This is a wonderful opportunity to run this experiment. With no political opposition in California, the chance to put through real reforms is now.
I predict one of two things will happen. Either universal health care doesn't pass, or they pass a version that raises the money by hurting the middle class more than the ultra-wealthy.
The Democrats know who their real base is, after all.
#OBLsFirstLaw
Why should the wealthy pay for it? They don’t use “free” doctors.
Sarc is retarded.
Subtract the Federal chicomvirus payments and it appears the state still had a nice budget surplus. How is that possible, with higher unemployment, lower business profits, and less retail sales tax?
Can anyone of you left in California tell us?
The French Laundry will reveal all, grasshopper...
1) The state passed a massive tax increase 5 years ago or so.
2) The majority of California's taxes come from capital gains taxes. And the stock market has been doing decently well the last 20 months or so.
Yeah, our taxes are like our weather. All or nothing.
Most tax revenues here at the state level are income taxes. Ca charges income tax rates on capital gains, too, and there's no long term capital gain rate. Also, new housing is so expensive that property tax rates are climbing a bit, though boomers are still paying pennies on the dollar compared to the poor people who are buying today.
Still, with the dependence on income taxes any time there's an economic slowdown or recession California suddenly ends up flat broke almost instantly.
Also, california's public employee retirement pensions are remarkably underfunded. The won't (or can't legally, I don't know) fund this out of the general budget but the fact remains that the system is only funded at about 2/3 of what it should be yet they won't lower benefits or charge employees more. That means that they're not counting that $100-200 billion liability when they say they have an $80 billion surplus.
Translation: The money supply has been inflated like a paper bag these past 20 months or so.
It's from all those illegals paying sales taxes. /s
One thing Newsom has going for him is a $31 billion budget surplus
The state of California does not have a $31b budget surplus.
Yeah, where did that fiction come from? Is it April 1st already?
Big capital gains taxes on all those stock market and crypto and real estate gains. And most high income workers were able to work from home during the lockdowns.
All of which means the one-time windfall of the everything bubble shouldn't be counted as the new state baseline.
It does. It also had massive budget surpluses in 1999 and 2006...
Is that related to not figuring in the unfunded pension liability?
That surplus exists, in part, because of the federal dollars poured into state coffers in the name of pandemic relief—even though most states did not need the help.
Even with hospitals overflowing and hundreds of thousands of kids on ventillators?
1 billion us children died from covid! Can you take it seriously?
Don’t forget the 314,711 new cases of children with diabetes every day due to Covid.
New taxes require a supermajority of the voters to pass. Hah! I run rings around Newsom logically!
A statee has a windfall supplier due to unusual circumstances unlikely to be repeated, so that justifies taking on an enormous new annual cost. Only politicians can think this way over the long term.
This is part of a larger agenda. The objective is for Californian's to leave for states like Arizona and Texas because they keep voting for the same policies they flee.
Or perhaps it is to entice every gorgeous woman in Texas to move away from ku-klux, race suicide, forced-labor natalism. Once all but the gay bars in Texas have closed, voters just might notice the Libertarian option on ballots.
"What we're trying to do is get rid of these dozens of buckets of funding—whether it's private insurance, whether it's employer, whether it's Medi-Cal—put it into one bucket," Kalra told the paper.
The mask almost slipped off again. What she almost said was, "In the new plan, we will come to your home (or bank), and you will put all your money in the bucket."
Yeah, and the people who already have health insurance will pay another 2K a year, for no new benefit.
Didn’t they run the numbers a few years ago and figure out they would spend their entire budget on just heathcare? And that was the conservative number.
Yep. But now they have more money, so they will spent a few million looking into it again. My guess is they decide it would cost the entire budget.
Good. More illegal aliens will stay in, or move to, California.
2.2 billion dollars sounds like a lot, until you divide it by 38.9 million people (California population). That's $56.55 per person. That would cover about one office visit per year.
Maybe they mean 2.2 billion just for the 3.2 million uninsured people? That's $687.50. A good health insurance plan is closer to 10K than to 1K.
And 149K is a pretty average income in parts of California. That new 1.25% payroll tax won't be all that popular (even if it somehow stays that low), and more and more workers will consider working remotely, as in another state.
I'm sure California will still tax them, if they're working remotely from another state for a California-based company.
The government may not be done bumping off old ladies.
https://www.aol.com/entertainment/betty-white-suffered-stroke-6-214241924.html
"Betty died peacefully in her sleep at her home. People are saying her death was related to getting a booster shot three days earlier but that is not true..."
Um. Are we sure about that? Cerebrovascular hemorrhage sounds awfully like an inflammation thing...
Oh, so is California going to creates healthcare like Canada. Oh wait, Canada is emphatic that only Canadian citizens and legal landed immigrants get "Medicare". You even have to wait three months before you get on the rolls when you move to a different province (although you are still covered by your former province of residence if you've moved from a different one).
National Health Plans in other countries really on strictly controlling who gets to use them and what kinds of treatments are covered. In England, for example, if you are diagnosed with cancer you will most likely get excellent palliative care; IOW painkillers until you die. Maybe some kind of invasive treatment to extend your life will be granted if it is considered that you are important enough that your life is worth extending.
Good luck with American voters accepting anything like that.
If Californicate charges the kind of taxes that are needed to maintain the kind of medical plan it is sure to propose, look for the same kind of continued exodus that is happening now. Meanwhile the new Californicate transplants will continue to vote for the same policies in their new adopted states because that know the reason this stuff didn't work in CA is because they didn't do it hard enough.
🙂
All California need do is include coverage for medicinal and sacramental LSD and mescaline.
We need national universal coverage. Remember, we have the most expensive medical system in the world, yet all the other modern industrial democracies do provide universal coverage> We are middle of that pact in outcomes and patient satisfaction, so it's not like we are getting something for all the extra we pay. The other countries do this using various systems of everything from socialized medicine - the UK - to combination private/public systems (Germany and France), but they all share having the government set pricing.
While we get wealthy medical tourists here, other countries get them from us as Americans travel to save on procedures.
Here's an column by Matt Walsh from 2010 about how great French health care was in comparison to ours:
"To put it plainly, when free marketers warn that Democratic health care initiatives will make us more "like France," a big part of me says, "I wish." It's not that I think it's either feasible or advisable for the United States to adopt a single-payer, government-dominated system. But it's instructive to confront the comparative advantages of one socialist system abroad to sharpen the arguments for more capitalism at home.
For a dozen years now I've led a dual life, spending more than 90 percent of my time and money in the U.S. while receiving 90 percent of my health care in my wife's native France. On a personal level the comparison is no contest: I'll take the French experience any day. ObamaCare opponents often warn that a new system will lead to long waiting times, mountains of paperwork, and less choice among doctors. Yet on all three of those counts the French system is significantly better, not worse, than what the U.S. has now.
Need a prescription for muscle relaxers, an anti-fungal cream, or a steroid inhaler for temporary lung trouble? In the U.S. you have to fight to get on the appointment schedule of a doctor within your health insurance network (I'll conservatively put the average wait time at five days), then have him or her scrawl something unintelligible on a slip of paper, which you take to a drugstore to exchange for your medicine. You might pay the doc $40, but then his office sends you a separate bill for the visit, and for an examination, and those bills also go to your insurance company, which sends you an adjustment sheet weeks after the doctor's office has sent its third payment notice. By the time it's all sorted out, you've probably paid a few hundred dollars to three different entities, without having a clue about how or why any of the prices were set.
In France, by contrast, you walk to the corner pharmacist, get either a prescription or over-the-counter medication right away, shell out a dozen or so euros, and you're done. If you need a doctor, it's not hard to get an appointment within a day or three, you make payments for everything (including X-rays) on the spot, and the amounts are routinely less than the co-payments for U.S. doctor visits. I've had back X-rays, detailed ear examinations, even minor oral surgery, and never have I paid more than maybe €300 for any one procedure.
And it's not like the medical professionals in France are chopped liver. In the U.S., my wife had some lumps in her breast dismissed as harmless by a hurried, indifferent doctor at Kaiser Permanente. Eight months later, during our annual Christmas visit in Lyon, one of the best breast surgeons in the country detected that the lumps were growing and removed them.
What's more, none of these anecdotes scratches the surface of France's chief advantage, and the main reason socialized medicine remains a perennial temptation in this country: In France, you are covered, period. It doesn't depend on your job, it doesn't depend on a health maintenance organization, and it doesn't depend on whether you filled out the paperwork right. Those who (like me) oppose ObamaCare, need to understand (also like me, unfortunately) what it's like to be serially rejected by insurance companies even though you're perfectly healthy. It's an enraging, anxiety-inducing, indelible experience, one that both softens the intellectual ground for increased government intervention and produces active resentment toward anyone who argues that the U.S. has "the best health care in the world."
Since 1986 I've missed exactly three days of work due to illness. I don't smoke, I don't (usually) do drugs or drink to excess, and I eat a pretty healthy diet. I have some back pain now and then from a protruding disc, but nothing too serious. And from 1998 to 2001, when I was a freelancer in the world's capital of freelancers (Los Angeles), I couldn't get health insurance.
Kaiser rejected me because I had visited the doctor too many times in the 12 months preceding my application (I filled in the "3-5 times" circle, to reflect the three routine and inexpensive check-ups I'd had in France). Blue Cross rejected me too. There weren't many other options. Months later, an insurance broker told me I'd ruined my chances by failing to file a written appeal. "You're basically done in California," he said. "A rejection is like an arrest—if you don't contest it, you're guilty, and it's on your permanent record."
It wasn't as if I wanted or needed to consume much health care then. I was in my early 30s, and I wanted to make sure a catastrophic illness or injury wouldn't bankrupt my family. When I finally found a freelance-journalist collective that allowed me and my wife to pay $212 a month to hedge against a car accident, it a) refused to cover pregnancies or childbirths at any price and b) hiked the monthly rate up to $357 after a year. One of the main attractions of moving from freelance status to a full-time job was the ability to affix a stable price on my health insurance.
This is the exact opposite of the direction in which we should be traveling in a global just-in-time economy, with its ideal of entrepreneurial workers breaking free of corporate command and zipping creatively from project to project. Don't even get me started on the Kafkaesque ordeal of switching jobs without taking any time off, yet going uncovered by anything except COBRA for nearly two months even though both employers used the same health insurance provider. That incident alone cost me thousands of dollars I wouldn't have paid if I had controlled my own insurance..."
https://reason.com/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-health-care/
But the others don't have the FDA and Medicare to triple the costs of most everything. Do other countries have such expensive requirements getting new products on the market? Do other countries have a gov't enforced coding system that is anywhere near as Byzantine as that required by the US that covers anywhere near as many unique cases or population? I suspect not. The fundamental problem in the US with one size fits all is it's more often true that one size fits none.
Tango, Medicare pay outs are less than insurance and Europe also has drug approval processes and reciprocate with the US. However, since both Medicare and the FDA are federal programs, we can change them. What we are doing makes no sense.
Tell me about the time you wrestled a mutant crocodile off the Eiffel Tower while you were on vacation from the LAPD and moonlighting as a journalist again, Barbie Jack.
You get more convincing the longer you talk, I swear.
If only California were offering the French version.
Fuck off, slaver.
Joe Friday: We need Government Healthcare and Price Controls
Also Joe Friday: Posts article describing why we need a more free market healthcare system than we currently have.
So you are not aware thta Europe has 2 medical systems??
The national ones you know of, and the private insurance ones you are ignorant of.
A European with money buys health insurance that puts him in a special line with all the same care options the wealthy in the USA have. The only catch is they must go to a neighboring country, each nation has a special division within their hospitals that only do care for cash....or insurance.
This is why the rich do not suffer the long lines and limited care the average European must endure.
If rich democrats have their way America could have a two tier system like Europe.
Are you aware that we have better health outcomes than Europe? This is why you will NEVER see a comprehensive comparison of results between Europe's "universal" system and our system.
All hard for you to believe, which is how it is intended.
I am 35 and have put up with a lot of crap that California has done and have not moved yet. I hope they do this, because that would finally be the last straw.
Well they couldn't make a fucking train.
Correction, they tried, and spent the proposed "budget" for said train many times over, and in the end got no train. A perfect metaphor for govt tackling a project.
Looking forward to how a state filled with the same corrupt, inept grifters will tackle a problem significantly more complex and expensive than "build a train".
Oh ya, also many of the 1%ers are leaving so they dont have to fund your boondoggles. Enjoy telling the left over SJWs they actually have to pay for this with their money rather than papa Elons
Herbert Hoover used the new Increased Penalties prohibition law to bully, rob and shoot beer, wine, drug and liquor bibbers, wreck the economy and (spoiler alert!) increase communist popularity. The Don Trump uses Republican mystical bigotry to stir up anti-libertarian vigilante girl-hunting and hepcat harassment, then (spoiler alert!) communism and nationalsocialism suddenly become popular as they did in The Great Depression. Maybe there is a pattern here...
You’re fucking high as a kite.
Newsom has to act and act fast. He needs to shut all the exits out of California before the rest of the middle class finally leaves and the remaining wealthy elites will have to pick up the tab. SillyCon valley is about to become a ghost town once the higher taxes kick in.Texas is looking better all the time.
It won't be long before that state is running on fumes.
Free California from subsidizing taker states all over the country and they could easily have their cake and eat it too.
But then the red staters would finally have to fund their own way instead of mooching off the rest of us all while proclaiming their "independence."
I'm glad you also support federalism and a less involved federal government
Alternate reality participant award.......
If only the coastal elites would stop sucking the money and resources out of the middle of the country and paying themselves with their plunder ma6be h rest of the country would have a chance.
Well yeah, OF course doctors and healthcare providers need to be enslaved for MEEEE to get MY goodies!!!
Just like a LOT of Marxist "conservatives" around here want to enslave PRIVATE PROPERTY-OWNING website owners, so that THEIR Precious Posts will NEVER be taken down! (Their posts are NEVER taken down because they were totally foul-mouthed or for posting threats of violence... They were ALWAYS taken down for their "forbidden" conservative "purely political" comments about gay-cake-baking, tax policies, etc.!!! Also, I have some PRIME Florida real estate to sell to ya!)
Hey man! Free medical care for all!!! Followed by...
So now we ALL will be guaranteed our allotments (entitlements) of free speech? Free speech (AKA freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? So now we will be FORCED to have Government Almighty FORCE exerted on Facebook, Twitter, etc. , in order to provide us ALL with access to a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!
No one reads your droppings.
I'll settle for some average Florida real estate. Bring on the Glowball Warming and sea-level tsunamis... please!
It could be very simple.
Grant full protection for any posts that are left up.
Grant legal rights to users who have posts taken down to sue when the sites do not fully and fairly follow the rules they have set up.
Protect the rights of all, but do not give special rights to websites that politically censor or ban those they merely disagree with to help only one political ideology.
its true, I got one sentence in
Hey Vulgar MadSheMale...
Hank Phillips read my post, see below! Your tinfoil mind-reading cap that you SAY allows you to watch and mind-read ALL readers here? It's NOT working! Take your tinfoil hat in for a BADLY needed re-calibration!
Y'all are lazy illiterates, and PROUD of it! (AND, you say, everyone else, if they're in with the Cool Kinds, should be lazy illiterates as well!)
We are the illiteratti....
There are about 1.7 billion web sites out there... For all practical purposes, I have read (approximately) NONE of them! By NOT reading them, I have refuted ALL of them! So now, I know damned close to EVERYTHING known to humans world-wide!
You SEE the utter POWER of refuting stuff by NOT reading it?
The holy SQRL is non-seeing and non-knowing...