My apologies for the inexcusable delay in posting your comment. Your first comment was held for moderation, but you should be able to post comments and see them instantly from now on, as long as you don't post more than one link per comment (multilink comments are automatically held for moderation to cut down on comment spam). And welcome to the site!

As for your comment, sure there is plenty of blame to go around, but if the senate had done the hard work -- rather than punting it to the assembly -- then it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place. If the senate had constructed a complete plan, then we could evaluate it adequately. Because they didn't, we can't.

What is stopping the senate from going back and fleshing out their own plan? If they voted to defy other Dems in CA, then they can do so again. But they'd have to vote for both the candy and the vegetables this time, and show us all how it would be paid for. When they do reach this point, then I'll jump on the bandwagon decrying other Dems for not supporting it, but not until.

Half a plan is not a plan.

-CW

Rendon didn't do this because the bill is "woefully incomplete" - plenty of bills, including Jerry Brown's pet bill for Cap and Trade, go from one statehouse to another with details yet to be added - that's the job of legislators.

He put the bill on hold to provide cover to a number of other state representatives who like him, get a lot of donations from the Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry. These members of the "Mod Squad" would be vulnerable to primary challenges is they were to vote against Single Payer. Because Rendon is such an able fundraiser, it was thought that he could better withstand a primary challenge, so he agreed to take the hit on the bill.

All of the establishment Democratic Party talking points are just talking points. After 2017, the ACA allows states to try other ideas for extending healthcare to their citizens - and gives them freedom to determine how to apply Medicaid dollars to such programs. The Cap and Trade bill just signed doesn't require a certain amount of money raised to go to education as Prop. 98 demands, because of the way it was written. The Assembly could easily have SB 562 function similarly.

Rendon's hope is that the backers of the Healthy California Act will be forced to make it a ballot measure, where it will go up against hundreds of millions of dollars from the corporations that currently serve as the middlemen between us and our doctors. Prop. 61 prompted Big Pharma to spend $130 Million for its defeat. A bill that eliminates Health Insurance corporations and the upwards of 30% of our healthcare dollars that go to "administrative costs," advertising and executive compensation, is going to unleash an even bigger onslaught of cash to defeat it on the ballot. That's why the best place to achieve Universal, comprehensive, single-payer insurance is the state legislature.

Even if the Republicans in Washington can't get it together to all-out repeal the ACA, Donald Trump and Tom Price are undermining it to the point where we're going to witness huge premium increases and various insurance companies bailing from the various state exchanges. Now is the time for California to move on to a Plan B that is smarter than just trying to keep the ACA in place. Now is the time for California to join the rest of the civilized world and also to lead the rest of the US by passing SB 562 and getting single-payer healthcare to all Californians!

Which is why what you are advocating is such an important part of any political discussion.

I'm surprised that it doesn't get more traction here ...

There are actually relatively few choices, and a lot of middlemen.

Indeed.

With a good single-payer system there are no middlemen and everyone is covered for everything, with just a few exceptions like, in the case of Canada, dental care (basic dental care should be included in your coming single payer system if you want to be the best), eye care (basic eye care should be included in your single payer system if you want to be the best), chiropractor, you know, that kind of thing.

There are actually relatively few choices, and a lot of middlemen. The quality is ultimately high, but efficiency is low. Costs are 2 to 3 times that of other deveoped nations offering comparable care. Medicare gives me a big susidy, so I'm shielded from the costs. In that sense, and practically only in that sense, it is socialized medicine. ..or if you prefer, it spreads risk across generations. I subsidized my parents during my peak earning years, my kids subsidize me now.

Choice is not always a good thing.

Offering choice in healthcare betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what healthcare is, who needs it, and why private insurance companies are lousy providers.

I go completely out of network for some precription drugs. For example, I buy my statin through an online "coupon system" completely independent of my medicare plan. It costs about 1/3 less than through my Medicare tier, and avoids any "doughnut hole" (an awful neologism) liability. This definitely isn't always the best way to go, so due diligence is required.

I get a couple of pages of Medicare summary paperwork in the mail each month, but my network is rapidly trying to get completely on line. The system isn't exactly care free. Still it's extremely good coverage considering how little I pay (bigger subidy than
Obama Care) and premiums are simply deducted from my monthly social security check.

Bottom line, Medicare isn't exactly socialized medicine and it doesn't fly hands off. For all practical purposes, it alteady offers users a lot choices from different for profit providers.

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally!!!

As a Canadian, I spend zero time and energy on my superior healthcare and my income tax takes care of the cost end of things. Nothing could be easier that provides this kind of service.