Go West Young Liberals! Go West!
People's Republic of California to Try Socialized Medicine
These elected officials have shown that history and economics certainly are not their strong suits and that serious attention to these subjects must be added to the curriculum of California schools.
But in a state that already knows the pain that letting people have "free" access to their healthcare system this maneuver is a stunning display of colossal ignorance. Hospitals, in parts of the state, are already under the stress of providing "free" healthcare for innumerable illegal aliens who don't pay their bills.
And on even a national scale have we not seen what happens when money is confiscated from workers to pay the bills or others? Social Security and Medicare, both of which are on the fast track to insolvency, that were to be glittering gems of the socialist welfare state are perfect lessons. And heck, let's not forget about Welfare itself which actually needed to be "reformed" in order to start getting slackers off the rolls and is still highly abused.
And let us not forget that such power grabs raise serious Constitutional issues. Two I can think of off the top of my head are the law's restriction on the freedom to contract (prohibited under Article I, Section 10) and also the prohibition on the restriction of liberty without "due process" (Amendment XIV).
In fact this entire law smacks of a case called Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897) in which the State of Louisiana attempted to pass a law to restrict whom their citizens could contract with for - you guessed it! Insurance!
That law was struck down.
Here we have another case where the liberty of citizens and their right to contract is clearly being infringed. And there certainly should be a legal case brought against the State for this egregious offense.
Oh, but it gets better. Proponents of the measure claim that covering all Californians would cost no more than it currently costs to cover only a portion of them. Isn't that what they always claim? Uh, hello! How about addressing the Constitutionality of this plan first! So much for Stare decisis if it were to be upheld!
After that then maybe we can address how the plan also means increasing taxes to the tune of an 8% payroll tax on workers and another 3% in actual personal income taxes in order to make sure people pay in and the fund has money according to the Lewin Group. In essence they are looking at slapping working Californians with an effective 11% tax increase! Wow! 11% of a working Californian's income would be required to pay for health insurance under this great state run plan? My wife and I pay roughly half that rate for our top-notch private insurance!
But that's ok. Let's see how long this asinine attempt at communal living lasts before the system bankrupts itself, politicians enter full hyper-whine mode about how taxes have to be raised (again) to cover the costs and send the state of California even further down the road to destruction.
Maybe we should start bussing in all the homeless and poor people from around the country just to expedite the process. Right now California is basically begging the nation's poor, destitute and homeless to flock across their borders for a freebie that they will never see a bill for. Who could resist that deal! As people seeking the perks of being a citizen of the People's Republic of California flood in, and the productive flee we will be left to watch what happens and point and laugh at the silliness.
So I say GO WEST! There's gold once again in them thar hills! Except this time the "gold" is more of the same from the liberal left - government handouts of other people's money. You know, what they often refer to a "free" [insert program here] that liberals and their constituents salivate over.
We can only wonder if this plan actually becomes law, how long it will be before Californians are flocking to Mexico or, God forbid, Canada to receive healthcare.
Published by J.J. Jackson
J.J. Jackson is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc which maintains web sites dedicated to opinions based in libertarian, conservative and constitutional ideals pulling no punches openly going after R... View profile
- HMO's: A Simple Way Out of a Maze of Health Insurance ChoicesHMOs offer simple options to complex Health Insurance options. A unitary monthly or quarterly payment puts the entire professional healthcare you need within easy reach, coordinated by a Primary Care Physician and wit...
Can Your Insurance Company Retroactively Cancel Your Health Insurance?If you have health insurance, then you probably think that you're safe should anything happen, such as an illness or injury. Fortunately, this is usually the case, but what happ...- Health Insurance for the Small Business Owner or the UnemployedHealth insurance coverage is getting increasingly expensive. Here are some ways individuals can keep costs down and still get quallity coverage.
- Health Insurance: Get Quotes Firstabout health insurance
- Four Out of Five Working Families Do Not Have Health Insurance, Says ReportIn a recent survey, Families USA reports that over 89 million people in America have gone without health insurance. The vast majority of the uninsured have jobs but don't have health insurance. The high number of Amer...
- Will Liberals Ever Recognize the Constitution?
- The Bear Flag Revolt and the Republic of California
- Your Family and Health Insurance
- Read This Before You Buy Bogus Health Insurance
- Buyers Guide to Student Health Insurance
- Pet Health Insurance: Is it Worth Paying to Have Your Pet Insured?
- Oregon State Program Helps Pay for Health Insurance for Low Income Residents
20 Comments
Post a CommentThere is a reason that CA has a bear and red star on its state flag. ;) On the other side of the coin/country and out of all places, the people's republic of MA, comes a plan that lets people take the health care money where they want. Go figure.
Also, the plan predicts savings in costs for hospitals as well, since they would not have uninsured/no pay emergency room visits to deal with(and pass on to taxpayers). Therefore, your argument that additional costs would be passed on to consumers doesn't make sense--THE PLAN PREDICTS ACROSS THE BOARD SAVINGS!!! Also, J.J "Mr. Economics" Jackson, the market ultimately determines prices, so costs cannot be passed on to consumers willy nilly.
J.J.: There you go again debating dishonestly. You said, "Anyone that passed basic economics knows that when you tax an employer you decrease the wages of the employees because there is less money available to compensate them. Get back to me when you have passed a rudimentary economics course." The 8% on payroll and 3% on wages that the employers are expected to contribute constitute a 16% decrease in cost to those employers according to the study you yourself cited. How would a decrease in costs result in a higher taxation or loss of wages for workers? Also, higher taxation doesn't necessarily result in lower wages anyway. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm just curious mind you, but how the homeless and destitute going to flock to California? Somehow I doubt the homeless or destitute can afford a newspaper, probably don't own a Ipodm may not even watch TV unless they have extrememly long cards, a tv on cart or that they can wheel into their homeless niches. So how do they know about the California law??? Second...how will they get there? I'm just curious again... will they fly first class? Ride a bike? Walk? I'm not sure but if they did know about it, do ya think they'd actually "flock" to California for health care? I'm thinking you should count your blessings that you and your wife have "top notch" insurance, but shame on you for not realizing or showing little compassion for those who cannot afford to be sick!
"J.J.--I wasn't trying to portray YOU as anything, and if you are a working class guy, I'm amazed you can't see the benefits universal healthcare could create." Paul that's because I AM a working class guy who has actually passed an economics class and pays attention to how "socialized" programs bankrupt themselves (see article) and believe in liberty (which you dismissed). Also "As I pointed out to J.J. (and he dismissed), the plan would save employers up to 16% in healthcare coverage costs. How is this a bad thing?" Because, like I told you before, that money ultimately comes out of the pockets of the workers and is passed along to the people that buy the products and services of the company. The people ultimately pay that price. Companies just don't "eat it". The only purpose of such action is to suppress wages, increase costs and make people beholden to the government. Something you and Jeff apparently love. Hey, not my fault if you don't believe in America and
Paul, you apparently flunked economics didn't you. I can tell by this statement "Also, J.J., you are misrepresenting the numbers. You claim that "11% of working Californians income would be required" to enact the program, which suggests that 11% of each workers salary would be needed. This is totally, totally false. The 11% you refer to is the cost to employers who currently provide insurance for workers, which translates to 8% percent from payroll and 3% from workers salaries." Anyone that passed basic economics knows that when you tax an employer you decrease the wages of the employees because there is less money available to compensate them.
Get back to me when you have passed a rudimentary economics course.
I'll admit that I'm no genius when it comes to economics, but if the state is going to increase the number of people it services, it will need more money to cover those increased services, right? Where does that money come from? SOMEONE HAS TO PAY!!!! And Jeff, just because Bush or anyone else was born into money doesn't mean that it should be taken away from them to subsidize someone else. Trust me, someone is paying for the remaining balance of your $500 baby delivery. Taking more from those who have more to balance the playing field is fundamentally unfair. And as I have said before, I am hardly among the wealthy, so this is not some rich guy trying to keep more of his money.
Greg--It is not true that it would result in higher prices for products and services. The market determines this to a much larger extent. Regardless, the California plan would save money across the board--from hospitals to employers to patients. As I pointed out to J.J. (and he dismissed), the plan would save employers up to 16% in healthcare coverage costs. How is this a bad thing? Th ebottom line is that teh insurance and for profit health system (see Bill Frist) are the roadblock to universal healthcare, not costs. The insurance lobby especially stands to lose some of their enormous profits and they won't stand for it. It's a travesty.
J.J.--I wasn't trying to portray YOU as anything, and if you are a working class guy, I'm amazed you can't see the benefits universal healthcare could create. Also, you should read my posts a bit more carefully--the 11% figure was portrayed by you as a tax on workers salaries when that is not the case. The 11% is the cost to the employers who provide coverage, and it represents a savings of 16% for them. That is entirely different than an 11% tax on EACH workers wages. You are debating disingenously.
"Jeff Musall: What California is doing is to be applauded"
Of course you think that. From what you have posted around here you don't really believe in the liberty of people being protected and think that it is a great thing for the state to mandate how people spend their money.
We know you like it.