Take not from Me, but from Thee to pay for that other Thee's health care
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in California | Economy | Government-run health care | Health care | Schwarzenegger — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
According to a just-released Field Poll, the proposed $14B California government health insurance expansion, which would be built on the backs of smokers ($1.50 to $2.00 a pack increase), business owners in the state (1% to 6% payroll tax increase), and hospitals ($2.3B in additional state taxes) is overwhelmingly supported by California voters -- including Republicans.
Read on.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
The survey was drawn from random telephone interviews with 1,283 registered voters from Dec. 10-17, and it had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.Seventy-four percent of Democrats surveyed said they support the health care plan, while 52 percent of Republicans were in favor and 61 percent of independent voters. Other demographic factors such as region, gender, age and income did not seem to diminish enthusiasm.
The proposal had 68 percent support among voters in the San Francisco area and was backed by 67 percent in Los Angeles County. It also was supported in more conservative parts of the state, including Orange County, with 54 percent, and San Diego County, with 60 percent.
[...]
"Majority support among every subgroup is very unique," said [Mark] DiCamillo [director of the Field Poll]. "I think there's a strong perception that something needs to be done, that the system is broken and it needs to be fixed."
Sabrina Lockhart, spokeswoman for the governor, said that the poll is a "clear reflection about how people of California feel about health care reform" and it gives Schwarzenegger a good starting point for campaigning for its passage.
Much like other governmental intrusions on the market -- which, as always, are funded by taking more money from the taxpayers -- this program will wreak havoc on the already turbulent California economy.
According to the Sacramento Bee:
The main reasons given by respondents who opposed the plan were that it would expand the role of government in health care, require people to purchase coverage and place too much of a burden on small businesses that can't afford the cost.
It sounds like at least a few Californians actually understand that government programs aren't funded in a vacuum -- or entirely with other people's money.
A new $14B government program is rarely a good idea, regardless of the circumstances. A new $14B government program in the state ranked 47th best in the nation for business, which leans on businesses to make up a great deal of the program cost, is a terrible idea. Doing so while running a $14B state deficit is even more foolish.
If this Field Poll is even close to being correct, it appears that the people of California are ready and willing to go along with that foolishness. When their cigarettes are $5 per pack, their hospital bills are steeper than ever, and their jobs are exported to Nevada (the 3rd ranked state for business in the US), then perhaps all of those who supported this program will finally realize that, in the end, they actually had to pay for that which they thought was being given them for free.
Perhaps. But I wouldn't advise holding your breath.
to here in Houston, the difference in what he got for selling his dump home in Ca, and what he paid for a much nicer place here, allowed him enough extra money to buy all new furniture.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
...at the state level, mostly so everyone can see what a demonstrable failure they are.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
to run a health care program and it has failed miserably. That would be the U.S. Veterans Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs). While care given to veterans for their initial injuries and/or other medical problems is generally good, ongoing care and follow-up care deteriorates rapidly. Just ask some of the older veterans about their quality of care.
Until the government can demonstrate it can run an efficient health care system, I see no reason for any state or the federal government to mandate coverages through the use of the tax rolls. I live in Massachusetts, and this government's experiment to force coverage on every taxpayer in the state is also failing miserably.
As difficult as it was for me to leave California, I'd never go back.
==== 13 ====
Yet another reason for me to flee from the conservative bastion of Northern California to somewhere else. The libtards on the coast and down south make us look real bad and don't mind taking my hard earned money.
Us poor suffering people on So Cal resemble that remark.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Got a little carried away there. I'm just a bit up in arms here about this garbage and our RINO governor.
Go back and read his quote again. ;) He said they resemble that remark. And they do.
It's very obvious to me that the idiots voting on this nonsense have no clue what they're in for. Having done rotations in the VA, the hospitals are notorious for being slow as Christmas. Why? Because the staff knows that they'll never be fired. They're government employees, and they act like it.
You want your lab results back stat? Good luck with that. You'd be better off driving them across town to Baptist and letting their lab take care of things.
And so it goes...
Really, California has become the perfect climate for this socialist nonsense. Having lived there myself, the place is intoxicating. Beautiful vistas abound, unique restaurants are plentiful, the weather is immaculate. And so the citizenry is trapped. Government is free to run amok because the people won't leave. I can understand why, but eventually every bit of nonsense has its breaking point...
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
they DO leave CA, but they bring all the things with them that made them leave CA and try to reinvent CA wherever they go.
In Vino Veritas
That whole bay area is as freako as LA County. Don't blame the whole south :-)
There was a movement once to create the state of Jefferson out of NorCal and Southern Oregon. We're definately different up here from yall down there.
But I won't blame the whole south. There are some whackos up here too.
Yeah, that's my backyard. Too bad the Portland metro area is 96% Democrat, or Oregon would be a red state. I was a volunteer for the Bush campaign in Portland for the 04 election...that was brutal!
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
Yes, I wrote tangentially on Jefferson on the front page a while back, when we were beating the drum for Doolittle to get lost.
OK yeah, you guys are different, but there aren't very many of you, and you get drowned out by the bay area, heh.
I remember a few months back the drive-bys released a poll stating that 50% of the US wanted government health care, only to find out that the poll was heavily tilted left, and oversampled Democrats.
What, exactly, was the profile of the 1200 voters that were surveyed?
What was the wording of the questions asked to the respondents?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
When was the last time any gov't estimate was right? I've seen cost estimates putting this dog closer to $50 bil.
As one poster stated eariler, basing part of the spending on smokers is a house of cards, and to wish upon the good graces of the Federal Government to keep the money spicket open is yet another stupid idea. There is just nothing good that can come from this. Currently, California is facing .. yet again.. a $15 bil shortfall, and they want this too? Thank God, because of the taxing authority required within this, it will have to go before the voters. But... then again.. we're talking about California voters. I'm a Californian, so I can say that.
"Elections.. nowadays.. seem more to resemble fencing operations, than the selection of qualified leadership."
I was talking with a lib friend who works in the legislature and he is convinced this is going to save billions. I asked how throwing millions of folks into doctors offices for free and not increasing the supply of doctors would decrease costs. Basic supply-demand stuff, right? But he said it'd reduce overhead and administration.
I'm not buying it. Sure, maybe some admin costs are reduced. But how much is added by volumes of people? And I can't shake the thought of the supply-demand thing.
I would imagine companies at some point would just drop all their health plans and let the government worry about it. And once the government gets their foot in the door on what percentage or amount companies have to chip in, that will only increase over time as costs go up.
I think you can take whatever the estimate is and multiply by 500%.
--
muckdog
http://thelearningcurve.blogspot.com
it is getting clearer and clearer to me that California is not the place to live in the future. I have a better chance moving a couple hundred miles to one of the neighboring states that will not be bankrupt and in chaos down the road...