YESTERDAY THE CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE PASSED A
SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE BILL.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE FAKE NEWS, BUT
IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND I THINK IT'S STILL FAR FROM BEING LAW
BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT FIRST STEP WITH BIG HURDLES COMING, DETAILS
ABOUT HOW TO PAY FOR IT, ESTIMATES OF COST ARE HIGH,
SOMETHING LIKE $400 BILLION, PEOPLE THROW AROUND THAT IT IS A
DOUBLING OF THE STATE BUDGET, OF COURSE, HEALTHCARE IS EXPENSIVE
WHETHER INDIVIDUALS PAY FOR IT OR THE GOVERNMENT IS.
THAT IS
OFTEN LOST IN THESE DECLARATIONS ABOUT HOW EXPENSIVE SINGLE-PAYER
HEALTH CARE IS FOR SOME REASON.
BUT NOW IT WILL PROCEED TO THE
ASSEMBLY, MORE DETAILS WILL HAVE TO BE FLESHED OUT ABOUT HOW THIS
WOULD HAPPEN, BUT IT DOES LAY OUT A SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE
PLAN, A GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE PLAN, FOR THE SIXTH
BIGGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD.
WE HAVE TO GIVE CREDIT --
THE NURSES UNION IS AMAZING.
EVERYWHERE.
APPROPRIATELY, THE NURSES ARE COMING TO HEAL THE COUNTRY.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS -- THERE ARE GOOD ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT,
BECAUSE EVEN THE LEGISLATORS THAT VOTED FOR IT ARE SAYING
IT'S NOT QUITE COMPLETE --
IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS.
A STARTING OFF POINT, BASICALLY.
TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF HOW MUCH IT'S NOT DONE YET, THEY
HAVE TO PASS ANOTHER BILL WHICH INVOLVES THE TAXES, THE PARTNER
YOU ACTUALLY RAISE THE MONEY FOR IT, AND I THINK JOHN
ALLUDED TO, THAT'S ABOUT $400 BILLION.
IF I COULD RUN THROUGH ONE MORE GRAPHIC, THERE HAVE BEEN
VARIOUS ANALYSES OF THE EFFECTS, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE SWITCHED
TO SINGLE-PAYER, ONE IS HOW WE WOULD PAY FOR IT, AND --
I WILL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND, BUT I WANT PEOPLE TO
UNDERSTAND -- IN ORDER TO PASS THE TAXES IN CALIFORNIA YOU NEED
A TWO THIRDS VOTE IN BOTH CHAMBERS.
SO THE SENATE HAS TO
GO BACK AND PASS IT BY TWO THIRDS, INCLUDING THE TAXES, AND
THEN THE HOUSE, OR THE ASSEMBLY IN CALIFORNIA, HAS TO ALSO PASS
IT BY A TWO THIRDS VOTE IN ORDER FOR IT TO COME INTO EFFECT,
AND RBC THE GOVERNOR WOULD HAVE TO SIGN IT.
AND THE VOTERS WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON IT, AND THE STATE WOULD
HAVE TO VOTE ON REPURPOSING THEIR MEDICAID AND MEDICARE
FUNDS AS WELL.
ASSUMING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALLOWS THOSE
FUNDS TO BE USED FOR IT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED.
I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA SO LET'S TURN TO THE TAXES, ALL THE
QUESTION MARKS, I THINK WE WILL BEGIN TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTION
MARKS.
WHEN I SAW 15% PAYROLL TAX INCREASE -- THAT'S A LOT.
THAT IS QUITE A BIT.
AND THEN OF COURSE YOU REALIZE, BUT YOU
DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE.
AT ALL.
SO YOUR
PREMIUMS ARE GONE.
AND ANY KIND OF CONTRIBUTION, GONE.
WHICH A LOT OF BUSINESSES HAVE TO PAY.
OVERALL THAT SAVES CALIFORNIA MONEY, BECAUSE IT LOWERS DRUG
PRICES, AND MY INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE HALVERSON, FORMER CEO OF
KAISER PERMANENTE, IS ENLIGHTENING ON THAT ISSUE.
AND
ANYWAY OF COURSE YOU WILL ELIMINATE A LOT OF OVERHEAD THAT
YOU PAY, THAT WE PAY TO THE MIDDLEMEN.
SO AT THE END OF THE
DAY AS A CALIFORNIA RESIDENT I WOULD SAVE MONEY, PERHAPS A LOT
OF MONEY.
AND WHEN YOU DO THAT EQUATION YOU GO, I GET IT, I'M
PAYING MORE IN TAXES BUT I GET TO KEEP ALL THE OTHER MONEY, SO
IF AT THE END OF THE DAY I'VE SAVED WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS,
100 BUCKS, WHO CARES THAT I PAID MORE TAXES?
I HAVE MORE MONEY IN
THE BANK, AND POTENTIALLY MUCH BETTER HEALTH INSURANCE.
AND A MORE JUST SOCIETY.
THAT IS ONE THAT'S DEBATED.
WHAT DO I THINK OVERALL?
I THINK
IT'S A GREAT, GREAT STEP FORWARD.
BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS
LIKE, LET'S PAUSE, LET'S DO THIS, GRADUALISM -- THIS IS
ACTION.
ACTION OVER INACTION.
IF YOU ARE DOING TERRIBLE,
DISASTROUS ACTIONS LIKE TRUMP, THEY HAVE FLOWING CONSEQUENCES
THAT ARE NEGATIVE.
BUT IF YOU DO I THINK POSITIVE ACTION, WHICH I
VIEW THIS TO BE POSITIVE, IT MIGHT HAVE SURPRISING FLOWING
CONSEQUENCES FROM THAT.
IT'S ON THE BOARD NOW, THE OTHER CHAMBER
HAS TO CONSIDER IT, AND NOW WE HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT, WE
ARE DOING A STORY ON IT, AND EVERY MEDIA OUTLET IN CALIFORNIA
IS DOING A STORY ON IT AND HAVING PEOPLE GO, WAIT, I WOULD
SAVE MONEY?
THAT'S INTERESTING.
IF YOU ARE IN CALIFORNIA OR NOT, SHOW SUPPORT TO THE
POLITICIANS WHO HAVE ALREADY SUPPORTED IT, I THINK THAT'S A
GREAT WAY TO REINFORCE FOR THEM THAT THEY SHOULD CONTINUE TO
WANT TO MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION, PERHAPS THEY COULD PROVIDE AN
EXAMPLE FOR POLITICIANS NOT ALREADY ON BOARD, AND IT COULD
BE A GOOD SIGNAL POST FOR WHEN IT GETS TO THE ASSEMBLY.
BUT YOU
DID A GREAT JOB OF BREAKING DOWN AS A BUSINESS OWNER HOW THIS
WOULD AFFECT YOU, THEY WILL THROW AROUND THE 15% TAX ON
PAYROLL HOPING THAT YOU WILL NEVER FIND OUT ABOUT THE VARIOUS
MONEY YOU WILL SAVE, BUT THINK ABOUT THE POINT OF VIEW OF A
BUSINESS THAT NOW THERE IS THIS ONE PLACE, WHICH IS ALREADY A
GREAT STATE, BUT NOW A STATE WHERE YOU WILL HAVE HEALTH
INSURANCE -- YOU WILL HAVE PEOPLE MOVE TO THIS STATE TO
LIVE HERE, PAY TAXES HERE, BUY PRODUCTS HERE, AND THE PEOPLE
WHO WOULD BE SPENDING HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EVERY
MONTH ON HEALTH INSURANCE SUDDENLY HAVE THAT MONEY.
AND WE
ALL KNOW WE ARE BIG SAVERS IN AMERICA -- KNOW WE ARE NOT, WE
WILL SPEND IT ON PRODUCTS AND SERVICES WHICH WILL BE AMAZING
FOR THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY.
SO THIS DOESN'T JUST PRODUCE A MORE
JUST SOCIETY AND SAVE COUNTLESS PEOPLE FROM PREMATURE,
UNNECESSARY DEATH, IT ALSO WOULD BE AN ENORMOUS ECONOMIC
STIMULUS FOR CALIFORNIA.
THAT IS PROBABLY TRUE.
WE DON'T KNOW YET, WE DON'T KNOW
HOW THEY WILL GET THERE.
JUST LAID OUT THE STEPS OF HOW
DIFFICULT IT WOULD BE TO GET THERE.
BUT POLITICALLY IT'S A
HUGE FIRST STEP, IT CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CONVERSATION.
THE
SENATE IN CALIFORNIA HAS VOTED FOR IT.
BARBARA BOXER, WHO
CLAIMS -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S TRUE, BUT LET'S ASSUME SHE
WAS TELLING THE TRUTH -- SORRY, NANCY POSEY, FORGIVE ME --
HOW DID YOU CONFUSE THEM?
SO STRANGE -- SHE SAYS SHE HAS FOUGHT FOR SINGLE-PAYER ALL
HER LIFE BUT SHE REALIZED IT COULDN'T PASS FOR THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT, AND THEN SHE SAYS HER WAY OF DISMISSING A FIGHT NOW
FOR SINGLE-PAYER IS, IT NEEDS TO BE TRIED IN THE STATES.
DIANNE
FEINSTEIN SAYS THE SAME THING.
SURE, IT MIGHT WORK, LET'S TRY
IT IN THE STATES.
OKAY, HERE WE GO, IT IS YOUR STATE, AND IF IT
WORKS, THEN THE REASON USED BY AT LEAST DEMOCRATS --
REPUBLICANS WILL STILL BE AGAINST IT -- BUT THE REASON
USED BY MOST DEMOCRATS BEING AGAINST IT, THOSE WHO ARE
AGAINST IT, WILL EVAPORATE, AND I SUSPECT THEY WILL COME ABOARD.
AND I BELIEVE PELOSI MORE THAN FEINSTEIN ON THIS IN TERMS OF
THEIR COMMITMENT, BECAUSE PELOSI HAS AT DIFFERENT TIMES BEEN
COMMITTED TO THIS.
WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT THIS ALSO IS LET'S
SAY IT FAILS, LET'S SAY IT FAILS AT THE ASSEMBLY OR THE STATE OR
THE GOVERNOR'S DESK OR THE BALLOT BOX OR THE CONSTITUTION
-- IT'S STILL THE PLACE WHERE IT STARTED.
YOU HAD A LEGISLATIVE
BODY VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT IS GOOD FOR PEOPLE, AND PEOPLE WILL
LOOK BACK AND SAY THIS IS WHERE IT STARTED, AND GOVERNMENT CAN
ACTUALLY COME IN AND HELP.
PEOPLE SAY POLITICS IS THE ART
OF THE POSSIBLE -- THIS WILL SHOW HOW IT'S POSSIBLE, HOW IN
SOME CASES IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, BUT THIS IS WHERE IT STARTED AND
IT'S SOMETHING THAT STARTED IN CALIFORNIA, WHERE IT IS
POSSIBLE.
I THINK THAT'S GREAT.
LAST THING ON POLITICS AND POLICY, CHECK OUT THE HALVERSON
INTERVIEW, WHERE HE SAYS IT WORKS SO MUCH BETTER IN EUROPE,
THIS GUY WAS THE CEO OF KAISER PERMANENTE, HE KNOWS A THING OR
TWO ABOUT THIS.
AND ON THE POLITICS THING, IT PUTS PEOPLE
LIKE FEINSTEIN IN A TOUGH SPOT, SHE'S ON THE RECORD AS SAYING
IT'S NOT REALISTIC, SING A PAYER -- SO NOW WHEN YOUR OWN STATE
PASSES IT IN THE SENATE, NOW HOW DOES SHE MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT
IT'S NOT PRACTICAL?
BECAUSE THAT WOULD THEN BE DEFYING HER OWN
PARTY IN HER OWN STATE.
THAT'S A GREAT POINT, AND SHE HAS NOT YET SAID WHETHER SHE
WILL RUN FOR REELECTION IN 2018, AND THIS IS ANOTHER ALBATROSS ON
HER BACK SO THAT IF SHE DOES RUN, PROBABLY AMONGST DEMOCRATS
IN A PRIMARY, IF SHE GETS PRIMARIED HARD IN CALIFORNIA --
SHE WILL.
IT'S HARD TO PRIMARY DIANNE FEINSTEIN IN CALIFORNIA, I'M
SITTING NEXT TO SOMEONE WHO THINKS IT'S EASIER THAN IT IS,
PROVE ME WRONG, BUT IN PRACTICAL TERMS THE POLITICS, NOW THAT YOU
HAVE A SITTING U.S.
SENATOR WHO MIGHT HAVE TO RUN, SHE WILL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT
THIS AND THAT'S GREAT.