S.F. unveils universal heath plan

[DaForce]

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


Some smartass in the board's previous incarnation, asked how I like my mayor. This was after the same sex marriage debate. All I can say right now to that person if they're reading this:

EAT IT!!!


Yup, my mayor, the guy I voted for, is sticking it to the G.W. administration again by doing something basic that this Republican administration has no interest in doing; helping its own people.



If only all the politicians that get put into office had the balls and the willingness to put basic human needs on the list of things to provide their citizens, like my mayor does, then this world might actually be someplace worth living in for a change.

[Intelligent_Design]

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


Some smartass in the board's previous incarnation, asked how I like my mayor. This was after the same sex marriage debate. All I can say right now to that person if they're reading this:

EAT IT!!!


Yup, my mayor, the guy I voted for, is sticking it to the G.W. administration again by doing something basic that this Republican administration has no interest in doing; helping its own people.



If only all the politicians that get put into office had the balls and the willingness to put basic human needs on the list of things to provide their citizens, like my mayor does, then this world might actually be someplace worth living in for a change.






I have always said that place was waaaaay ahead of the rest of the country on most issues, this just proves it.

[kah]

You know, this is the kind of thing that makes people not want UH. They want to change the situation for the uninsured? Let homosexuals get married, so they can add their partner onto their health insurance, and allow small businesses to combine their groups into one large one to lower premiums. Simple. Instead, they want to insure everyone for nothing. 200 million? I think that is the estimate that results from looking through rose-colored glasses. Once this goes through, everyone is going to want a city-paid ambulance to transport them to the hospital for every sliver and cough.

If there is a problem with the uninsured going to the emergency room for everything- which I know there is because they can't be turned away there- then make regular office visits available to the uninsured. They would rather pay 100 bucks for an office visit than 600 for the ER. Or, better yet, they would be more likely to pay $100 than $600.

A few years ago I had a cracked tooth. I called around to some of the local dental offices (in medical professional buildings). If I even wanted to walk in the door, I had to have enough cash to cover the visit in full, no matter how much it cost, because they otherwise did not take uninsured patients. I went to my local dentist and worked out a payment plan with him. Your local doctors, dentists, etc, will usually try to work with you to make your care afforable, but those doctors in a clinic, hospital, or professional building don't have the same options available. They have to report to their boss about why they're not getting paid in full. I had one doctor see me years ago without health insurance in a POB. When I didn't make the full payment within 10 days, I got a notice that they would send my account to collections. Now, we've got hospitals closing (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=423766)because most of their patients are either on Medicare or go to the ER and then can't afford to pay their bills. I think if given the option, most people would pay for their care. And people would be more inclined to get preventative care to make sure they aren't going to the ER in the future, if they thought they could spread the payments out in increments they could afford.

Local Editorial About Hospital Closing and Care for Poor (http://www.jsonline.com/story/?id=422630)

I think everyone should have access to healthcare. I just don't think SF's plan is the way to go.

[sickness]

Once this goes through, everyone is going to want a city-paid ambulance to transport them to the hospital for every sliver and cough.

Hate to break it to you but this is happening in SF already. My brother is a firefighter/paramedic there. Hell, there are people trying to fake illnesses and say, "I need to go to the clinic over in <such-and-such> neighborhood but I don't know the exact location... I think it's near <blah> St and <blah> Av" which happens to be the location of a McDonalds. Not only are the poor and indigent using city services for minor injury or health problems but as a goddamn taxi service!

Additionally, the people who are showing up in ER's for minor issues aren't paying for their health care now when collections agencies can be used, a situation you suggest would encourage them. How do you suppose we change that? Honestly, I'm for any idea that holds water because $200M per year spread out over a tax base of 600,000 people or so doesn't appeal to me and I doubt it appeals to most of the people in the city (~$300 per person).

[kah]

Hate to break it to you but this is happening in SF already. My brother is a firefighter/paramedic there. Hell, there are people trying to fake illnesses and say, "I need to go to the clinic over in <such-and-such> neighborhood but I don't know the exact location... I think it's near <blah> St and <blah> Av" which happens to be the location of a McDonalds. Not only are the poor and indigent using city services for minor injury or health problems but as a goddamn taxi service!

Additionally, the people who are showing up in ER's for minor issues aren't paying for their health care now when collections agencies can be used, a situation you suggest would encourage them. How do you suppose we change that? Honestly, I'm for any idea that holds water because $200M per year spread out over a tax base of 600,000 people or so doesn't appeal to me and I doubt it appeals to most of the people in the city (~$300 per person).


I never said collection agencies were a good thing. Reread what I wrote. I'm suggesting that if regular office doctor visits were available, then people would be more likely to use that rather than going to the ER. At a much lower cost, many would be more likely to pay. Honestly, if you were making minimum wage, and had a health problem that you were concerned about, wouldn't you rather go to a doctor to make sure you were ok, for probably 50-100 bucks, than wait until you were dying to go to the ER for thousands? Even if you weren't going to pay it back? It would be easier for people to accept using preventative care if they were allowed to make a payment plan. If you were making 7 dollars an hour, you could still find 10 dollars a month to pay your doctor.

I've never heard of such a thing- people using ambulances as free (to them, anyways) taxis. That is a f'in joke. I really doubt that UH is going to change that. If anything, it is only going to make things worse, at the cost of the people paying taxes. If that happens, I wouldn't be surprised to see a sudden surge in people moving out of the city.

[sickness]

I can't see non-financed payment plans as an option, though. While public hospitals have no choice, doctor's offices aren't about to get taken for a ride. It's a headache they don't need or want. I've been in a situation where I didn't have insurance and needed treatment (needed a root canal & crown) and my only option was to get it financed. I was out of work at that point so it wasn't going to happen. Most medical treatment does not require money on the order of a new car or house. Loans are available so long as the person is employed or has a steady income of some sort (SSI, pension, etc.). I really don't see anything wrong with that system. If they're not employed, chances are there is someone in their immediate or extended family who is who can co-sign.

As for taxis, they try but unless they get a probie and an idiot together, it doesn't happen. Anyone who knows the city pretty well will call bullshit.

[Intelligent_Design]

I think before we get UHC we need to do something about the prices. There is no way that any operation should cost more than $500. I Don't care what anyone says. Once we get these outta control prices under control then we work on UHC.

[Space Tycoon]

As a Canadian and a battered taxpayer, I just wanna say; If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait and see how much it costs when it's free. :D




.

[Intelligent_Design]

As a Canadian and a battered taxpayer, I just wanna say; If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait and see how much it costs when it's free. :D




.


You are right about that. The sales tax I paid on my last trip there was a ballbreaker. I think I founded some canadian's open heart operation and all I bought was a T-shirt.
:lol:

[kah]

I think before we get UHC we need to do something about the prices. There is no way that any operation should cost more than $500. I Don't care what anyone says. Once we get these outta control prices under control then we work on UHC.


I think that is low, but to stick a tube up someone's groin and leave behind a stent, before kicking out the patient the next day should in no way cost 30-40K.

[DaForce]

Just wanted to post a little update....


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/18/state/n172103D14.DTL



Universal health care plan approved in San Francisco

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
now part of stylesheet -->
(07-18) 17:21 PDT San Francisco (AP) --
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to make the city the nation's first to provide all residents with health care, approving a plan that would give adults access to medical services regardless of their immigration or employment status.
Financed by local government, mandatory contributions from employers and income-adjusted premiums, the universal care plan would cover the cost of everything from checkups, prescription drugs and X-rays to ambulance rides, blood tests and operations.
Unlike health insurance, however, it would not pay for any services participants seek outside San Francisco. Instead, residents would receive care at existing clinics and public hospitals and from doctors who already participate in an HMO for low- and middle-income clients.
With backing from both Mayor Gavin Newsom and all 11 supervisors, the so-called Health Access Plan proved to be a politically popular concept in liberal San Francisco despite unmitigated opposition from the business community.
"What feels very good is the full board and the mayor getting on board," said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who first championed the idea of making employers pay for some part of their workers' medical costs. "That says the political will is there to make it happen."
To offset the estimated annual price tag of $200 million, firms with 20 or more workers would be required to spend $1.06 for each hour worked by an employee, and those with more than 100 workers would have to pay $1.60 per hour up to a monthly maximum of $180 per worker. Companies that already offer health coverage would still have to pay if their insurance contributions did not meet the city's funding levels.
The Board of Supervisors still needs to vote on the plan once more for it to become final. The ordinance adopted Tuesday calls for businesses with more than 50 employees to start participating starting next July, while it would take effect for enterprises with 20 or more workers in April 2008.
Michael O'Connor, a nightclub owner who serves on the San Francisco Small Business Commission, predicted that the "noble burden" of the mandate would keep businesses from locating in the city and make goods and services here more expensive as employers pass on the costs to customers.
O'Connor said many business owners were disappointed by Newsom's backing of the plan since the mayor got his start in business as the owner of a wine shop and several restaurants.
"One would think that someone who has owned and opened restaurants would be pretty clear on what the profit margin is, and how hard it is to get them open. A $5,000 licensing fee is difficult. A new $60,000 (health care) fee is disabling," he said.
Before the board vote, Newsom defended the proposal as a creative solution to the problem of securing decent health care for uninsured residents, noting that businesses would not be alone in defraying the costs. Of the $200 million, the city would provide $104 million and participants would contribute about $56 million.
"This is a moral debate as much as a political debate," Newsom said.
The initiative adopted Tuesday developed as a compromise between Newsom and Ammiano, who last year introduced legislation that would have required businesses to create health savings accounts for uninsured workers. In a nod to concerns from business, the final plan requires employees to work at least 12 hours a week to be eligible and has an opt-out provision for workers who are insured through their spouses.
Because fees would be adjusted on a sliding scale, city officials did not expect to see a rush of residents canceling their existing health insurance to take part in the city program.











.

[kah]

And the housing bubble just burst in San Fran. I imagine the exodus of homeowners and businesses is going to be overwhelming.

[DaForce]

And the housing bubble just burst in San Fran. I imagine the exodus of homeowners and businesses is going to be overwhelming.


Um, no it hasn't.


It's slowed in the Bay Area, but it hasn't in SF.


My co-worker and his partner just put a down payment on a 1 bdrm condo on the waterfront that won't be built for another 2 years. Cost? $700K.



.

[kah]

Um, no it hasn't.


It's slowed in the Bay Area, but it hasn't in SF.


My co-worker and his partner just put a down payment on a 1 bdrm condo on the waterfront that won't be built for another 2 years. Cost? $700K.



.

I meant in response to the uh passing.

[DaForce]

I meant in response to the uh passing.


Ah....okay.



Still don't think that's going to happen, at least not until the next major earthquake.



.

[rappites]

I am for it as well...14 years ago when I had my first son my husband and I had no medical insurance. And we made too much money to qualify for state help. The only place that would help us was UCSF. We had to put down a whole bunch of money and it still cost us over $10K to have him. Then nine years later I have my second son. I was covered and had Kaiser. It did not cost a dime to have him. Then on my third son I was covered under Cigna. It cost us over $3K to have him and I had a emergency c-section and my husband was not in the room and they put me under so I was not awake when he was brought into this world and we were sent a $600 bill for resucitation for the baby. They did not mention this to either me or my husband that they had to resucitate the baby. Now that is scary.

I think going to the ER should always have a high copayment unless you are admitted to the hospital. So, that way people with stuff that can wait will wait for an appointment or a clinic.

[rappites]

My ex-mother-in-law owns a home in Dublin and she is getting ready to sell it. And they are asking for $850,000.00 for it. They have owned it for about ten years. It is a single family home with three bedrooms and two ba. Does not look like it has slowed down to me.

[sickness]

My parents own a 1200 sqft 3bd/2ba in west San Jose in a cookie-cutter suburban neighborhood built in the 1950's on a street which serves as a cutoff between two major avenues (which people routinely drive at 50mph... it's a 25mph zone). Far from hot property. But the crime is low and there isn't much high density housing nearby. How much could they sell their house for if they chose? About $500,000. Probably more since that's not much more than it appraises for.