boomerjamhead Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Victory is near! SAN FRANCISCO - San Francisco moved closer Tuesday to becoming the nation's first city to provide health care coverage for all its residents. The city's Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a plan that would give adults access to medical services regardless of immigration or employment status. The plan's estimated cost is $200 million a year.
Orton's Arm Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Apparently, their goal is to do to San Francisco what countless misguided politicians have done to New York State. My gut tells me that $200 million figure is a gross underestimate of this plan's true cost. I strongly doubt it takes into account all the people who will move into the city to mooch off the system.
Wacka Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Apparently, their goal is to do to San Francisco what countless misguided politicians have done to New York State. My gut tells me that $200 million figure is a gross underestimate of this plan's true cost. I strongly doubt it takes into account all the people who will move into the city to mooch off the system. 725774[/snapback] And all of the businesses that move out or go bankrupt.
Alaska Darin Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Apparently, their goal is to do to San Francisco what countless misguided politicians have done to New York State. My gut tells me that $200 million figure is a gross underestimate of this plan's true cost. I strongly doubt it takes into account all the people who will move into the city to mooch off the system. 725774[/snapback] Mark my words, that number is low by a factor of five. Minimum. The Big Dig is over 5 times the projected number when the project started - and that is a CONSTRUCTION project handled by Bechtel/Parsons - the most established firms of their type in the world. If they can screw up that bad, there's no way the city of SF isn't going to be off AT LEAST that much.
olivier in france Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Apparently, their goal is to do to San Francisco what countless misguided politicians have done to New York State. My gut tells me that $200 million figure is a gross underestimate of this plan's true cost. I strongly doubt it takes into account all the people who will move into the city to mooch off the system. 725774[/snapback] well with the levels of the rents and home prices in SF i doubt some needy people will actually find a way to become residents of San Francisco! In fact the mayor of SF does not take musk risks with this decision... those last 10 years SF has slowly become a big gated community for the wealthy.
UConn James Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 well with the levels of the rents and home prices in SF i doubt some needy people will actually find a way to become residents of San Francisco! In fact the mayor of SF does not take musk risks with this decision... those last 10 years SF has slowly become a big gated community for the wealthy. 725803[/snapback] Olivier, In quite a dichotomy; it's home to the largest number of millionaires in the US per capita. But SF also has a sizable homeless population. My brother was walking with his fiance there and they were approached by a really raggy-looking woman, who asked said fiance, "Where did you find such a handsome man? .... Can I borrow him for 30 minutes?"
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 But SF also has a sizable homeless population. My brother was walking with his fiance there and they were approached by a really raggy-looking woman, who asked said fiance, "Where did you find such a handsome man? .... Can I borrow him for 30 minutes?" 725835[/snapback] Shocking...finding a straight woman in SF...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Olivier, In quite a dichotomy; it's home to the largest number of millionaires in the US per capita. But SF also has a sizable homeless population. My brother was walking with his fiance there and they were approached by a really raggy-looking woman, who asked said fiance, "Where did you find such a handsome man? .... Can I borrow him for 30 minutes?" 725835[/snapback] It's SAN FEKKING FRANCISCO!
olivier in france Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Olivier, In quite a dichotomy; it's home to the largest number of millionaires in the US per capita. But SF also has a sizable homeless population. My brother was walking with his fiance there and they were approached by a really raggy-looking woman, who asked said fiance, "Where did you find such a handsome man? .... Can I borrow him for 30 minutes?" 725835[/snapback] OK James but how can homeless people prove they're "SF residents"! To be part of this program they'll probably ask the recipients to prove they live in SF with invoices, renting contracts, tax papers....
UConn James Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Shocking...finding a straight woman in SF... 725852[/snapback] Maybe she wanted him to build her some shelves.
VABills Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 OK James but how can homeless people prove they're "SF residents"!To be part of this program they'll probably ask the recipients to prove they live in SF with invoices, renting contracts, tax papers.... 725867[/snapback] While it says residents? It also says regardless of status, so I don't think proof would be required, just show up to the appropriate free health center.
UConn James Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 OK James but how can homeless people prove they're "SF residents"!To be part of this program they'll probably ask the recipients to prove they live in SF with invoices, renting contracts, tax papers.... 725867[/snapback] I'd imagine they're pretty loose in determining that. Remember that this is the Gavin Newsom admin. Maybe through homeless shelters or the social services. The Massachussetts statewide health care plan looks like it'll work, but there's a long list of reasons why it's feasible, when trying the same thing in SF or Nebraska or anywhere else would not be. I think Romney & the Dem sponsors really got sick of how the insurance companies operate -- they've had to switch govt-employee providers a few times -- to the point where a Tylenol pill in the hospital costs $10. I could go on about how the insurance companies utterly $%^& the health care situation in this country, but I'm not FFS/Pyrite Gal. I am of the opinion that health care needs to be more accessible than it is. One person or a small group not seeking treatment b/c they can't afford it can result in epidemics where everyone in the community gets sick. You can see this on a small scale with one inconsiderate person who comes to work with the flu, all the way up to how AIDS spread through, how avian flu could potentially become airborne.... etc. But there also can't be an incentive to be a free rider.
Wacka Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 well with the levels of the rents and home prices in SF i doubt some needy people will actually find a way to become residents of San Francisco! In fact the mayor of SF does not take musk risks with this decision... those last 10 years SF has slowly become a big gated community for the wealthy. 725803[/snapback] I live in the area. The scenery is beautiful, but the city is run by the most leftist group of people in the country. The current mayor was the nmost conservative of the ones running this time. The DA had a policy where they wouldn't prosecute prostitution. I had to do some work in SF at the end of May. Homeless all over. There is a nice plaza in front of City Hall and there were at least a dozen bums sleeping on the grass at 11 AM. They do nothing to get them to move along. Mission Street (the main drag) smelled of urine. Instead of getting the bums to come to facilities for help, they hand them money. The TV interviewed people that said they either live or are homeless in Oaland (acros the bay) and take the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) to get the $ in SF. San Francisco is the least kid friendly city in America. . Only about 12 % of the population is under 18. The TV interviewed a mom who said it was unberaable. The local playground (in one of the nicer neighborhoods) had a medical mariuana pot club a few doors down and a homeless shelter on the other side. The playground was littered with syringes and booze bottles almost every morning. San Jose is about 60 miles south at the bottom of the bay. The city is spread out , suburban in most of it ,and has 250,000 more people than SF. The murder rate is very low. They have about one half the murders that Bufffalo does which is at least 3 times smaller.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Apparently, their goal is to do to San Francisco what countless misguided politicians have done to New York State. My gut tells me that $200 million figure is a gross underestimate of this plan's true cost. I strongly doubt it takes into account all the people who will move into the city to mooch off the system. 725774[/snapback] Nothing kills your economy faster than increasing the amount of welfare programs! There is no doubt that the health insurance field is screwed up, but taxpayer supported welfare systems are not the answer. I agree that they will go way over budget. I don't think this program will last more than a year. the people who can afford good health care will travel outside San Francisco to get it (just like the wealthy Canadians coming here) because the health facilities in the city will be overun by the poor and will find themselves severly understaffed/undersized. How long until the first lawsuit from somebody denied service due to residency? When you include illegals (documentarily challenged) in the mix, how can you turn anyone down?
olivier in france Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 I live in the area. The scenery is beautiful, but the city is run by the most leftist group of people in the country. The current mayor was the nmost conservative of the ones running this time. The DA had a policy where they wouldn't prosecute prostitution. I had to do some work in SF at the end of May. Homeless all over. There is a nice plaza in front of City Hall and there were at least a dozen bums sleeping on the grass at 11 AM. They do nothing to get them to move along. Mission Street (the main drag) smelled of urine. Instead of getting the bums to come to facilities for help, they hand them money. The TV interviewed people that said they either live or are homeless in Oaland (acros the bay) and take the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) to get the $ in SF. San Francisco is the least kid friendly city in America. . Only about 12 % of the population is under 18. The TV interviewed a mom who said it was unberaable. The local playground (in one of the nicer neighborhoods) had a medical mariuana pot club a few doors down and a homeless shelter on the other side. The playground was littered with syringes and booze bottles almost every morning. San Jose is about 60 miles south at the bottom of the bay. The city is spread out , suburban in most of it ,and has 250,000 more people than SF. The murder rate is very low. They have about one half the murders that Bufffalo does which is at least 3 times smaller. 725914[/snapback] well Wacka i do not recognise the SF i've seen last year. I've lived in SF for 3 months back in 1992 . Some areas of the city were then really dirty, full of homeless people, especially south of Market and around the City Hall. First time back next year i was surprised, it looked like everything had been "cleaned', outside a few streets around Market , the old Tenderloin ghetto, all the homeless people are gone... SF looks like the safest big city in the US!... But well of course if they don't ask anything to prove residency, well they all gonna come back in a hurry!
Recommended Posts