PDA

View Full Version : San Fran unveils Universal Health Care!


TheDeadWalk
06-21-2006, 01:32 PM
People that make from 19,000 to 40,000 per year only pay an average of $35 per month. :cool:

Let's let this stuff trickle down through more communities and states. It's time to give a kick in the ass to these money grubbling insurance companies.



By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Tue Jun 20, 11:41 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO - The city would offer health care to any adult resident, regardless of immigration or employment status, under a plan announced Tuesday.

The plan, which still needs be approved by the city's Board of Supervisors, is aimed at 82,000 uninsured residents who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, said Mayor Gavin Newsom. San Francisco already provides universal health care for children.

"Rather than lamenting about the fact that we live in a country with 45.8 million Americans that don't have health insurance ... San Francisco is doing something about it," Newsom said. "San Francisco is moving forward to fulfill its moral obligation."

Newsom stressed that the so-called Health Access Plan was not meant to take the place of private health insurance, but rather provide a way to consistently treat people without insurance so they don't end up seeking medical care in hospital emergency rooms.

Unlike health insurance, for example, the city's plan would not cover the cost of any medical services its participants seek outside San Francisco, and it would not be open to people who work, but do not live, in the city.

It would provide comprehensive preventive and catastrophic health care, covering everything from checkups, prescription drugs and X-rays to ambulance rides, blood tests and surgeries.

The city estimates the plan would cost $200 million a year, an expense that would be borne by taxpayers, businesses that don't already insure all their workers, and participants themselves.

Residents would pay both monthly fees and service co-payments on a sliding scale depending on income. A person with annual earnings at the federal poverty line would pay $3 per month, while someone who makes between $19,600 and $40,000 — or up to 400 percent above the poverty line — would pay an average of $35 per month.

Details of how the employer contribution would work were scheduled to be presented Wednesday to the Board of Supervisors. Approval is expected, though the details could change.

The most recent version, sponsored by Supervisor Tom Ammiano, would require every business with more than 20 employees to pay $1.60 an hour into the system for all employees not already covered by a health plan, no matter how few hours they work.

Laurie Thomas, owner of three restaurants in San Francisco, said that she already contributes to health insurance for her employees who work more than 28 hours a week, but that the hourly mandate Ammiano is proposing would put her out of business.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060621/ap_on_he_me/san_francisco_health_care

shoe1985
06-21-2006, 06:14 PM
I am for universal healthcare, but I differ in who should get it. I believe if you pay taxes you get it for free. For those disabled, you also get it for free. If you are illegally in this company, guess what, you don't get. Go through the process of coming here legally first. Legal immigrants, get it as long as they pay taxes, or are disabled.

Lynn7
06-21-2006, 08:37 PM
It sounds wonderful but they have got to be kidding.With a doctor's visit costing about 100-200 dollars never mind huge lab costs, drug costs etc how are they going to make this work?! I want to see thi s story in a few years time to see who is paying for this.

shoe1985
06-21-2006, 09:49 PM
Well the prices would most likely be fixed. Doctors won't be able to charge, they will be told what they will be paid. At least that is how I take this. I am behind this, but we need more details.

I know other countries have this and they are doing fine with it.

TheDeadWalk
06-21-2006, 11:05 PM
The richer you are, the more you have to pay.

The Green Party of Ohio had a plan for Universal Health Care in the state that only involved people paying for it if you made 100,000 or more.

It was basically a plan to rely on Ohio's millionaires to pay for healthcare in the state.

The 35 per month average was only for someone making 19,000 to 40,000. Who knows how much you have to pay if you're a billionaire fat cat.

TheDeadWalk
06-21-2006, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by shoe1985
I know other countries have this and they are doing fine with it.

I know that countries do it currently, but personally... I'd rather see it in the hands of a state, possibly a county. But preferrably a state.

Tuukka
06-22-2006, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by Lynn7
It sounds wonderful but they have got to be kidding.With a doctor's visit costing about 100-200 dollars never mind huge lab costs, drug costs etc how are they going to make this work?! I want to see thi s story in a few years time to see who is paying for this.

Here in Finland we have a national, free healthcare. Public healthcare has long lines, so if it's not a case of emergency, you'll have to wait for 1-3 weeks before you get to see a doctor. And the visit costs you $10-20 or so. You can also line up in the doctor station in the morning, if you want a time for the same day. But this might mean you have to wait for 30-120 minutes before you get the appointment.

If you have a better income and want faster service, you can go to a private doctor station. They don't get any support from the goverment and they tax you around $70-120. This is what I always do, since I'm impatient if I need a doctor. Just a phone call, and I usually get an appointment in 1-2 days.

The goverment pays around 20% of the drug costs.

...The system works very well. If you are low-income, you can use public healthcare, which is slower, but cheaper. If you have a mid to high income, you can use private doctors, who are faster and more expensive.

BTW, finland is generally a more expensive country than USA.

I'm not expert on this, but I've read many studies which have stated that the current insurance-based system in USA in fact is MORE expensive for the people and the county, than public healthcare.

I don't know why this would be the case, but that's what I've always read anyway.

JohnTheHenchman
06-22-2006, 12:21 PM
This would honestly be the worst thing to happen to the country.

I'm not kidding. I'm not trying to be a smartass.

Please let this stay in San Francisco, where it belongs.

darchangel
06-22-2006, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
This would honestly be the worst thing to happen to the country.

I'm not kidding. I'm not trying to be a smartass.

Please let this stay in San Francisco, where it belongs.

So let me get this straight:


You're against raising minimum wage so that people can actually afford to pay bills and rent in a month AND you're against having free health care for people who can't afford it (most likely because they make minimum wage).


Please explain to me why you're against this, because I really cannot understand where you're coming from here.



~darchangel~

Vong
06-22-2006, 04:40 PM
Maybe it's because John doesn't like the idea of people getting free health care or raised minimum wages. I mean who would? Free health care would only make people healthier without filing for bankruptcy, and a raised minimum wage would just make the poor richer. I mean, who wants to do either of those? I think its best to just keep the money circling around the rich so the poor can't make a decent living. Who really cares about helping others right?

Thrizzle
06-22-2006, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
This would honestly be the worst thing to happen to the country.

I'm not kidding. I'm not trying to be a smartass.

Please let this stay in San Francisco, where it belongs.

I believe the order of worst things to happen to this country goes as follows:

Universal Health Care
The Apocalypse
Nuclear War
John Kerry as President
EMP Bomb attack
Dirty Bomb Attack

QUENTIN
06-22-2006, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
This would honestly be the worst thing to happen to the country.

I'm not kidding. I'm not trying to be a smartass.

Please let this stay in San Francisco, where it belongs.

What's with the constant aversion to any statement longer than a handful of sentences or reasoning for anything you say? Care to explain WHY you think free health care for the poor is the single worst thing that could happen to America? If you could fill atleast a paragraph with your thoughts on the subject I'd be eternally grateful.

outsyder
06-23-2006, 12:01 AM
I don't think the States would be able to support a nation-wide universal health care program and expect to maintain the level of quality that people WITH health insurance experience, not to mention losing ground in being the forerunners in medical technology, etc.

In Canada, healthcare (which isn't even completely "universal," by the strictest sense) takes up over a third of our entire budget. Fortunately for us, we can spend the money on healthcare because our defense spending is relatively low (thanks NORAD!;)). Also, Canadians with serious medical problems that require immediate high quality treatment go to the States anyway for MRI's and the like, enjoying the benefits of the best medical technology money can buy.

Although a basic level of health insurance COULD be distributed to all Americans with some creative budgeting, a universal system would require a complete overhaul of spending.

The Postmaster General
06-23-2006, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by outsyder
I don't think the States would be able to support a nation-wide universal health care program and expect to maintain the level of quality that people WITH health insurance experience, not to mention losing ground in being the forerunners in medical technology, etc.


Yeah, but private heath care isn't *all that and a bag of chips* either. I'm with Blue Cross Blue Shield, which is ranked among the highest insurers, and I see little difference between what I had with this and what I had with some no-name company that insured me through my last job.

Oh, yeah - I pay more for it. So there's that difference.

This is health care, not sushi. Something is better than nothing. Especially if you've eaten bad sushi.