The California Assembly has just approved a sweeping health care “reform” plan that will force employers, hospitals, and smokers (however many of those are left in Cali) to foot the bill for all health care for anyone, anywhere in the state, no matter what.  Goody.

First: “Of the 5.1 million people who are considered permanently uninsured in California, 3.7 million would be covered under the plan. . . .”  There are around 3 million illegal immigrants in California.  What an interesting juxtaposition of numbers.  Is anyone stupid enough to think that legitimate Americans will be given preference over border jumpers under this plan?  Are they suddenly going to cut off the free health care already being provided to illegal immigrants who are already forcing hospital closures and bleeding the system dry?  If you believe that, I have a bridge or two to sell you. 

“Funding for the health care package relies on fees imposed on hospitals and employers, as well as boosting the tax on cigarettes.”

Wait, people still smoke in California?  Never mind–the important part of that sentence is the declaration that this Brave New Health Plan (“BNHP”) will be funded by fees imposed on hospitals and employers: in other words, the entities that provide health care and make it available to people who actually work for a living.  Brilliant.  Someone explain to me how this BNHP will avoid (a) putting hospitals out of business and (b) driving up the cost of health care.  One of the simplest economic principles around–one even a right-brainer like me can understand–is that the more expensive something is to produce, the more it will cost.  Isn’t that always the argument illegal immigrants’ defenders trumpet from the rooftops with regard to fresh produce and housecleaning?  To wit: if we kick out the illegals, think how much more your strawberries will cost!!  Or, if we deport the Mexicans, rich peoples’ houses will never be clean again!!  Your typical liberal would say indignantly, “But there’s a difference!”  Well, yes there is.  I think people will be a lot more inconvenienced if they can’t get treated for cancer because their local hospital is bankrupt and can’t buy insurance or an MRI machine, than they will be at paying an extra $2.oo for fresh fruit.  Talk about strangling the golden goose.

And if the BNHP will rely on fees imposed for non-compliant employers and hospitals, the goal is clearly not compliance, because achieving compliance would mean the BNHP would go unfunded.  No, California is counting on the fact that no solvent hospital and employer could possibly comply with its plan, thereby guaranteeing billions of dollars flowing into the government coffers.  At least until the goose dies, but no worries–then the government can just swoop in and “save” health care!

Here’s another gem: “Insurers would also be required to spend 85 cents of every dollar on health care services.”  Wouldn’t it be nice if governments–be they municipal, state, or federal–were held to that standard of fiscal responsibility?  I’d love to know how many cents per dollar the California Medicaid, federal Medicare, or heck, ANY state or federal bureaucracy, spends on its stated purpose.  I guarantee you it’s not 85 cents on every dollar, and whatever depressing ratio it is now won’t magically increase as the government gains greater control over the health care industry.  In essence, the BNHP stands for the proposition that a crippled, barren chicken with the bird flu is preferable to the hated golden goose.  Great idea, California!


~ by lewdandlascivious on December 17, 2007.

4 Responses to “Ugh.”

  1. Contemptible and disgusting! The government has no business providing medical care- and even if it did you would think it would focus on providing medical care to citizens first. Ridiculous.

    Is it about time for another revolution in this once great nation?

  2. Wow… what do liberals have against doctors? Is it that they save people’s lives for a living, thereby 1) demonstrating that they believe that human beings are valuable, and 2) make a living instead of relying on welfare?

    I’m serious. Check out my newest post.

    This makes me so sad. It’s like something out of an Ayn Rand novel, except it’s really happening and we are going to be screwed for it.

    Anyone else want to buy an island and establish an independent nation?

  3. […] More depressing news, this time from California.  (Neil, you’re forgiven for that snark about confining the nuttiness of MA and CA within their borders. 🙂 ) […]

  4. Oh, in other related snarking about California: any employer who lays off an employee, then wants to hire someone else for that position within the next year, must first offer the job to the former, laid-off employee. If the person you want to hire is more qualified and will be a profit to the company from an extra set of skills or a portfolio of clients, tough luck – the other person gets first dibs.

    The end result is two fold: 1) employers fire people, uniformly. Getting fired in California isn’t an indication that you didn’t do you job well; it’s just an indication that your company laid you off and doesn’t want a bureaucratic nightmare if they rehire someone within the next 12 months; and 2) a lot of employers hire independent contractors, who receive no benefits, pay all of their SS/FICA taxes and have no job security. Thus, they can be terminated at will.

    Good job, guys. If it didn’t work with employers, how will it work with health care?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: