Podcasts about healthy california act

Eric Leenson, Co-Director of the Business Alliance for a Heathy California, speaks to host Lisa Kiefer about the status of Single Payer Health in California and how a simpler, publicly funded system would deliver real reform.Transcript:Lisa Kiefer:Method to the Madness is next. You're listening to Method to the Madness, a biweekly public affairs show on KALX Berkeley, celebrating Bay Area innovators. I'm your host, Lisa Kiefer, and today I'm speaking with Eric Leenson, the co-director of Business Alliance for a Healthy California. They believe that healthcare is a human right, and that all Californians should have affordable, high quality, cost-effective healthcare.Eric Leenson:Hello. Thanks for having me, Lisa.Lisa Kiefer:You have always been a person I think of around sustainability, and in this new venture, you're working to make healthcare more sustainable as we move to the future, all of us citizens of the US. Tell us about what you're doing at the business alliance for Healthy California.Eric Leenson:Essentially, we created the Business alliance for a Healthy California about a year and a half ago, to support the implementation of a single-payer type system here in California. You know, we can get into discussion about what single payer means, but it was kind of a response to what's been happening in Washington, where we see all kinds of major roadblocks, as far as protecting people's healthcare and in not even talking about expanding it. So here in California, we have a very strong group of people who have been pursuing single payer healthcare for a long time.And back in 2017, the California Nurses Association sponsored a bill called the Healthy California Act, Senate Bill 562, which would bring a single payer healthcare to the state of California, because we just don't see it in the cards on a national level for long time. But here we are in California, as everyone likes to say, the fifth largest economy in the world. We should be able to provide quality healthcare to all of our people.Lisa Kiefer:But, as we all know, this SB 562 is dead in the water right now.Eric Leenson:Right now, it's dead. Basically-Lisa Kiefer:So tell us what happened, and what's going to happen.Eric Leenson:Okay. The bill garnered really amazing grassroots support and it passed the Senate, so it was approved by the California State Senate. In the assembly, it was blocked primarily by the Speaker of the Assembly, who did not want it to come to a vote.And he didn't want it to come to a vote, in my opinion, primarily because it's embarrassing to the Democrats. There's no Democrat these days in California, that's not "for single payer," but you know, we have people that really support it and are ready to implement it, and others who say they support it, because politically it's convenient.Part of of where the Democrats are going, certainly in California, but also nationally, is in the concept of a Medicare For All-type program. So what you have is a situation where, on the legislative floor, if the bill had been brought up, then the Assembly people would've had to take a vote and show whether they supported this for real or not. And it was much easier just to sort of stall on it.It wouldn't, he didn't allow it to go to committee. Even for further review and discussion, they were claiming, "Well, the bill's inadequate," and there's no doubt there was more that needed to be flushed out in the bill, but that's part of what the Assembly's supposed to do through their committees, and they wouldn't even allow it to go to committee.At this point, there is no bill. What's happened is, I think everyone's got their attention really focused on the elections coming up in November, particularly the Governor's race.Lisa Kiefer:Right. I want to talk to you about John Cox, the Republican candidate, versus Gavin Newsom's position on single payer.Eric Leenson:Well, it's pretty much black and white-Lisa Kiefer:Yeah.Eric Leenson:In many ways, although there's always gray with, when you talk about politicians, the black and white part is that John Cox is absolutely opposed to any form of single-payer.Lisa Kiefer:Is he fiscally opposed? I read that there's a range of, from $330 to $400 billion is what people are saying it's going to cost Californians.Eric Leenson:Well, so what I would say is that as a Republican, he's opposed to it not only financially, but ideologically. He does not believe that government should play an extensive role in healthcare. So these would be the same Republicans that want to cut Medicare, because it's government-controlled, in a way.Finance, I should say, not controlled. Gavin Newsom has been a strong proponent of single payer, and in fact has a history of introducing healthcare reform when he was mayor of San Francisco. So he has been an outspoken proponent of single payer, and that's the black part.The gray part is, well, when you actually get elected, what do you do? Because health care represents 20% of the entire economy of California, and nationwide, as well. You're not talking about a small budget item, you're talking about an industry, whether it be pharmaceuticals, hospitals, physicians, insurance companies, that affects a huge swath of people.And when this gets out, you know, it gets discussed. It affects people's interest dramatically. I mean, basically ,if single payer were to be implemented, there would be no role, not much of any role, I should say, for private health insurance any longer. Can you imagine how many people would possibly lose revenue, because they sell insurance, or the insurance companies are making a lot of money.So, you have the problem, whenever you're dealing with trying to make major reform to the healthcare system. And it's extraordinarily complicated. I don't mean by any stretch of imagination to try to simplify it. You're going to have huge vested interests. Everyone uses healthcare, so everyone's concerned about what their healthcare is going to look like as a consumer. And you have, as I'm suggesting, a tremendous number of industries and businesses that basically survive on the revenues that are generated through healthcare.So it makes it difficult, and it makes it difficult for an elected official to really implement. They're going to need strong support from backers in the legislature, and insistence by the general public that this is beneficial.Lisa Kiefer:So I was thinking about this, a great percentage of money will be saved. It seems like if inefficiencies will be gone, so you're going to save a lot of money, but all of those people who deal with the phone calls to the insurance company are without a job. So whoever has to figure out this fiscal analysis has to incorporate job loss to the state. Very complicated.Eric Leenson:It's very complicated.Lisa Kiefer:And do you know if that cost-benefit works?Eric Leenson:Well, let's put it this way. Virtually every study that's been done, that I'm aware of, shows enormous cost savings through single payer. If you look at the numbers right now, the administrative costs of private health insurance are around, between, let's say 10% or 15% administrative costs. For Medicare, which is, in fact, single payer-Lisa Kiefer:Single payer, yeah.Eric Leenson:The administrative costs are 3%, so you're talking off the bat, you know, 10-12% savings. Just by streamlining that system, number one, and part of that administrative savings isn't only on the insurance side of it, you know, who's financing. It's also on the doctor side.You realize that in this country, every doctor has to hire me. I mean, every two doctors have to hire at least one or two administrative people, just to deal with the billing. I mean, we all have the experience of going to the office, and, "Are you covered by this, are you..."They spend endless amounts of time, instead of giving healthcare, on the phone, arguing with the insurance companies, whether or not there's coverage. This simplifies that entire thing.Number two, the other large savings is that if there were a single payer, they would be able to negotiate pricing, with hospitals and with pharmaceutical companies, because right now we pay so much more in the United States for healthcare than any other country industrialized country in the world. It's kind of ridiculous. I mean, we're spending, often, more than two times as much as any other country and not getting results that are even as good as those countries. It's all about the cost.Lisa Kiefer:If you're just tuning in, you're listening to Method to the Madness, a biweekly public affairs show on KALX Berkeley, celebrating Bay area innovators. Today I'm speaking with Eric Leenson. He's the co-director of Business Alliance for a Healthy California. He's working to educate and organize the business community to support universal health care.Eric Leenson:Back to your question, there have been studies done, and serious academic studies. You can imagine, this debate's been going on for decades, and in the case of California, let's just hone in on California.Yes, the cost of cost of healthcare in the system right now, everyone kind of agrees on, is about $400 billion a year. And the opposition, the single payer has done a great job in propagandizing the role of who's paying for what? So they come out with this phenomenal number of increase in taxes.Well, let's walk through the numbers. So let's say it's $400 billion right now. That's $400 billion being spent, where you still have 3 million people in the state that don't have insurance, and you have 14 million people in the state who are underinsured. Under insured means they "have coverage," but the deductibles and the copays are so high, they can't afford to use their insurance. So they don't go for the help they need.Lisa Kiefer:It's just catastrophic, at that point.Eric Leenson:Yeah. Yeah. Well, it often gets a catastrophic, because they're not going on a preventative basis. But what people don't understand is, right now, of that $400 billion, 70% is already being paid by government, 70%, if you add in, you know what the federal government is paying through Medicare, through Medicaid, which is huge, especially in the state of California.What local governments spend, think about it, all the government employees there are in the state. All the firemen, all the policemen, all the teachers, they have health insurance, right? So you're talking about 70%.What you're really looking at funding is 30%. Well, where does that 30% come from? That comes from premiums, and typically, a lot of it is paid for by employers, and some of it's paid for by employees. And some of it is just paid by individuals who aren't employed at all.Well, it's all about how you look at the pie. The numbers show that you could probably insure, you could probably implement a Medicare For All type package in California, for everyone, paying less than what we're paying today. So there's savings in the system. The problem is, where are those savings coming from?And that is, I pay premiums for my health insurance. Is that a tax? I mean, we're playing a little bit of a semantics game. Someone's paying this money. There's $400 billion in the system. That's what we're paying. So why do people say, "Well, if we use single payer, and it costs," let's say, 400 billion, it'll actually costs less than that.Why do they say, "Well, we have to raise all these new taxes?" Well, it's because, instead of paying healthcare premiums, people will pay taxes. That's the difference. So based on studies, serious financial studies, it appears that single payer is financially feasible, without the scare of all these new taxes. The money's there.Lisa Kiefer:But will we continue to get the money from the federal government, if we win on single payer here in California? Or would it be cut off?Eric Leenson:Okay. It is dependent upon continuing to receive the funding that exists in the system today.Lisa Kiefer:Both state and federal.Eric Leenson:Correct. One of the largest stumbling blocks is about the federal portion, because it's not impossible. In fact, it's very likely that Washington, under this administration, would refuse to go along with this. There are what are known as waivers available for states to experiment and do different types of financing within healthcare, still using federal money, but it's got to be approved by the federal government.So it's not impossible. But when people raise the question about, "Well, it's going to be a really hard slog to get this done, because we're not going to have the federal government." Well, the reality is that shouldn't prevent us from doing it.I mean, it's like saying, "Well, we shouldn't regulate our car emissions, because we got to fight the federal government." What's the difference, in some sense? And the reality is, given the breadth and depth of the healthcare system impact on the overall economy, this is not something that's going to happen overnight.So it makes, in my opinion, lots and lots of sense, to get California prepared, to be able to launch a program. And by the time we have the laws in place and things happening, then we'll hopefully have a new type of administration in Washington, and see about those possibilities. But it's going to take time. If we don't start preparing now, we're really going to be caught cold.Lisa Kiefer:Are there other states? There are other states that are experimenting with single payer.Eric Leenson:Not really.Lisa Kiefer:You know, I used to lives in Massachusetts, and that was-Eric Leenson:What? That's Romney Care.Lisa Kiefer:Okay.Eric Leenson:Now, I mean, the difference between single payer is literally, you're taking private insurance companies out of the mix.That's where a lot of the savings come from, because I would contend that they provide no value. What they are are middlemen who collect a revenue, for basically not doing anything, and they game the system so that they can maximize their revenues.This is why you see, I mean, you know, getting into the business part of this... In the 562 bill, because you asked, there were clear provisions within that bill, there's a certain amount of money allocated for job retraining. So you asked about the people-Lisa Kiefer:Yes, whenever there's a disruption, people retrain jobs.Eric Leenson:Yeah. There's tremendous concern. No one wants anyone to get hurt on this, but you know, it's the reality. Okay, well, should we continue hiring longshoreman to unload ships by hand, and not use technology?Lisa Kiefer:Right. So I think you explained what single payer actually is.Eric Leenson:Well, [crosstalk 00:14:29]-Lisa Kiefer:Why don't you say it again, for people who... unless you don't really care.Eric Leenson:Okay, what's really important to understand, single payer is not what people think is "socialized medicine." It's not government control of the services, medical services, that people receive. Right now, the way Medicare works is, the federal government is the financer of this. They set the rules of what can be paid for certain services, devices-Lisa Kiefer:Prescriptions-Eric Leenson:Prescriptions, things like that. Although, unfortunately they can't set the prices for prescriptions.Lisa Kiefer:The Veterans Administration can.Eric Leenson:Yeah, the Veterans only, but it has nothing to do with the actual provision of medical services. So I, as a Medicare recipient, go out and I pick the doctor and the plan that I want, and the government does not control that. And all of the services I receive are run by individual plans, clinics, doctors. It's not owned by the government.So, understand we talk about single payer, it's only the financing part. It's got nothing to do with the benefits that you receive as a consumer. If anything, it will help regulate them, so that you get better services, and you know what you're entitled to, rather than having to play this game.I mean, you probably know, that you can go to eight different hospitals in the same area, if there were eight hospitals, everyone would have a different price.Lisa Kiefer:Right.Eric Leenson:And there's no way of knowing what you're getting, what the value is, and the prices are extreme. It could be 300% more in one place than the other, with absolutely no difference in service, right?Lisa Kiefer:So you've got the support of nurses, and do doctors generally support this too? I would think they would.Eric Leenson:I would say there are a number of doctors who do, and then there are many who don't, because they fear that since the government will regulate pricing, that they may not be as profitable as they were. I would say it kind of breaks down to the primary care physicians, for the most part, are in favor.Think of it this way, in some sense, and I don't want to take this comparison too far. Kaiser's like a single payer. Kaiser has hospitals, Kaiser has medical staff, so they're providing a one-stop service. You Pay Kaiser, and then you have all your medical care taken care of. Unfortunately, Kaiser is also an insurance plan. So Kaiser is against this, because-Lisa Kiefer:And they have high deductibles, depending on what you choose, I mean-Eric Leenson:Yeah. They're an insurance company, and unfortunately, the insurance company kind of dominates, I think, when it comes to the issue of single payer. But no, I think in the cases you're describing, there would be huge benefits.We allow doctors, and you talk to Canadians, doctors for example, who've been here and been there. It says, you know, single payer gives them a chance to really be doctors, instead of administrators and paper pushers.Lisa Kiefer:And I've saw something like this, I watched a wonderful documentary that I got through you.It's called, Fix It: Healthcare at the Tipping Point. And in these next few minutes, you'll see the history of healthcare. It hasn't always been like this.Speaker 3:In 1969, Blue Cross Blue Shield had a community rating. Everybody paid the same rates. It was a truly nonprofit, and in every state, they were, Blue Cross Blue Shields were regulated to serve the public interest. That's what we gave up on.Speaker 4:Some executives at life insurance companies saw an opportunity to come into this area, to come into this space, and make some money. So they came in and started offering cut-rate policies, but only to those who were younger and healthier.Speaker 5:The group of people subscribing to Blue Cross Blue Shield became less and less healthy, more and more expensive, forcing the Blues to raise their rates more and more. And by the late '70s, early '80s, in every state in the union, the old Blue Cross Blue Shield model was dying. These companies were going bankrupt. Nonprofit companies couldn't make it.Speaker 4:For-profit insurance companies over the years became so dominant that they actually controlled, came to control the healthcare system. They bought a lot of the Blue Cross plans. A lot of the Blue Cross plans now are for-profit companies.Speaker 6:The US has, we're on the shortest length of stays in hospitals of any country, and we're told we have to shorten it. We go to the doctor about 4.2 times a year. The Japanese go 13 times. So we're told that we use too much healthcare, and we have to restrict access to save money, when in fact, we're below average when it comes to comparable countries.Speaker 5:The whole system is set up to discourage people from using healthcare.Speaker 7:The insurance companies are specialists at figuring out ways of covering less or paying less, the sicker you are.Speaker 4:So not only are people having to pay more money out of their own pockets for care in these plans, or they're finding that the choice of providers has been narrowed.Speaker 8:As a primary care physician, I have selected the specialists that I'm most comfortable working with. As it stands right now, I've got to say to my staff, "Check if Dr. Brown is a member of this patient's insurance." And so, referrals are so much more limited in the current system.Lisa Kiefer:They interviewed doctors, they interviewed business people, and that was the fascinating part, and I wanted to talk to you about that as how healthcare today affects small and medium-sized businesses. What have you seen as the challenges it presents?Eric Leenson:It's good that you've differentiated small, medium size from really big businesses, because they're two different animals entirely.In the case of small businesses, single payer would be a huge boon to small business.Lisa Kiefer:And why is that?Eric Leenson:Because under the Affordable Care Act, they're, they're not required to have insurance unless they have, I forget the exact numbers, either 25 or 50 employees. So you have a lot of small businesses, let's say 20 employees that basically are on their own, have to deal with the private health insurance market, and simply can't afford to have insurance.So right now, as I recall, of small business, only about 20% provide any health insurance for their employees. And it's not, they don't want to, it's, they really don't think they can afford it. So a single payer plan would really be beneficial to small business. Their employees would therefore have health insurance.So what that means, in the case of small business, is first of all, it gives them a boost in competition. Because right now, what happens, you're a small business, and you can barely pay a wage, but you can't provide benefits. Well, guess what? If you get a good employee, if you're able to get a good employee, qualified employee, as soon as they get an offer at a bigger company that's providing even a comparable wage, but providing benefits, they're gone.Lisa Kiefer:They take it. Because people need benefits.Eric Leenson:People need benefits, because you can't exist in this society.Lisa Kiefer:And they have children, and-Eric Leenson:Right. So, basically, it would sort of level the playing field for them, in a way that doesn't exist today. It would also be a real boon for entrepreneurs. Because a lot of people that would like to start their own businesses don't do it, because they're afraid of leaving where they are, because I have health benefits. And they can't go out on their own, and you know, they're taking a risk already by opening a business. You're doubling that by the question of providing for healthcare.Now I should mention this. I mean, the Affordable Care Act, it was passed,, Obamacare has helped the situation. I mean, a lot of people are able to get health insurance now, that are entrepreneurs, that weren't able to previously. But that's all up in in question.Now this will be tremendously beneficial for small business. Large business is a different story. It's a different story, because again, they have the resources to function within the system. Warren Buffett, the famous investor, has called healthcare the tapeworm of the US economy. You can't have a globally competitive economy that has 20% of the cost of healthcare.I mean, right now, the US businesses that go to Canada, and have the, the single payer system there, you know, are thrilled, because it reduces their costs significantly.Lisa Kiefer:And they can put that money toward capital investments, and-Eric Leenson:Employment, the whole, the whole business.Lisa Kiefer:Yeah.Eric Leenson:But you've got a situation in which, and in fact, there are a lot of initiatives now, starting up, of private companies that are beginning to do their own health insurance.I know there was a very, there's a very famous new grouping formed by Warren Buffett, I'm going to get this wrong, I guess Microsoft, and Citibank, I guess, that is looking into how they can provide health insurance for their combined million employees. Because they can't fathom the present system as being so expensive, that it's just not workable for them.Lisa Kiefer:And so, what you, backing up to what you said about large. So you're saying, it doesn't affect large businesses so much, because they have so much more moneyEric Leenson:Well, it does. I mean, it's gotten to the point where it is affecting large business so much, that they're looking for alternative solutions, but at the same time, they're not really interested in doing a generalized single payer type route for the whole society. They believe, first of all, for the businesses that don't want to do single payer, they believe they can handle it regardless, because of their incomes.And the other thing that's important is, a lot of the larger businesses, especially in like a Silicon Valley situation, they use health benefits as a perk to get employees, to attract employees. So there are a lot of large companies that don't want to give up the control of healthcare, because they see that as a way they provide value for their employees-Lisa Kiefer:Right.Eric Leenson:In a competitive mode. The other aspect is, you know, ideologically, there's generally a distrust of government. And even though you can show the numbers till you're blue in the face, they're going to raise this as, "Well, you know, we prefer a private enterprise solution. We don't trust government. The quality's going to be bad. Who's going to really be responsible?"So those are the issues. But at the same time, as I started to say, it's gotten so out of control, the costs, have gotten so out of control, that businesses now are beginning to set up their own alternative systems, in which they will negotiate the prices of services.For example, now you have companies that are contracting with specialized hospitals around the country, whereby, if one of their employees needs a specialized operation, they send them to that hospital rather than a local hospital.Lisa Kiefer:To most people here, it's a no brainer. Is there anything that could go awry with a single payer system here? What could go wrong?Eric Leenson:What could go wrong?Lisa Kiefer:Yeah.Eric Leenson:The people putting it together could be incompetent, and really not make it as efficient or as beneficial for the general population. I mean, it's got to be done carefully. It's complex. You run into a situation where you're now giving all these wonderful benefits to citizens. What happens in the case of an economic downturn? The government's on the hook now.Lisa Kiefer:Yes, in this case, it would be the state of California.Eric Leenson:Well, if there were single payer in California.Lisa Kiefer:Yeah.Eric Leenson:Yes, yes.Lisa Kiefer:And Jerry Brown had said that he, in 10 years, he predicted a serious downturn.Eric Leenson:Right.Lisa Kiefer:I don't know what he was basing that on specifically, but-Eric Leenson:Right. But then, I think it's important to look at values. I mean, you look at what a government is for, what our society should stand for. Well, it seems to me, that healthcare is a right, that everyone should have access to good healthcare. And if you have to pay for it, well guess what? You have to pay for it. And you figure out how a society should do that.Maybe there are other parts of the budget that are not so important as healthcare might be, especially for people that don't have any, or are really underserved.Lisa Kiefer:Well, what is it people should be looking at?Eric Leenson:We have the elections coming up now in November. I would really encourage people to look at the candidates, and what their standards are on this issue of single payer.And again, unfortunately, you have to go below the surface, because rhetorically, all the Democrats are going to be it. But within the Democrats, you have people that really want to push it now, and others who are gradualists, that say, "Look, we can't do anything for the foreseeable future. It's not worth the time."Well, that I think that's a defeatist attitude that we have to, you know, look out against. I mean, I know, here in this Assembly race, we have a situation like that, where there's one candidate who probably is mouthing the words, because they sound good, and one who's really serious about it. Then I would say, once the elections happen, to really hold people's feet to the fire, if they're elected based on the fact that they're going to do something, really, don't let them get away without doing anything. Just sort of, you know, work.There'll be groups organized to put pressure on legislators to continue to fight for it. I mean, again, it's going to be a process. There's so many stakeholders involved in this issue. There needs to be coming together of the various groupings.And one thing that has happened, you're probably not aware of, is that in the last budget, there was a $5 million allocated to set up a commission to study how to implement what they call unified healthcare financing. Now, they specifically didn't say single payer, but we believe the intention is to certainly consider single payer within that. Because it'd be very interesting to see-Lisa Kiefer:You're not involved in that-Eric Leenson:How it goes.Lisa Kiefer:Are you, on that committee?Eric Leenson:Oh, no, no, no. This is going to be, this is a five-person committee, that three people were selected by the Governor, one by the Assembly, and one by the Senate, and we're hoping to get at least one strong single payer representative on that grouping.We're going have to see, because again, it could be, we've seen it before. This could be a bluff, where they put together a commission to study something, which means, "Okay, we don't have to deal with it for two or three years."Lisa Kiefer:"We're still studying it."Eric Leenson:Because we've got a commission going on it, right?Lisa Kiefer:Yeah. Well, Eric, if people have questions for you, or do you have a website you would direct them to?Eric Leenson:Sure. They can go to the Business Alliance for a Healthy California.Lisa Kiefer:And I have to say it's a good website. That's where I found the link to the documentary, Fix it. I really highly recommend it to anyone, and you can watch it on Vimeo, online and everything, and-Eric Leenson:And we're sort of in the, in the process of repositioning, because as I say, things are going to change dramatically, once we see who become the new elected officials, particularly on the Governor's side, and the poss... It's going to open up a whole, especially if Gavin Newsom wins election, a whole new set of possibilities to be explored about really trying to do something positive.Lisa Kiefer:Well, thank you for being on the program.Eric Leenson:Sure. Thank you.Lisa Kiefer:You've been listening to Method to the Madness, a biweekly public affairs show on KALX Berkeley, celebrating Bay area innovators. You can find all of our podcasts on iTunes University. We'll be back again in two weeks. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

California has an opportunity to make healthcare a human right and guarantee it to everyone in the Golden State. As Democrats in the State House continue to hold the Healthy California Act (S.B. 562) hostage, nurses and millions of others continue their push to move this bill forward. California Nurses Association/National Nurses United, Legislative Advocate Stephanie Roberson updates us on the status of S.B. 562 and what you can do to support it.

Earth to Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon! Nurses never give up and neither will millions of Californians who support Single Payer Healthcare. By now it’s no secret the California Senate passed S.B. 562 on June 1 but it was then blocked from moving forward in the Assembly by Speaker Anthony Rendon. After a great deal of pressure from bill supporters to allow the bill out of the Rules Committee, he instead created a “Select Committee" that has no legislative authority. Supporters remain steadfast in their efforts to pass S.B. 562.

SB 562 needs you! Don Nielsen, Director of Government Relations for California Nurses Association joins Nurse Talk Radio for an update on SB 562 the Healthy California Act. There is still time to call your California Assembly Members and tell them to support the bill. Why did Assembly Speaker Rendon table it? Listen to the podcast for the latest news.

Welcome to California District One Media. I’m Tony West. This is your weekly watchdog news report on your District One elected officials in Congress. Here’s the latest. Last time we reported on The Healthy California Act, or SB 562, a popular and serious contender for a viable affordable healthcare system covering all Californians. It’s cleared the State Senate, and has been under review by the Assembly. SB 562 creates a trust fund for all healthcare funding under a Single Payer system, with everyone in one payment plan; patients, doctors, and hospitals. One payment network where everyone is covered, where no one is without coverage, where treatment is available to everyone. With the repeal of the Affordable Care Act looming on a national scale, the reality of millions of Californians having their Medicare stripped away has made SB 562 a popular bill with the public across party lines. This week, the bill faced a striking blow, which threatens to kill the bill in the Assembly all together. California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon announced that he would “hold” the bill in the Rules Committee, effectively killing the bill for at least the rest of 2017. While state democrats hold the super majority in Sacramento, it’s baffling that Speaker Rendon would vote against a bill that is a part of his own party’s platform. But it should be reported that Anthony Rendon has accepted nearly a quarter of a million dollars in campaign contributions from the health and insurance sectors. This calls into question his motivations on singlehandedly stopping the measure in it’s tracks. Our own District One Assemblyman, Brian Dahle, has been quoting false claims the bill will cost the state $400 billion and businesses will pay a 15 percent payroll tax. In fact, the University of Massachusetts states that single payer health care will cost $331 billion, a cost savings over the $385 billion Californian’s currently pay for healthcare every year. Small businesses making under $2 million a year won’t even be affected. Healthcare advocates and citizen lobbyists are calling on all Californian’s to contact their State Assembly representatives and tell them you want the bill to go to the Floor for a vote. Contact information for your representatives can be found on Facebook Town hall, and online at legislature.ca.gov. Be heard! Be sure to register and vote in 2018.

The American Health Care Act is finally here! Music via the the Free Music Archive under Creative Commons licensing. Today’s music by Broke For Free, Evil Bear Boris, Blue Dot Sessions, Shake That Little Foot, The Joy Drops, and Darksunn. Show image via Flickr under Creative Commons licensing. This modified image by Don...The UpNorth Memories Guy... Senate Republicans have released their amendment to the already passed House bill - also known as TRUMPCARE. The bill is part of the “repeal and replace” campaign promise made by Donald Trump to eliminate the Affordable Care Act also referred to as Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office or CBO is the independent group charged with scoring the bill to see what kind of collateral damage we are looking at. Their score is expected to be released in the final week of June, but things already don’t look very good. The CBO had already warned that the House version of the bill which Donald “nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated” Trump creamed his jeans f0r, would potentially throw 23 million Americans off of insurance. While the Affordable Care Act actually expanded Medicaid to most states, the Republican bill all but eliminates it while giving massive tax breaks to corporations and billionaires. The bill is so unpopular that 4 Republicans have already come out in opposition to its passing. This act of GOP mutiny is being led by Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah, and Texas’ very own Ted Cruz. I can’t believe I’m about to say this, but if Ted Cruz thinks it’s bad for America then it must be reaaaallly fucked up. Because that’s like the shadiest car salesman ever telling you that all the cars on the lot are real lemons. Go. Run. A quick comment about Obamacare - when surveyed, a vast majority of people were in favor of the “Affordable Care Act” but when referred to as “Obamacare” many were adamantly opposed - EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE SAME LAW. Which leads me to believe that humans be FICKLE WITH THE DETAILS. While Obamacare was never perfect. I mean far, far from perfect, it is the best thing to happen to American’s health care since the invention of diet and exercise. Good things like not kicking a person off of insurance for being sick with a pre-existing condition. Fortunately, though perhaps too little, too late, many American’s are keen to this as promises to repeal the Affordable Care Act have resulted in overflowing town halls of angry people in motion - democracy in action - to Republican members of congress letting them know they are “displeased” with their representatives. And why wouldn’t they be? The new measure would not allow insurance companies to boot recipients off of insurance for pre-existing conditions, but if there is EVER a gap in coverage… oh boy, oh boy - to charge those same unfortunate souls seeking coverage astronomical amounts of money to punish them into better health, like luring a starving animal with a loaf of stale bread, only to beat it with it upon arrival. Of course the bill doesn’t eliminate Medicaid - it just guts it from the inside like a child told on Christmas morning that they were an unwanted pregnancy. NOBODY WANTS YOU BILLY! WHY DON’T YOU RUN AWAY AND JOIN A PETTING ZOO! Politicians can’t simply come out and say, “To the wonderfully average people of the great state of (fill in state name here) - my billionaire friends who fund my campaign each election have asked me to kill Medicaid. They said this so-called entitlement is rather inconvenient during this time of immense profitability for the most opulent and affluent among thee.” What they do instead is de-fund, de-fund, de-fund, mismanage and de-fund until citizens come and beg them to kill it off. This is essentially the Republican’s mantra. Step one: Place clowns in administrative positions. Step two: gut funding. Step three: Pop popcorn. Step four: Prepare lotion and Kleenex. Step five: Roll cameras. Ewww.. sounds sticky. But it is always darkest before the dawn. The California Senate just passed SB- 562, a single-payer health care bill called the Healthy California Act. Sometimes called “Medicare for all” a single-payer system is what is used in most other developed countries. SOCIALISTS! It means, there is one bill - and it goes directly to the government. If it sounds expensive, it’s because it is. Remember, “nobody knew healthcare would be so complicated” - or expensive! So we must ask the question - how the hell does California plan to pay for this cost saving measure? And how dare they? WAIT, WHAT??? That’s right, California plans to SAVE 8% on overall costs with a 2.3% tax on businesses. “The tyrannical government at it again - coming after small businesses!” Well, hold on there, Paul Revere. The first $2 million of every business is exempt, so my guess is this wouldn’t apply to you. California guesses it would apply to only 20% of you. So the richest and biggest businesses. “Oh, that poor Wal-Mart. How will they ever afford it with their low, low prices? And Mr. Mc-a-Donald? How is a dollar menu to remain a dollar menu in such times?” California will also set a 2.3% sales tax, offset by a 2% tax credit for the poorest families. So as California is actually ramping up its plan to save its taxpayers BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, we need to drop the façade that somehow having a single-payer, government ran healthcare system would be more expensive, because the numbers do not reflect this truth. These must be the same mathematicians hired by Creationists. “Hmmm let’s see, 5000 years ago for the bronze age (Jesus’ favorite metal btw)… 12,000 for natives in the Americas… 33,000 for cave art… 40o,ooo for stone spear hunting… weird plants, dinosaur bones - 120 million.. 240 million… 440 million, … Hallelujah! Earth is 6000 years old.” And just when you thought this message didn’t apply to Democrats, think again! Senator Cory Booker, a man of the people, a David to Goliath, a Sonny to our Cher - just sided with Republicans to stop a measure allowing the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. Why? I don’t know, but I can tell you it’s probably part of his interview process for his next job: pharmaceutical lobbyist. Classy bastard. So people are worried American health care is going to get more expensive? Well, not only do the numbers not pan out, but American health care per capita is already the MOST EXPENSIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. And not by a little bit. By a lot. Like Usain Bolt 100 meter sprint competitions against Stephen Hawking - lot. But not forever. Professor Hawking has you exactly where he wants you, Bolt. So if American spends the most, it’s care should be the best, right? WRONG! Because, it’s also consistently rated as ONE OF THE WORST HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS IN THE WORLD. And I mean that from the most objective place in my cold, lifeless, snow-flaky, libtard heart. The US consistently ranks as one of the worst systems in terms of efficiency when comparing life expectancy vs cost of care. We spend a whopping 18% of GDP on health care. While it’s true, the average American life span, though not the best at all, is still high 70s - this does you no good if every time you come back from the hospital you have a heart attack when you open your bill. So the good news? We are doing better than Russia. The bad news? According to Bloomberg, we rank 50 out of 55 in efficiency. Now, that doesn’t exactly mean life expectancy, even though maybe that’s how we should measure it. Let’s just keep with the status quo for arguments sake and treat every human like a number. One reason costs are so much more affordable in places like France and Germany is because the government will aggressively bargain with hospitals, medical providers, insurance companies, and pharmaceuticals. Remember that human turd, Martin Skrelli? He’s the guy that bought the Epipen and jacked up the price by a billion percent, because “fuck you”. That shit doesn’t happen in other countries? Why not? Because they have laws against that type of crap. So here’s a poem to help you remember which countries are better than us: Hong Kong and Singapore, man you know they’re first on the list, but them little shits is city states - and so I think you get the gist. Spain, South Korea, and Japan all made it to the top 5, One has massive unemployment but still manages to keep you alive. Mazel Tov in Israel even though we pay their military bills But it’s Emirates in the Middle East that’s healthcare really kills. Greece is in depression, a recession - but still livin' nice and old. Hell even Canada’s better, maple syrup mofos must be always cold. Mexico is filled with dead journalists run by gangs, murderers and drugs, but even they make our pharmacist lobbyists look like a flock of 3rd world thugs. For those keeping score at home, that means the US is stuck in a rut, between our Northern and Southern friends who no longer give a fuuuuu. Maybe they’ll get sessions wall-building lesson commies over in China, where you have better luck to find a doctor to examine your lady’s vagina. Former soviet Romania has more than bandaids in this rap, Apparently Malaysia too, but I can’t even find them mother fuckers on a map. Turkey is on its way to dictatorship but still better than Peru, even those terrorist-lovers in Iran have a working ICU. SAUDI ARABIA can cut off your neighbor’s head, and still give him a doctor when he’s clearly dead! Libya had great health care before the US screwed with it, bread is now harder to find anywhere, but the healthcare is still legit. In Ecuador, Belarus, or Serbia, you can find a nurse who plays the tuba, but the country with the most doctors are the sons of bitches down in Cuba. There’s a list of countries with healthcare better than the US of A, just remember that the next time you got medical bills to pay. Net Neutrality Day July 12th, mo-fers. Graphs and visual aids and shit are all available for this shit online. Google at it, dog. The United States is the most expensive country on the list, and also one of the worst upon delivery. Spending 18% of GDP, the second most spent by a country is a very distant Sweden at 12%. And in third place, Germany - where I just happen to have lived for the last 4 years. So I may be able to provide some insight on this topic. I pay about 25-30% of my paycheck in taxes. Is that a lot? Hell yes it’s a lot! But in reality it really ain’t much more than you pay right now in the states. Go look at your tax return. I’ll wait. I’m not gonna wait for you - this is a podcast. And what does that effectively mean in a country that spends over 10% of its GDP on healthcare? Well, instead of me telling you what a typical doctor’s visit is like. Let me instead offer you a reenactment of it. Forewarning, my German isn’t perfect so the grammar will not be the best. Deal with it. AND NOW… Gregory goes to the German Dr.’s office GREGORY: Hallo, Guten Tag. Ich habe mein Bein gebrochen. Es tut echt weh, und jetzt gibst Blut überall eure Boden. Es tut mir leid. Hello, good day. I have broken my leg. It really hurts, and now there is blood everywhere on your floor. I’m sorry. FRONT DESK: Grüß Gott. So es ist kein Notfall. Super. Haben Sie eine Versicherungskarte dabei? Greetings. So it is not an emergency. Super. Do you have an insurance card with you? GREGORY: Ja, natürlich! Was bin ich? Eine dumme Ami? Hier ist es. Of course! What am I? A dumb American? Here it is. FRONT DESK: Toll. Sitzen Sie bitte in unser Wartezimmer. Great. Have a seat in the waiting room. Fünf Minuten Später Five Minutes Later FRONT DESK: Herr Haddock, der Arzt wird Sie jetzt in Zimmer eins sehen. Mr. Haddock, the doctor will now see you in room #1. GREGORY: Boah! Das war richtig schnell! Wow! That was really fast! FRONT DESK: Ach! Ja Klar! Was denken Sie? Dass sind wir jetzt in Amerika? Ach! Of course! What do you think? That we’re in America? ARZT: Hallo, Herr Haddock - was ist genau der Problem? Hello Mr. Haddock - what is the problem exactly? GREGORY: Ich habe mein Bein gebrochen. Können Sie es reparieren? I broke my leg. Can you fix it? ARZT: Gott im Himmel nicht! Des ist ein Arzt Büro, kein Unfallstation! Sie sind nicht nur Depp aber dämlich. Sie müssen direkt ins Krankenhaus gehen. Ich rufe Ihnen ein Krankenwagen sofort an. God in heaven no! This is a doctor’s office, not an emergency room. You are not only stupid, but also dumb. You need to go directly to the hospital. I will call you an ambulance immediately. GREGORY: Oh, dass weiß ich nicht. Es klingt echt teuer… Oh, I don’t know. That sounds expensive. ARZT: Ach, Quatsch! Wir sind in Deutschland, nicht ein Drecksloch wie Amerika. Nonsense! We’re in Germany, not some shithole like America. GREGORY: Hoppla! Ha ha - Sie haben Drecksloch gesagt! Whoa! Ha ha, You said shithole! ARZT: Wie Amerika! Like America! GREGORY: Hoppla!! LOLZ Whoa! LOLZ ARZT: Hier ist auch ein Rezept für Schmerz Tabletten. Sie werden die brauchen. Here is also a prescription for pain pills. You will need them. GREGORY: Oh, ist das teuer? Oh, is that expensive? ARZT: Nein, ist kostenlos! No, it’s free! GREGORY: Mein Besuch ist aber teuer, ja? But my visit is expensive right? ARZT: Nein, was ist los mit dir, du total bescheuerte außerordentliche dumme Mensch. No, what’s wrong with you? You totally, stupid, inordinately dumb person. GREGORY: OK! Danke, Dr! Ok, thank you, doctor! ARZT: Bitte! Schönen Tag noch! Your welcome! Have a nice day! END SCENE I have one more anecdote for you. I know an older German couple here quite well, and am very familiar with their medical situations. Last year, the older man had a heart attack. He had chest pains in the morning, and decided to go to the hospital. Being a tough SOB he first showered before going, because - have some self-respect for yourself. In fact, his wife was angry with him for not shaving too. When we visited him in the hospital the thing that really struck me as odd about the situation was how calm he was about it all. And then it hit me - he had already surgery, and I found that the doctor was unusually helpful and friendly. The first and only question this sweet old man had was this: “When can I mow the lawn again.” Can you believe that shit? The entire mood of the setting was nothing but jubilant over the prospect that this man needed urgent care - and RECEIVED IT IN A TIMELY MANNER. No more than he had received his needed care, had he begun to forget the situation altogether. It was a shining example of how a society ought to treat the people they claim are part of the national family. No concerns about bills, about the next time - no what ifs, buts, or regrets. You have pain, you come in. Finished. He’s got a list of prescriptions and a collection of drugs that would put Charlie Sheen to shame. Eat shit, Charlie Sheen! And when I asked him how much he pays for his medication he told me next to nothing. Sometimes he has to pay a 5 Euro co-pay, but that’s it. That’s like $6. Otherwise, he doesn’t lose a wink of sleep over the whole ordeal, and he gets the care he needs when he needs it. A stark contrast to a country that constantly reminds its citizens that they don’t work hard enough, can’t help but sell guns and drop bombs, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right. That somehow there is nothing immoral about asking Americans to pay significantly more for good insurance by treating access to healthcare the same as being able to afford healthcare. There is no greater shame than this. This wonderful old man is alive and well today, and yes, still mowing the lawn as often as humanly possible - and boy does the grass look sharp. He is not plagued with anxiety about the future to come, because he lives in a country that gives a shit. So while what little healthcare Americans do have is under attack, I urge you in a CALL TO ACTION. If you are a female senior citizen who is struggling with drug addiction to cope with depression while simultaneously concerned about family planning or you are concerned about HUMANS dealing with any or all of these issues  — you need to run, not walk - or perhaps get the neighbor boy to drive you to your elected representative’s office and tell him or her to drop this Trumpcare nonsense, and move to support a single-payer or medicare-for-all bill - because all that you hold near and dear is in the hands of a group of seedy politicians desperately eager to please their financiers by selling your healthcare to the god damn devil.

In District One, one in seven people depend on Obamacare for their healthcare and nearly one third have pre-existing conditions now protected. In Washington, thirteen republicans are working behind closed doors fast tracking a modified version of the disastrous Trumpcare bill, that will strip healthcare away from twenty-three million Americans. But here in California, a statewide movement for a single payer healthcare system has emerged. And it’s the most fiscally responsible way to provide equitable coverage to all Californians. It’s called the Healthy California Act, or SB 562. And it’s got momentum. The bill has passed the State Senate and is now in front of the State Assembly. Most of us understand that the single payer system (like Medicare) is not a government run program (like the VA). It’s a method of paying for medical care. With Single-Payer, insurance company profits are removed from equation, leaving decisions on healthcare to patients and their doctors. It creates a trust fund for all healthcare funding, with a governing board of representatives from all stakeholders to pay the bills. Doctors would no longer need billing experts, or have to argue with insurance bureaucrats about getting paid. Under Single Payer, everyone is in one plan, patients, doctors, and hospitals. One network that includes everyone, giving the patients greater choices, not fewer. State Senator, Ted Gaines, voted against the bill, saying, “"California's boondoggle of a healthcare bill needs to be stopped" and “How will we pay for it?” - But Gaines’ “Sky is Falling” hyperbole ignores the fact that Californian’s already spend $385 billion a year on healthcare. And a suggested 2.3 percent sales tax increase on non-essential items, which includes safeguards for the poor and small businesses, is easily balanced by no longer needing to pay monthly insurance payments, co-pays, or high deductibles. And because there is no profit motive for the monies paid into the healthcare fund, Californian’s will have access to more services like, dental, vision, chiropractic, acupuncture, mental health and more. While Ted Gaines fights to protect insurance company CEO’s bottom lines, lobbyists are spending millions to defeat the act through lobbying, social media campaigns and ad buys. Gaines alone has received a quarter of a million dollars in campaign contributions from the Health Insurance sector. Corporate interests and politicians aside, citizen lobbyists are campaigning in record numbers in support of Single Payer, through phone, email, and public rallies in Sacramento. Remember your vote is your voice. Be heard. Be sure to register and vote in 2018.

The news is out! The California Senate Health Committee passed SB 562 the Healthy California Act. “In the run up to this day we’ve been meeting with thousands of Californians all across the state in meetings, rallies and town halls," said Bonnie Castillo RN, CNA/NNU Associate Executive Director. "The combination of nurses working with all of you community organizers is a winning combination. We are demonstrating to our elected officials what Californians need and that’s a fair, just and equitable healthcare system for all.

The time is here for SINGLE PAYER and there is a GROUNDSWELL OF SUPPORT. The SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE MOVEMENT—more specifically California’s Healthy California Act or SB 562 and on a National level HR 676 a Single Payer Bill introduced by John Conyers. Both bills are garnering much attention. Executive Director of Progressive Democrats of America, Donna Smith joins Nurse Talk Radio.

The time is here for SINGLE PAYER and there is a GROUNDSWELL OF SUPPORT. The SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE MOVEMENT—more specifically California’s Healthy California Act or SB 562 and on a National level HR 676 a Single Payer Bill introduced by John Conyers. Both bills are garnering much attention. Executive Director of Progressive Democrats of America, Donna Smith joins Nurse Talk Radio.

In the news, CA SB 562 is a proposal to have single payer healthcare in California and two hardware/apps for breathing and symptom management.   Resources Mentioned: Gothamist interview with Dr. Barbara Fisher about election anxiety and things you can do to re-center yourself in times of change.  Lena Dunham being interviewed by various media publications about her anxiety and depression condition. She spoke with the The New Yorker, The Fix and Vogue Magazine. Houston Chronicle article about loss of access to mental health services if the Affordable Health Act is repeals and not replaced. There is a possibility that single payer healthcare is coming to California. SB 565 the Californians for a Healthy California Act has been introduced.  The Los Angeles Times has a write-up about the first rumblings about the bill.  Leif Patch Breath Monitoring device.  There are two official web sites The Touchpoint Solution and Buzzies. There is also a Buzzies YouTube Channel.   If you're having suicidal thoughts, contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline for immediate help: 1-800-273-TALK (8255).   Disclaimer: Links to other sites are provided for information purposes only and do not constitute endorsements. Always seek the advice of a qualified health provider with questions you may have regarding a medical or mental health disorder. This podcast is intended for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing in this program is intended to be a substitute for professional psychological, psychiatric or medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.