California’s health care reform: "Just like in the Soviet Union"

January 12, 2007

Michael Ostrovsky lets loose and chastises the AMA’s response:

California governator Arnold Schwarzenegger comes out swinging with a proposal to tax MDs 2% off their income to finance insurance scheme for all. From few, to all: just like in the Soviet Union. In addition, clinicians are assailed from all the other sides: managed care companies and insurance firms, trial lawyers, litigating patients, and populist politicians of both parties. As it becomes increasingly difficult to practice medicine, AMA says nothing of these assaults. And it does nothing. Instead, AMA and nine other “leading physician associations” came out yesterday with a list of principles for reforming the U.S. health care system that read like Brezhnev politburo’s talking points.



Related posts:

  1. Health Care Reform, From the Ground Up
  2. What doctors can learn from patients in the health care reform debate
  3. How health care reform can improve public health
  4. Ideas for health care reform
  5. Health care policy experts versus the public, an obstacle to reform
  6. Physician payment reform is the key to fixing the health care system
  7. Health care reform protests and how fears and beliefs are exploited


KevinMD.com on Facebook


  Follow on Twitter   Subscribe



{ 6 comments }

1 Leaving CA January 13, 2007 at 11:56 am

Don’t know the intricate details either, but extra money doesn’t magically appear and it just puts the governments hand in the flow of healthcare money. I would rather see a “self pay” than a Medi-cal patient, because with the medi-cal patient I have to accept the joke of a payment it brings and the patient feels entitled because they have “insurance”.

Paying more taxes in no way helps. Since CA is a high tax state the AMT tax nullifies extra state and property taxes anyway.

This proposal just drives healthcare farther and farther away from the wonderful thing of the free market and subjects the physician to more government control. With this new “state fund insurance” what is to keep them from determining that managing a respiratory arrest is worth a payment of 35$, a craniotomy worth 50$, appendectomy worth 25$ etc…????? And then eliminate any balanced billing that the Governor has already tried to do?

2 Anonymous January 13, 2007 at 12:09 pm

If I was in California and this thing went through, I probably still wouldn’t accept MediCal. There’s no way their reimbursement will be even close to other providers. With more physicians likely accepting this plan your bargaining power just went up the other private insurers.

3 Anonymous January 13, 2007 at 1:54 pm

BTW 2% of 200k is $8,000

4 Anonymous January 13, 2007 at 1:55 pm

MY BAD, YOU ARE RIGHT IT IS 4K

5 Anonymous February 9, 2007 at 4:45 am

To the “ER Doc” from another:

It’s fine that you might get more money from your patients with insurance, but I get paid a straight hourly rate regardless of the patient’s status. SO, all I would see from this is the extra TAX (unless the hospital decides to let some of the “extra” money they would receive from these “insured” patients trickle down to us in the trenches).

Also, 4,000 off the top of 200K only results in a savings of 1,320 in taxes (at 33 % tax rate)…hardly balances out does it? All I see is that I’m out another 2,680 to the government every year. And what makes you think they would stop at 2 % and not have it go UP more each year??

6 Anonymous April 8, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Assuming MD’s aren’t stupid the California proposal to tax doctors to fund the uninsured will be passed onto all patients. It is really a sales tax on health care — and is somewhat regressive.

I am concerned with other aspects of the California Plan. Does it provide for mandated guaranteed issue (meaning all those who buy the insurance are mandated to buy from a high risk pool)?

According to the New York Times Guide to Getting Affordable Coverage by Fred Brock (pages 99-105)

“[Individual Medical] Premiums in the five guranteed-issue states [ NY, VT, NJ, MA, ME] are uniform and high. …if you are health and live and work in a guaranteed-issue state like News York and New Jersey .. you could move to a nearby state with less expensive premiums and commute to your job”

Mr. Brock compares some monthly premiums

Male or Female age 22.
Springfield NJ PPO $374.67
San Jose, CA $36

Married Couple 48 years old
Springfield NJ PPO $749.34
San Jose $171

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post: The all-pharma cheerleading squad

Next post: Some hilarity to start the long weekend

Site Meter