According to the latest chatter, the California Legislature, having at long last passed a budget for the year (well past the deadline, as usual), is now taking up the subject of Universal Health Coverage.
Great.
So, these goons, who can't even pass the annual budget on time, are happily disregarding the problems of state infrastructure for which they're already responsible, and making plans to take charge of a huge new responsibility. Which, no doubt, they'll play with for a few months before tiring of it, or breaking it, and casting it aside.
And what happens once the Glorious Statewide Single-Payer System (as promoted by the nurses' lobby) is in effect, and the Legislature once again fails to pass a budget? As things are now, I can make an appointment at Kaiser, or get a prescription filled, regardless of what the bozos in Sacramento are up to. With Single Payer, would we have an annual month or two with no health care, or with off-budget emergency services only?
Or, instead of Single Payer, will we end up with employer mandates? Great idea, that! Ensure that everyone with a job has health coverage... and thereby raise the cost of jobs. Note to the economics-impaired: jobs are not a commodity in the usual sense, and increased cost leads to decreased supply. If the minimum wage becomes whatever-an-hour plus $500/month, those minimum-wage workers had better be worth that extra $500/month, or they'll be fired, and more productive workers hired in their stead, or their positions eliminated (and the work dumped onto higher-paid and overworked employees). Headcount costs are not conducive to entry-level job creation!
Just another circus in la-la land.
Recent Comments