Calif. New Health Plan - Political Forum

CHUQ · #1 (**permalink**) 01-07-2007, 05:26 AM

What do you think of Arnold's new plan.

ARNOLD Schwarzenegger used to be compared to Ronald Reagan, another Hollywood actor who starred on the political stage in Sacramento. Lately, Schwarzenegger's enthusiasm for bond issues and freeways has been more reminiscent of Pat Brown, the builder-governor who preceded Reagan. But on Monday, when Gov. Schwarzenegger unveils his ballyhooed plan to provide health insurance for 6.5 million uninsured Californians, he will invite comparison to the legendary Gov. Earl Warren, who in 1945 put forth a visionary plan offering state-subsidized medical insurance for all but the wealthiest Californians

The governor's bold healthcare reform - Los Angeles Times

Is it a step in the right direction?

Tumbleweed · #2 (**permalink**) 01-07-2007, 05:37 AM

Without giving details of who will pay for the plan it sounds like Arnold is just giving a political speech.

from the link:
Since then, however, Massachusetts has moved aggressively in the direction of universal healthcare coverage. A bill proposed by outgoing Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, and passed by the state's Democratic-controlled Legislature, became law in April. It requires individuals to buy health coverage and employers to provide the coverage, and it imposes tax penalties for noncompliance. Vermont and Maine have since passed similar laws.

Hmm.Maine is having a lot of problems with our system, so they would do well to avoid our mistakes. The Mass. plan hasn't been in effect long enough to determine if it will work or not.

CHUQ · #3 (**permalink**) 01-07-2007, 05:46 AM

So needless to say, bugs have got to be worked out. But now my question is, Will this really benefit the people who actually need it?

Tumbleweed · #4 (**permalink**) 01-07-2007, 05:56 AM

IMO,no.

The system California seems to be looking at depends on the state to subsidize health care costs. What my state is having the problem with is having the state keep their end of the bargain. At the first sign that the state will withhold funds, the medical community will refuse to accept patients covered under the program.

CHUQ · #5 (**permalink**) 01-07-2007, 07:05 AM

Gotcha--in other words it is ll about the money not the care. Am I correct?

Tumbleweed · #6 (**permalink**) 01-07-2007, 08:44 AM

Well, doctors and hospitals can't be expected to foot the bill for patients while they wait for funds that the state is supposed to be providing.

What we see is when the state has a hard time to find the funding for the program, there is a lapse in the funding, which the medical providers have to still provide until the funds come through.

CHUQ · #7 (**permalink**) 01-07-2007, 09:00 AM

I understand that payment should be made and adequate payment at that. But since my accident I have seen how all involved rip the stae/ ins. cos. And I mean all from ambulance, to er to the doctors. I agree that services need to be paid for, but some restraint should be shown and not try to get rich from the git-go.