As a person whose economic life was ruined 23 years ago at age 23, when I got a lupus diagnosis and lost my health insurance, I know I'm only alive thanks to government health care--and charity, which has so far kept me from dying of the poverty I have to stay in to GET the government health care.
House HELP Passes Amendment to Allow State Single-Payer Experimentation
America's registered nurses and other guaranteed healthcare activists are hailing the vote last night by House Education and Labor Committee to amend the national healthcare reform bill and give individual states the freedom to adopt single-payer, Medicare-for-All style reforms.
This bi-partisan vote affirms the best of American democracy. The exemptions would life federal mandates on healthcare money and free states to act as the laboratories of democracy they are supposed to. The vote is also an encouragement to progressives who are looking for paths to improve the parameters of the healthcare debate.
In a stunning show of fealty to insurance giant Safeco, 14 Republican state Senators and 11 Assemblymembers have asked the California Supreme Court to overturn an appellate ruling that Safeco Insurance has to disclose the names of policyholders it may have cheated.
Considering that state lawmakers are supposed to be spending their time grappling with the disastrous state budget, it must be very important to these lawmakers to protect Safeco from accountability for overcharging Californians, including, no doubt, folks in their district. Who do they think are their constituents?... O' Safeco, how can we serve you?
The Senators who signed the letter are, pictured from left to right, Sen. Cogdil, Sen. Aanasted, Sen. Benoit, Sen. Ashburn, Sen. Cox and Sen. Hollingsworth, as well as Senators Denham, Dutton, Harman, Huff, Runner, Strickland, Walters and Wyland (Maldonado is the only Republican Senator not to sign). Also signing were Assemblymembers Smyth, Tran, Strickland, Silva, Fletcher, Berryhill, Garrick, Gilmore, Fuller, Anderson and Logue.
The tradition of brave and proud nurse activism for guaranteed healthcare on the single-payer model continued today thanks to Janice Webb, RN, and her nurse intervention at the convention of the health insurance industry in San Diego, AHIP. They're the lobbyists for the insurance giants who make money by denying care to the very patients that Janice cares for at UC-San Diego Medical Center.
With the final White House Forum on healthcare scheduled Monday, April 6 in downtown Los Angeles, advocates of single payer/guaranteed healthcare have one more opportunity to shake up what has become a dreary conventional wisdom about the presumed acceptable parameters of the debate.
Hundreds of nurses, doctors, healthcare and labor activists will rally at 9 a.m. outside the California Endowment, 1000 North Alameda St., Los Angeles.
It will mark the fifth time, at all five White House regional forums, that the single payer/Medicare for all message will come to the stage, outside and inside the forum. You can extend that to the town hall meeting at the White House last week where the President was asked why we can't have a national healthcare system like they have in other industrialized nations.
In a sign of the growing health care crisis in California, the number of health insurance policies offering maternity benefits - from pre-natal screenings to birth - has dropped dramatically in recent years. In the aftermath of the failure of Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Year of Health Care Reform" in 2007 all sides agreed to pursue greater regulation of the insurance industry as a stopgap before a broader solution was reached. And yet Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have mandated insurance plans cover maternity.
About 805,000 Californians have insurance policies that specifically exclude maternity coverage - a number that has more than quadrupled from 192,000 in 2004, according to the California Health Benefits Review Program, which provides independent analysis of proposed health insurance benefits mandates.
"You see this tremendous jump in just a few years. That's where we're going with this," said Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate (Los Angeles County), whose bill to require maternity coverage is headed to the Assembly Health Committee today. Insurance companies are "pushing these policies clearly onto people, and people are making their decisions based solely on dollars and cents."
De La Torre's bill, AB 98, would solve this problem. But Arnold has repeatedly vetoed the bill, including one by then-State Senator Jackie Speier in 2004.
The failure of insurance companies to provide these basic benefits is especially acute here in Monterey County. The Chronicle article linked above profiled Wendy Root Askew, a good friend of mine, whose experience typifies the problem that results from insurers' refusal to provide basic maternity benefits:
When Wendy Root Askew of Monterey started looking for a doctor she hoped would be her gynecologist as well as deliver her future children, she was shocked to discover her health insurance policy didn't include a single OB/GYN in her county.
The 31-year-old considered changing health plans. But then she learned that while 85 percent of the plans available in Monterey County offered maternity coverage five years ago, just 15 percent offer it now.
She found only two individual policies that included maternity, but they were three to five times as much as the policy she already had and came with annual deductibles of up to $15,000.
What the insurers that oppose AB 98 claim is that if a woman gets pregnant, she can purchase maternity benefits for an "additional sum". Insurers claim this amount is small, but as Wendy found it is anything but small - it can be as much as five times the monthly cost of existing health insurance. A $15,000 deductible is essentially punishing women for getting pregnant, a stunning example of gender bias and inequality in an insurance system where prostate exams are routinely covered by basic plans.
Some insurers, and Republican opponents of AB 98 like Audra Strickland, claim that it would cost all Californians more money to mandate maternity benefits be included in all health insurance policies. And while that might mean a whopping average increase of $7 per month per policy (oh noez!) for Californians, the savings are actually much larger. Numerous studies show that proper prenatal care is vital to the long-term health of a child. By spending a little more per month to ensure all insurance policies provide expectant mothers with maternity benefits, we will be saving a far larger sum when their children turn out to be healthier.
Strickland in particular argues that it's a matter of choice - if women want to get pregnant, they should choose to pay the extra cost. This is absurd on its face. By segmenting high-cost risks out of the insurance "market" you're also actually undermining the entire system of insurance. Insurance is supposed to work by pooling the cost of risk, making it cheaper for everyone to get health care. By dumping the costs of pregnancy onto a small handful of people, health care costs actually soar, public health is undermined, and insurance as a system will go from a state of near-collapse to total collapse.
In reality Strickland, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, are arguing that the only "choice" here is whether one accepts that unless you're wealthy or lucky enough to still have a job with group coverage, you're going to not be able to afford to have a child. It's typical conservatism - the rich can afford the basics of life, and who cares about those who cannot?
There is no plausible reason to oppose AB 98, and certainly no reason for Arnold Schwarzenegger to again veto the bill, unless he believes that society has no obligation at all to ensure that mothers and their children are healthy. And while AB 98 won't solve the health care crisis itself - and it's surely no substitute for true universal health care - it is a sensible and necessary move to provide gender equity and basic health care to mothers and children.
Over the flip is Wendy Root Askew's testimony given to an Assembly committee on AB 98 last week.
Haven't we heard this song before? It sure looks like the people who already control our healthcare system are framing the biggest issues of the present healthcare reform debate.
From the back rooms to the committee hearings to the White House summits to the front pages of the newspapers, the demands of the insurance industry are given enormous deference and accommodation.
Is it fear of Harry and Louise, the insurance campaign that some believe torpedoed the muddled Clinton health proposal? Is it the considerable influence of insurance industry contributions in the pockets of many legislators?
Both our current and former insurance commissioners want to be your next governor. But given that they are running in different primaries, they have to appease a much different set of interest groups. John Garamendi, the current LG and former insurance commissioner, pushed for greater consumer rights in the insurance industry. Given that his current position is largely one of "in-waiting" status, he's made sure to opine on a broad range of subjects. Current insurance commissioner Steve Poizner is a frequent object of his ire.
And you can't blame him, it must be hard to see much of your work undone. On the other hand, it shouldn't really surprise anybody that Poizner is prioritizing insurance profits over consumer protection. It's not just that Poizner is a CalChamber Republican, but that he has also been quite tight with the insurance industry.
While Poizner campaigned on not taking money from the insurance industry, he sure did raise quite a bit of insurance cash for those old Prop 77 commercials in the special election of 2005. You know, the ones that got his mug all over the teevee up and down the state. I have to admit, it was a pretty clever move to get the insurance companies to donate money to that campaign instead of his own. It required a bit of foresight and planning, and turned out quite well for him as he was bashing Cruz Bustamante over the head on the issue.
The latest issue of dispute deals with disability insurance. Specifically, the regulations in question deal with how insurance companies go after money the insured consumer receives from other sources, what are known as "offsets." Poizner says there is too much red tape, Garamendi says the regulation was/is needed. I'm inclined to go with Garamendi, and this attorney who deals with this stuff regularly:
"If the regulations go away, insurance companies will go back to doing what they've been doing for the last 30 years," said Glenn Kantor, a Northridge attorney who deals with disability issues. "They'll do what they want." (SJ Merc 1/20/09)
When insurance companies have the leeway to abuse the system, they do so. So, yes, the regulations are necessary.
As the governor's race heats up, I imagine we'll see more of this between Poizner and Garamendi. Fun!
• It is truly sad that the swelled ranks of the California jobless can't get through to the unemployment office to file their claims. I remember this being a problem the one time I used the state unemployment system several years ago, I can only imagine how impossible it is today.
• This CMR analysis touts "Obama's hidden coattails" for Congressional candidates in California. I believe they were hidden because there weren't any. Obama is the first Democrat to win the state without flipping a seat Dem since 1940.
• The California Supreme Court made a big decision on health insurance today. Basically the case says that ERs cannot go after patients in disputes with the insurance company. It is a big win for consumer advocates, who had argued that consumers were getting caught in the crossfire of the hospitals and the insurance companies.
• The trial of former OC Sheriff Mike "America's Sheriff" Carona went to the jury today. We'll let you know about the verdict just as soon as we hear.
• Expect even more stringent restrictions on smoking outside restaurant patios and doorways in Los Angeles. It should be noted that the biggest public health benefit of the last 50 years has been cigarette taxes. Anything that helps encourage people to quit using a substance that can kill them makes at least some sense to me, nanny-state considerations be damned.
• Newly Elected SF Supervisor David Chiu was elected Board President. He succeeds his predecessor, Aaron Peskin, in District 3 as well. Chiu was considered something of a consensus candidate. He's a bit easier to get along with than Peskin, but will likely still take issue with the Mayor.
Like everyone, I've been watching the bloodbath on Wall Street unfold, but I had figured that so far, I'm relatively unaffected by it all, since I haven't involved myself in any of the investments (and losses) that such outfits as Bear Stearns, Countrywide, or AIG made. I have been pretty prudent with my money, and I thought I would stay clear of the damage. Now I'm not so sure.
On Saturday, I got a new policy declaration from my auto insurer, 21st Century. I've been pretty happy with thim, and it was nice to be going with a California company. But now, even though the declaration does list 21st Century at the bottom, up on the top, prominently displayed is the "AIG" logo.
I admit I knew this was coming, and up until recently, I wasn't particularly concerned since AIG is (was) a really big, solid insurance company with a good conservative reputation (and I like that in an insurance company). But in light of the news about the company, this change is no longer comforting.
Things have been further complicated by Governor Paterson's statement today that AIG would be able to "tap its subsidiaries" for up to $20 billion in "liquidity" to help it through a rough patch. Just which "subsidiaries" does the Governor mean?
If it's 21st Century, I am not pleased. It doesn't happen that often, but insurance companies do default on their obligations from time to time. It happened to me about 20 years ago with another car insurance company, and I ended up in the "assigned risk" pool while I undertook the always pleasant task of shopping for car insurance. That's how and when I ended up with 21st Century (back when it was only 20th Century).
I don't want to go auto insurance shopping, and I don't want to have to do it more than once either. I am left with the uneasy feeling that if AIG sucks the reserves out of Century 21, I'll be in the assigned risk pool again.
Also, if I do find another company, I am really not all that assured that it won't be at risk as well. This whole financial mess is much more complex than just the parts we know about, and probably all the insurers are hooked into crazy investments like Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Dept Obligations. SO, while I shop, I have to wonder if I'm simply trading one problem for another.
I called the Department of Insurance today to find out it anyone there knew what was going on and what might happen if AIG does drag 21st Century down. I should have spent my time on something else, because they either don't know anything or aren't going to tell anyone anything until there really is a problem.
Tomorrow, I think I will be calling 21st Century just to see if they can give me any assurances. If they can't, I guess I will be spending my free time in the next couple of weeks evaluating auto policies and insurance company balance sheets. WooHoo!
A few months ago, there was great hope that the Department of Managed Health Care was going after the big insurance companies on the rescission of individual policies. The DMHC is an executive department, and thus reports to Arnold, not to the Insurance Commissioner (Poizner). So, a few weeks ago we got the news that the DMHC called off the dogs against Blue Cross because they knew Blue Cross would just litigate them to death. Or something like that.
I know, it's shocking that Arnold's administration wouldn't pursue a corporation, but they thought it better just to let BC get off on that charge and settle with them elsewhere. Ther problem with that? The settlement that the DMHC agreed to with the biggest five insurers in the state is barely a slap on the wrist. The new procedure requires patients to go through a vague arbitration procedure where they have to prove their case.
Mind you the arbitrator will see far more of the insurance companies than the patients. Where do you think this is going? Yup, just like other arbirtration settings this is going to end up favoring the big company. By the by, that link above states that 99.8% of the cases filed by consumers against credit card companies decided on the merits end up with the company winning. 99.8%! That's a track record minor deities wouldn't mind. And even when they get to the arbitrators, cases under $15,000 will typically be decided on the paperwork only. Furthermore, the settlement doesn't define any legal standards for these decisions, but it appears the legal burden of proof is on the patient to prove he didn't lie rather than the insurer to prove they did.
This is no victory at all. And that's part of why LA City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo filed suit against Blue Shield in mid-July.
"For decades, health insurers have gamed the system and reaped billions," Delgadillo said. "The time has come to . . . set things right."
The suit also accuses Blue Shield of falsely advertising its coverage, alleging that the company often reneges when its members need substantial medical care.
Dr. Richard Frankenstein, president of the California Medical Assn., and Dr. Robert Bitonte, president-elect of the Los Angeles County Medical Assn., praised Delgadillo's efforts to stop the practice known as rescission. (LAT 7.17.08)
Single-payer (likely at the national level) is the ultimate solution, but meanwhile, back in reality land, the insurers are getting off scott free. If the DMHC is going to claim to do its job, it can't leaving gaping loopholes like this. Delgadillo and other attorneys will have to press the insurance companies for every last concession, because they're not giving anything away for free.
I will be discussing this and other state political issues on KRXA 540 AM at 8 this morning
Today I will be in San Francisco for the National Day of Protest against health insurance corporations and for truly universal health care - which only a single-payer system can provide. I wanted to take a moment and explain why I will be out there demonstrating against these criminals.
I currently do not have health insurance. My part-time job does not offer it and when I last looked into individual coverage I could not afford what was being offered to me. But more importantly, it's not health insurance that I need - but health care. They are not the same thing. Health insurance companies have a long and ugly record of denying care and claims even to those they insure. We have discussed here the horrifying stories of Nataline Sarkisyan and Nick Colombo, young people whose insurers denied them life-saving treatment until protests forced them to back down. In Nataline's case, as we will never forget, it came too late, and she died.
Courage Campaign (where I do some work) has partnered with the California Nurses Association and LA City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo to put out an ad lambasting insurance company practices. It's based on the true story of Patsy Bates whose health insurance was canceled by HealthNet in the midst of her chemo treatments for breast cancer.
Speaking for myself, I see this ad and the protest at Moscone Center as fundamentally linked. Health insurance is a toxin, not a cure - the profit motive means that there will always be a desire to cut benefits, even in spite of government regulations (the recission practices Delgadillo is investigating are currently illegal under CA state law but they happen anyway).
Last year I was one of the leading voices on this blog against the mandated insurance plan proposed by Arnold and nearly passed by the legislature. It was not going to succeed in making health care more affordable and it was not going to succeed in making it more available. Mandated insurance plans haven't worked anywhere they've been tried in the US, including in Massachusetts - whereas single-payer systems have a long record of success around the world.
We protest, we fund ads, we get outraged, and we fight because we believe health care to be a fundamental human right. Every one of us deserves to have it when they need it, without regard to cost. When someone gets sick their first thought should not be "how will I pay for this?"
As we debate specific health care reforms, that focus on human rights needs to remain at the center of our work. Health insurance companies inherently disagree with it - to them health care is something only those who can afford it deserve to have. It is that mentality that we fight against and protest against today. I'm not naive; single-payer health care will not be an easy political victory. But as polls continue to show growing support for it, and growing revulsion at insurance company practices, it can't hurt to give Californians a reminder of why their health care is so screwed up - insurance companies are at the core of the problem. Today, we fight back.
I'll let folks draw their own conclusions and pick their own fights for the most part, but I thought this poll (link changed to pdf of Field Poll) was pretty interesting (favorable/unfavorable/net):
California Nurses Association/Nurses: 53/15/+35
California Hospital Assn./Hospitals: 33/30/+3
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: 40/40/0
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez: 20/29/-8
Chamber of Commerce/Business Groups: 25/36/-11
News Media: 28/46/-18%
Republican State Legislative Leaders: 22/48/-26
Health Insurance Companies: 16/55/-39
I will throw a few rather obvious ones out along with one that may be less so. One- people don't care much for politicians. Two- they care even less for the media, which is interesting as the media keeps cutting back on news coverage. Three- they HATE insurance companies, which makes me wonder why anyone keeps trying to keep them in the equation.
Also, CNA's numbers are pretty darn impressive. Some of that is that people just like nurses I would imagine. But average Californian on the street, if they have an actual opinion of CNA proper, it's likely to be an opinion on single-payer. Which makes me think that, given the opportunity, people might be pretty supportive of single-payer.
Just before the holiday break in December, the Courage Campaign hosted a conference call with several California bloggers and Sal Rosselli, head of United Healthcare Workers-West, and other members of the reform coalition to discuss the health care reform bill, ABX1 1, that is still pending in the legislature. The call spawned a follow-up discussion between some of the participants and Sal Rosselli over e-mail, which the participants (including Sal) wanted to post here.
Specific issues discussed include the relationship of UHW and other union leaders in the health care reform coalition to their rank-and-file, the financing of the ABX1 1 proposal, the political landscape against which this happens, and the relationship of ABX1 1 to single-payer care.
It's my hope that the conversation Sal was gracious enough to help initiate can be continued here, with input from others on Calitics and in the netroots. Read what we've all said, and then weigh in with your own thoughts. These kinds of discussions between progressives are essential to the construction of a better California, even when - especially when - we have disagreements on policies. Thanks to Sal Rosselli for his continued engagement with us, and to the Courage Campaign for initiating this discussion.
This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah Beth Jackson of Speak Out California
A weekly update on the goings-on in Sacramento
For the week ending November 3, 2007
Key bills and issues we've been following during the
Past week and beyond
This is usually a pretty quiet time in Sacramento. While this situation remains pretty much the case, the slowly dying Special Session still remains. With the big battle over water ending in a stalemate, the debate over health care reform showed a glimmer of activity this week as the Assembly Health Committee held a full-blown hearing on the Governor's health care proposal. There wasn't any progress to speak of, although the Speaker, Fabian Nunez pledged to keep working to reach a compromise. Unfortunately, few in Sacramento believe either side will make necessary concessions to make that happen.
When times are slow, polls become more interesting-at least to those political wonks who are otherwise suffering withdrawal from relative inactivity. This week was no different as the well-respected Public Policy Institute of California came out this week with the latest on several fronts. Among these are whether the people feel California is moving in the right direction or not (which is just another way of asking whether people are optimistic and hopeful about their future) and how the Governor would fare should he decide to take on Senator Barbara Boxer in 2010 for the U.S. Senate. As you can see, a lot of inside baseball here, especially since even the baseball season is finally over.
The ballot measures for 2008 are again coming to life, especially since right-wing Congressman Darrell Issa, who brought us the Davis Recall in 2003, has announced he will bankroll the return of the Electoral College measure. For those who thought this blatant right-wing power grab was dead, this measure will split California's electoral votes from a winner-takes-all to a split of electoral votes by Congressional District. Translated, this would likely give the Republican candidate 20 electoral votes---or the size of Ohio or Florida. Since the Republicans haven't won California in years, this is as good as giving them a 40 vote turnaround in the Electoral College, enough so the conventional wisdom holds, to steal the election for the Republicans. And since it is felt that Rudy Guliani is the one most likely to benefit from this ploy, and there are many dirty footprints leading to his door on this measure, the Dems are howling. All this makes for good copy, of course, and keeps the political junkies busy during an otherwise slow period before the election cycle kicks in. Of course, this year, the election cycle seems to have started months ago and seems to be in overdrive already.
With so much bad press recently for Speaker Fabian Nunez's spending habits, the Term-Limits/Extension measure Prop. 93 appears to be sliding out of favor dramatically with California's likely voters. Added to the woes of current members hoping to extend their terms in office is the announcement by billionaire State Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, that he will help bankroll the opposition to the measure. Even though the supporters of the measure have a substantial war chest, this measure looks like it may go down with a big thud.
Single Payer cleared another hurdle by passing out of Assembly committee in Sacramento this week, but it seems to be on a sort of death march to Arnold's veto pen. That is unfortunate, but that is reality. And while it probably requires no further explanation of how wrong our system really is, it's really wrong:
Blue Cross of California refused to extend her policy after she used the plan once for a minor infection, Campbell said, and in a pinch she bought another short-term policy from Blue Shield of California. Last summer, she worked a Friday shift, got sick over the weekend, and a week later was diagnosed with two aggressive forms of cancer -- rhabdomyosarcoma and adenosarcoma. On July 20, her health insurance policy runs out and no one will insure her, Campbell told the Assembly Health Committee on Tuesday while testifying in support of Senate Bill 840.
* * *
"I'm too young for Medicare, and I make too much money for Medi-Cal," Campbell, 53, told the panel. "But one eligibility worker told me how I could get Medi-Cal: 'Get pregnant, get the Medi-Cal card, abort the baby, and keep the card.' This is my only option." (SacBee 7/4/07)
So, we doom somebody else because saving them isn't profitable for an insurance company. Ugh, just go see SiCKO, I don't need to repeat everything here. I'm not saying the insurance companies did anything wrong, it's that they exist in the first place that is the wrong.
(oops. Feel free to disagree, I know this one is contentious. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The health care debate seems to be very troubling for a lot of people, and that's understandable. And, hey!, it's a big issue. So, for now on, I (or somebody else) will be doing a Health Care Tuesday Post. I know, I know, it's no Freaky Friday or Manic Monday, but Health Care Tuesdays are what I have to offer...so go with it. I'll try to get these up every Tuesday around noon, but well, timeliness isn't necessarily my best quality. But they will be up on Tuesdays!
First, I think it's great that people are talking about health care solutions. That is an important first step that we all have to take. You know, admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. And so with us, here in California and the nation. We must admit that we have a problem with our health care system before we can truly fix it. And so, props go out to the Speaker of the Assembly, the Senate Majority Leader, and yes, the Governator for at least talking about the issues. While they may not have all the answers, they have nudged us along on the important road to those answers. So...thanks.
I stumbled upon this LA Times article about patient dumping after a conversation with a friend who happens to work with uninsured patients at a hospital. Apparently, Kaiser is really, really sorry about dumping unstable (both mentally and physically) patients.
Kaiser Permanente has agreed to a first-of-its-kind settlement aimed at ending patient dumping that requires the HMO to establish new discharge rules, provide more training for employees and allow a well-known former U.S. attorney to monitor its progress, officials announced Tuesday.
The agreement by the nation's largest HMO could resolve criminal charges and civil lawsuits filed against it last year by the Los Angeles city attorney's office, alleging that it dumped on skid row a homeless woman who had been a patient.
Prosecutors, who are investigating more than 50 cases of dumping in downtown L.A. over the last two years, urged other hospitals to adopt the same rules that Kaiser has accepted for its 11 hospitals in the region. ... Dr. Benjamin Chu, president of Kaiser Permanente's Southern California region, apologized Tuesday for dumping the woman and said Kaiser is committed to changing. (LA Times 5.16.07)
Awww...we're so so sorry, now pay up! But in the end, you can't really blame Kaiser or Blue Cross or or any of the inscos, they can't bear the brunt of all of these costs. The problem isn't that the insurance companies are doing what's in their best interest, it is that these kinds of things are in their best interest. Or put more simply, it's that there are insurance companies. We give these companies incentives to get rid of the poor, and we expect them to act differently.
We need comprehensive health care reform, not just more subsidies for insurance companies. We need more clinics to address daily health concerns, we need more spending on mental health facilities rather than dumping the mentally ill on the street. We need to take the long view, and get the system to actually work rather than just applying another band-aid by giving the inscos another check.
(Now cross-posted at dKos and MyDD. Also, Check out Shum's single payer update for more on the $3.7 billion. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Today is going to be a busy day. But let's start with some health care talk in the morning. I just got off a call with Harry Reid, where much of the talk focused, with good reason, on the mess in Iraq and the President's posturing on Iran. However, I'll leave that to the national bloggers. I highly recommend Bob Geiger for coverage of all things Senate. Oh and check out the MoveOn.org ad they are trying to get aired in DC during the Super Bowl.
I, however, wanted to address Arnold Schwarzenegger's health care plan. This is relevant primarily because Schwarzenegger plans on asking for $3.7 billion in new federal funds for the plan. So, I asked the majority leader, what he thinks of California's plan, if the Governor will get his money, and where we should go from here.
Unfortunately, I'm not a great transcriber, but he is certainly up on the issues. However, he pointed out something that I also addressed in my post entitled "Health Insurance Sucks", namely that the insurance industry, well, sucks:
The problem is that the insurance industry is the enemy of most everything we do today. They have an anti-trust exemption from the Depression era that was supposed to last only a few years (the McCarran-Ferguson Act) but is still with us today. This exemption allows the industry to do harmful things to the country. They are fixing prices, which would ordinarily be a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but there is nothing we can do.
California Connected, a joint production of several PBS stations in California, aired a segment about Alex, a 4th grader living in SoCal that does not have insurance. You can view the segment here.
There a few issues that could truly be solved in the legislature. The list is short due to the influence of Prop 13 and its supermajority tax and budget requirements. But one area which could be immediately fixed is health care. And such a plan is currently pending in the legislature, it's SB 840 sponsored by Sen. Kuehl. SB 840 would change the insurance model of California to one where the state government would be the provider.
Now some would scare you by saying that we don't want the state to choose which procedures we could get. But let's think about that honestly. Who makes those decisions now? For-profit health care companies. Who would make those decisions under SB 840? The State? Is the state really scarier than the private insurance companies? DOes the state have to report increasing profits every quarter? The answer is clear: SB 840 is the right thing to do for the state's children.
Look for SB840 to pass the Assembly but be vetoed by the "moderate" Arnold Schwarzenegger. His insurance contributors will make sure of that.
Considering that state lawmakers are supposed to be spending their time grappling with the disastrous state budget, it must be very important to these lawmakers to protect Safeco from accountability for overcharging Californians, including, no doubt, folks in their district. Who do they think are their constituents?... O' Safeco, how can we serve you?