san francisco universal health care

[wanaberetiree]

I wonder if there are actual users of san francisco universal health care here, who can elaborate eligibility and other details of it?

Thx

 

[wanaberetiree]

Wow !! Nobody's using it I guess .... So much for it

 

[Rambler]

My kids are living in SF. Never heard of it...they are moving out of there in 4 more days though...

 

[FIREd]

Lived in SF until recently. I never heard of this “universal health care”, but I did hear that the uninsured and indigent could get free care at SF General Hospital.

 

[jim584672]

Sounds like it is for people who don't qualify for Medicaid / ACA because they are not citizens or green card holders.

 

[Major Tom]

It's called "Healthy San Francisco" and from what I understand, it is designed to provide coverage for those who are not able to qualify for insurance via other avenues. In itself, it is not universal healthcare, but it looks as if it is designed to ensure universal healthcare for all SF residents, if that makes sense.

 

[wanaberetiree]

It's called "Healthy San Francisco" and from what I understand, it is designed to provide coverage for those who are not able to qualify for insurance via other avenues. In itself, it is not universal healthcare, but it looks as if it is designed to ensure universal healthcare for all SF residents, if that makes sense.

So any SF resident can get it regardless income/assets ?

 

[Major Tom]

So any SF resident can get it regardless income/assets ?

Not quite. Your income has to be under 500% of the FPL, and you have to have been uninsured for at least 90 days. This link should help explain things.

 

[Another Reader]

Here's an article from the San Jose paper. First I have heard of it.

San Francisco’s universal health care plan eyed as model for California – The Mercury News

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Gavin Newsom is going to use his background as former mayor of SF and initiating Universal Care in SF to run for California governor on a single payer platform in California.

He has an interesting track record so far. He was the mayor who first started issuing same sex marriage licenses in SF in 2004, which was a pretty bold move at the time, and now same sex marriages are legal across the U.S.

 

[Another Reader]

Except it wasn't his plan. It was Ammiano's plan for which he is taking credit.

 

[gayl]

I've seen something similar to this in Contra Costa County and Alameda County. Basically it is a way for you to receive coverage as long as you're seen within their very closed system. So if you travel anywhere, you're not covered. If you're seen by a provider or clinic that is not within their system, you're not covered. Think of it is simply writing off your medical bill at one of their preferred locations.

It's not insurance as we know it --- more a promise to not bill the patient as long as the patient is seen at an affiliated site (which are only in SF)

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Except it wasn't his plan. It was Ammiano's plan for which he is taking credit.

Are you sure? I've read Ammiano had this plan which is not what was implemented. What is in effect in SF is a direct care model, not insurance. Enrollees are not covered outside of SF so it is not insurance.

 

[6miths]

Well whoever's plan it was it sounds like a reasonable idea. I am surprised that no one has thought of it before...

 

[Major Tom]

I've seen something similar to this in Contra Costa County and Alameda County.

Yes, if I remember correctly, the system in Alameda County was called HealthPac, before the Medicaid expansion came into effect. I didn't know that Contra Costa County had a similar system.

 

[Brat]

I know nothing of the program but many of us on the west coast are concerned about infectious diseases establishing a reservoir among the homeless, such as Hep A in San Diego. San Diego hepatitis outbreak continues to grow: 481 cases - LA Times If these people can come in for treatment or if not infected a healthcare professional can explore prevention it will cost us all a lot less in the long run.

 

[pb4uski]

I've seen something similar to this in Contra Costa County and Alameda County. Basically it is a way for you to receive coverage as long as you're seen within their very closed system. So if you travel anywhere, you're not covered. If you're seen by a provider or clinic that is not within their system, you're not covered. Think of it is simply writing off your medical bill at one of their preferred locations.

It's not insurance as we know it --- more a promise to not bill the patient as long as the patient is seen at an affiliated site (which are only in SF)

So if a SF resident is uninsured and qualifies under this "plan" and gets a serious illness/cancer or something like that and stays within this closed system and their treatment ends up costing $1 million.... then no problem and all the bills are waived?

 

[38Chevy454]

As Margaret Thatcher said: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

California already has terrible finances. Any statewide program will only make that worse. Not that San Francisco is any different, it can't be good for city finances.

 

[gayl]

So if a SF resident is uninsured and qualifies under this "plan" and gets a serious illness/cancer or something like that and stays within this closed system and their treatment ends up costing $1 million.... then no problem and all the bills are waived?

Yes. If like Alameda & Contract Costa Plans, MDs are county employees so salaried by county not paid by patient. Hospitals owned by county. City (and county in SF is same thing) not really costing 1m as all costs are capped. It can work but drawback is waiting times

Wondering why Ohio thinks California has "terrible finances" when acording to Wikipedia it's still:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California
If the state were considered separately, it would rank as the sixth largest economy in the world, behind rest of the United States, China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that California's GDP was $2.5 trillion in 2015, up 4.1 percent from a year earlier.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

As Margaret Thatcher said: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

California already has terrible finances. Any statewide program will only make that worse. Not that San Francisco is any different, it can't be good for city finances.

Yet interesting, all the other countries with some form of universal healthcare have much lower per capita costs:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...-the-most-and-least-on-health-care-per-person

"With development, health outcomes generally improve, but the U.S. is an anomaly. The U.S. and the U.K. are both high-income, highly developed countries. The U.K. spends less per person ($3,749) on health care than the U.S. ($9,237). Despite its high spending, the U.S. does not have the best health outcomes."

 

[gayl]

Could it be because they cap the costs? (Like SF, Alameda, Contra Costa)

 

[38Chevy454]

The per capita costs have nothing to do with who pays. These plans being proposed are paid by the people contributing taxes. Not by the recipients. CA continues to tax those people working at high rates vs most other states, a lot of it because of all the social spending programs. These plans will only add to that required money needed from the people that pay taxes.

CA finances have been bad for many years, with high state debt; and to what affects many retirees, the underfunded state pension funds. This also has nothing to do with the GDP of the state.

The high speed rail project is another poor choice of taxpayer money. But that's a different discussion than the state becoming a single payer health care system.

 

[gayl]

Yes we believe everyone is entitled to healthcare.

 

[Bir48die]

Yes we believe everyone is entitled to healthcare.

And a job and subsidies and rent control and food stamps and and and and

 

[gayl]

What's that saying?

Bacon?