Calif. gov calls for universal (health) coverage

[deadparrot]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday proposed to extend health coverage to nearly all of California's 6.5 million uninsured people, promising to spread the cost among businesses, individuals, hospitals, doctors, insurers and government.

The plan contains elements that are likely to provoke opposition from a wide range of powerful interests, including doctors, hospitals and insurers, as well as employers and unions. But it also contains incentives for each of them.

All children, regardless of their immigration status, would be covered through an expansion of the state and federal Healthy Families program.

"I don't think it is a question or a debate if they ought to be covered. ... The federal courts have made that decision — that no one can be turned away," Schwarzenegger said. "The question really isn't to treat them or not to treat them. The question really is how can you treat them in the most cost-effective way."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/ap_on_re_us/california_health_care

[bemildred]

1. Ahnuld wants the credit for this himself.

He vetoed universal health care for California before the election, as passed by the Democratic legislature.

[aquart]

2. Single payer NATIONAL health.

Universal coverage makes California business automatically more competitive than say, New York or Michigan or Alabama business.

By neglecting this issue until the states are forced to do it themselves, individually, BushCo has put huge burdens on the corporate backs we thought he esteemed. He has set one state against the other. He has divided, not united. To unite the nation, we must have single payer national health so that we can compete not with each other, but the rest of the civilized world.

[Schema Thing]

3. Didn't he just VETO this 6 months ago?

[nodehopper]

4. that's exactly what I was thinking

[Guaranteed]

10. Yes, he fucking did. SB 840.

This one involves handing out taxpayer dollars to private insurance companies, so it's different!

[donkeyotay]

13. Now that sounds like GOP SOP

Create yet another welfare program transferring wealth from citizens to corporate sponsors of the privatized government. There's a corporate payout behind everything sold as having a benefit to us. Arnold, do us a favor and make bribery illegal again.

[ReadTomPaine]

12. Bingo. That he did. Here's one of many articles about it...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/05/state/n130430D47.DTL

Schwarzenegger says he will veto universal health care measure

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Tuesday that he will veto a universal health care bill that is headed for his desk, claiming the measure would set up a "vast new bureaucracy" that would be too expensive.
...
Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, said Schwarzenegger's comments indicated he "has not read the bill, doesn't understand the bill or is being completely misdirected by his handlers." She said the measure would save money.
...
The bill would provide every California resident with health insurance through a system controlled by a new entity called the California Health Insurance Agency. It would be under the control of a health insurance commissioner appointed by the governor.

[sandnsea]

15. He vetoed single payer

This is more along the lines of the Massachusetts model which, yes, does subsidize insurance premiums. This is the best we're going to get for at least 20 years. I wish people would help get a plan passed that allows everyone to have health care instead of insisting it be their way or DIE.

[Guaranteed]

21. Well, see, the thing about SB 840 was that it was actually going

to save California 8 billion dollars, just in its first year, WHILE covering all Californians for all their health needs.

So what did Arnold do? He threw out the whole point of the single payer system, which is to massively reduce overhead. But, we'll just have to deal with it, because his buddies need to "dip their beaks."

[sandnsea]

23. Well, see, the thing about single payer

is that the majority don't want it.

[Guaranteed]

26. Funny how that could be the case when it passed the CA legislature

and got to Arnold's desk!

[rinsd]

27. LOL. They passed it knowing Ahnuld would veto it.

How come a similar bill never passed when Davis was gov?

[Guaranteed]

29. And the advantage of doing that, for the legislators, is....?

Finish this sentence:

Putting up a "yea" vote for something they think their constituents DON'T want makes sense because.....

???

[rinsd]

33. Politics 101.

Say universal coverage and you have 80% of the public for it.

Say single payer in which everyone is on the government plan and you have a serious drop in that support.

So how do you(as a politician) make it appear as if you are doing something about a problem without really doing anything while also causing your opponents some consternation? Pass a bill you know will get vetoed. Its like the GOP passing abortion bans in the 90's. They knew Clinton would veto it but they did it anyway to score points with their base. They also used language games, such as death tax, partial borth abortion etc. All to hurt Clinton with moderates while scoring points with their base.

[Guaranteed]

37. Here's an article about the independant Lewin Group's study, as well:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2005/january/lewin_group_analysis.php

[rinsd]

42. That;s an advocacy group's website

With citations to a report they do not link to.

Do you have a direct link to the report rather than the happy news the advocacy group wishes to highlight?

Which BTW doesn't address my concern people stopping from using the emergency room for regular healthcare based on availability of regular checkups and how that "savings" will come about much more slowly.

[Guaranteed]

44. Here is the actual report:

http://www.healthcareforall.org/lewin.pdf

Here is a summary of the report:

http://www.healthcareforall.org/summary.pdf

On the Health Care for All site, but prepared by the group itself.

[rinsd]

49. Thank you.

[Guaranteed]

46. Here is the Lewin Group's website, as well:

http://www.lewin.com/

[Guaranteed]

47. AND, your concern of people stopping using the emergency room

and instead using the regular doctor's office is one of the primary goals behind the plan.

[rinsd]

48. You misunderstood

What I am saying is that the savings from such behavior as going to the doctor regularly vs. emergency room is overstated in the short term.

[sandnsea]

35. Define Angelides as rational

And not so far left that he'd support wacky legislation like single payer.

[Guaranteed]

39. Man, you have to resort to the characterization tool...

You don't like saving money? Being more efficient? What, exactly, is wacky about that?

Oh, WHILE covering the healthcare of everyone in the state, including those here illegally.

[sandnsea]

40. Nobody Wants It

And while you're rambling on about something nobody wants, people are dying. Now that's what I call wacky.

People do not want a plan that eliminates private choice in health care and insurance because they do not want to end up with things like a. the Texas Futile Care law or b. substandard care as found in many county hospitals, the VA, or China who says they insure all citizens.

[Guaranteed]

41. So says SandnSea, with absolutely no basis whatsoever.

You obviously haven't read up.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2005/january/lewin_group_analysis.php

"The Lewin Report model (Ed: the one that shows $8B in savings for the state in the first year) assumes the consumer’s freedom to choose his or her own care providers. This means that each Californian will be free to change jobs, start a family, start a business, continue education and or change residences, secure in the knowledge that his or her relationships with trusted caregivers will be secure."

A lot of very smart people put this plan together. They already thought of your bullshit complaints, sir. Read the whole thing.

I'm surprised you haven't used the term "socialized medicine" yet.

If you're honestly interested in the plan, you can also see here:

http://www.healthcareforall.org/faqs.html

[sandnsea]

52. It creates a state insurance agency

Single Payer. I can't understand why you'd deny that since that's what you support. It's impossible to provide every treatment or cure, just ask Oregon. Our plan is based on a list of approved treatments. People who have money to purchase insurance to cover everything are not going to give that up. We've had a voluntary single payer plan get voted down. We had a constitutional amendment initiative making health care a right, it went down. People support universal health care and will even pay for it, as long as it doesn't remove their right to spend their money on whatever kind of health care or insurance policy they want to buy. France has a system like that, Canada is starting to implement some private care. There's nothing wrong with it. We don't have to completely kill health insurance to make progress. The logical step is to subsidize health insurance first; and then combine all Medicare, Medicaid, subsidized folks and everybody else into a good basic plan while offering 'elite' insurance to those who want it.

[Guaranteed]

54. You're not addressing the costs. The inflation.

Throwing tax money at the guys who are screwing everything up isn't going to solve the problem. Address the root. That's what this does.

And it most definitely creates a state insurance agency. I did not deny that, and would not. That isn't socialized medicine, though. It's socialized insurance.

Big, big difference.

[sandnsea]

61. Subsidized premiums will get support

Anything completely run by the state won't. It's really that simple. It doesn't have anything to do with what I want or what's economically feasible or how many promises are made about choice. It isn't about whether the Kuehl plan is the best plan. It's about the way the majority of people think and if you create a government bureacracy to pay health care directly, people will object. Subsidized insurance premiums is the same thing they did in Vermont to cover uninsured adults. It's the logical next step.

[roody]

55. I want it and I am somebody.

[darkstar]

58. My wife and I pay 480 a month

and I get to choose from 4 neuros on our plan in our town. Two aren't taking new patients. One, back in mid-November, couldn't see me until Jan 21. The one I wound up seeing yesterday? A licensed doc, yeah, but unaccredited by AMA in his specialty are.

Wow. I have so much choice now and the quality is so good.

[sandnsea]

62. With no insurance

you don't get to see any of them. In my town, we have one clinic and the state health plan won't pay any other doctor except the ones associatd with the clinic. It's how they forced the reduction in duplicate administrative costs. They assign you the doctor and that's that. There are other specialists in the 5-6 bigger cities, but if you don't have insurance or money they won't even talk to you. You may be willing to give up the option of paying on your own instead of having a doctor forced on you, but most people just aren't.

[rinsd]

24. So you think telling 25M Californians they have to change insurance company's would have gone well?

The Democrats in the legislature passed that knowing full well Ahnuld was going to veto it.

They did not want it either because it involves pissing off the folks that vote who overwhelmingly have their own insurance already.

[Guaranteed]

28. Their health care costs were going to go down.

They would have said "thank you" at the end of the year, when they saw it.

[rinsd]

31. The savings claims with single payer are overstated, especially in the short term

Saving from people using regular checkups and doctors vs the emergency room would have taken time to take root just from a cultural aspect(and by that I mean all of society not a specific group).

Savings from bulk buys of medicines etc. will also take a little time (though not nearly as much time as the change from regular checkups to emergency room visits)

Shit I have good insurance but will go to urgent care if I am ill because my doctor may not be available in a timely manner.

[Guaranteed]

34. Here is a very short video expaining the plan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyWiVLdR47c

It's truly a very simple idea. But it's at least worth giving it a try.

[rinsd]

43. That's your evidence? A commercial??

[Guaranteed]

45. How many links do you want me to give you?

I've given you five links now. That was just one of the most highly accessible vehicles for the information.

[rinsd]

51. C'mon now.

That's like asking for info on a candidate and being sent his campaign lit.


But I do thank you for the other links which I am reviewing.

[paulk]

22. thanks for pointing that out

If a state with a Republican governor can get this passed, maybe a few more states with Dem. governors (like mine) will follow suite.

----------------


I remember when so many trashed Kerry's plan - because it wasn't single payer. At this point, any step in the right direction is a step I'll support.

[sandnsea]

30. We have it

I'm on the waiting list because we don't have a funding mechanism. We didn't add the requirements for business to either provide insurance or pay into the fund, as far as I know. 4% of payroll is cheap cheap cheap, seems to me. We also just passed a program where anyone without prescription drug insurance can get a card where they get the Medicaid negotiated price. I have to send in the form still, I keep forgetting. But that sounds helpful too, something you might want to present to your local reps.

[paulk]

36. our new governor

often mentioned the MA plan as evidence that states could afford universal healthcare, during the campaign.

He's also said his first order of business is going to be renewable energy.

So things are looking up here in CO.

[Lucky Luciano]

60. Agreed - any plan is a step in the right direction.

So what if Arnie is screwing up by making a plan that is more expensive because he needs to help enrich the health insurance folks. Any step in the right direction is good.

Get the people insurance first. Fix what is broken about this plan later.

I am not knowledgeable at all on this topic - e.g. I have no idea what single payer means and what arnie's proposal is, but it is clear that if everyone is insured it is a great start.

Socialism in the truest and most compassionate sense of the word will not occur by revolution. It will happen by peaceful evolution - it happened in many parts of Europe that way and it continues to evolve. It will happen here too. This is a start. The flaws will be fixed, but once this plan is in place, it will be very difficult to take away unless the * types regain significant amounts of control over CA - I doubt that will happen.

[orleans]

5. what a "girly man"

[aggiesal]

6. It will never happen!!! ...

Here is a list of Herr Gropenator's top 100 contributors http://www.arnoldwatch.org/special_interests/index.html

Check out how many insurance and health companies are included.

This is all about political brownie points. If this becomes a reality, I'll be willing to bet that it will benefit these contributors somehow, and not us citizens of California.

[Trillo]

7. Arnold given millions for health care since first term

By Mike Zapler, MEDIANEWS SACRAMENTO BUREAU
Article Last Updated: 12/26/2006 02:33:11 AM PST

SACRAMENTO — As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prepares to unveil his much-awaited solution to California's health care crisis next month, he has received not only abundant advice from special interests with a stake in the issue, but millions of their dollars.

A MediaNews analysis of campaign records shows that health-related interests — including HMOs, drug companies, doctors and hospitals — have given Schwarzenegger and his political causes just over $4 million since he first ran for office. Business interests that successfully thwarted an attempt to expand health care coverage in 2003 have donated at least another $3.5 million, the review found.

Schwarzenegger has steadfastly maintained that political contributions do not affect his policies. But the donations underscore the huge stakes and potential difficulty of what he is about to undertake.

The GOP governor, who has raised more than $110 million since 2003, will have to navigate a political thicket if he is to truly expand access for the state's 6 million-plus uninsured: a Democrat-controlled Legislature that wants to vastly expand coverage, legislative Republicans who oppose taxes and mandates on business, and an array of deep-pocketed interests prepared to spend millions to make their voices heard.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_4901591

Given the several decades ago routing of democrats from government because of coziness with corporate, it seems important that today's democrats remember that U.S. citizens already have the most expensive per capita health care costs in the world, and that health care quality, on average, is nowhere near "best".

I worry about some of the things I've seen reported regarding Schwarzenegger's plans regarding additional charges for coverage. If these reports were not guesses and were in fact true, it sure explains health care's special-interest contributions.

Let's not forget that Schwarzenegger originally said in his first campaign something to the effect, ie. paraphrasing from memory, that 'since he was already rich, he didn't need any special interest contributions.'

[jljamison]

8. this proposal...

....doesn't have a leg to stand on

[David__77]

9. I'm inclined to say this is positive.

The right is apoplectic. Schwarzenegger is acknowledging that government has a central role to play in ensuring universal coverage, and that the private sector should not be "left to its own devices." Plus, he is a Republican and this gives great "cover" to Democrats raising these issues.

[Guaranteed]

11. It's not. It's total bullshit. He JUST VETOED a REAL universal healthcare

plan.

[SoCalDem]

14. Yep it;s NOT about "coverage" it's about COST to patients & families

Ahhhnold could "offer" coverage to everyone, but if you cannot afford it, what's the point?

or if the coverage is so piss-poor that people cannot afford the co-pays and excluded options on their own, what's the point?

There is PLENTY of insurance out there for the taking, but who can afford most of it?? THAT'S the POINT!!

"mandating" insurance and pushing a few dollars here and there will NOT solve the problem.

Auto insurance is "mandatory" too, but there are millions of people who "cannot afford" it, and who drive every day without insurance..

I met a guy once who routinely dropped his auto insurance as soon as he reregistered his car..and occasionally put his car "out of service' to save a ferw bucks. IF he got stopped (and he did once) he weaseled his way out by saying .. "his wife took care of that stuff and she must have checked the wrong box"..the fine he paid was way less than the cost of registering/insuring that vehicle .

[Guaranteed]

17. This will actually be more expensive than the first plan. The idea

behind the real plan was to actually bring administrative costs down, as in Medicare, which only has a 3% operating cost (compared to about 30% for private insurance companies). So, with this plan, he's going to cover a helluva lot of people, but he's basically just going to hand out tax dollars to the private corporations with the extremely high overhead. Yay!! More pork, more debt, more $$$ for ARNOLD'S buddies, instead of saving CA EIGHT. BILLION. DOLLARS. per year with the other plan.

Eight billion dollars for the other plan. This one? It'll just cost us more money.

[SoCalDem]

20. Yessir.. This is just another republican ice cream sundae

WHO WANTS ICE CREAM??
the catch.. shit sprinkles..

[Xithras]

56. About the auto insurance thing.

You may want to tell the guy that the law changed on Jan 1. When you cancel your insurance now, the company has to notify the DMV. If a new insurance company doesn't pick you up in 30 days or so, the DMV revokes your registration. If you get stopped it's an automatic tow & impound now.

[sandnsea]

18. I agree

Again, I can't imagine anybody opposing a plan to bring everyone health care unless they're already covered or too young to need it. I'm on the waiting list to get this plan in my own state and I can't wait. Not every country uses the Canadian model, rather they have public/private insurance and health care. Works fine.

[superconnected]

16. since he vetoed this, now I'm going to guess he has a specific provider

in mind or wouldn't be doing it.

[sandnsea]

19. Oregon has many providers

And if you want to bypass political payback, just pass a law that every health insurance company has to offer a plan that meets state subsidy requirements.

[superconnected]

25. I was thinking he'd chose a mega corporation that would own

californias health care and dicatate the prices, by the time he was done.

It just sounds closer to republican politics than letting companies bid and taking the lowest cost with the most benefits.

[sandnsea]

32. That's the Democrats' job

Put in the cost control mechanisms. I personally think requiring every company to provide a plan with basic requirements is the way to go. Then different companies can do their targeting, etc., from there. I think they might find low income people are good to insure because they don't use the doctor for every cold and sniffle; and when the doctor says they can't help, they don't use their insurance as a right to go to every doctor in the country the way some wealthier people I know do.

[superconnected]

38. I also want universal health care

I just don't trust a republican implementing it.

If it isn't some form of severe corporate siphoning of Californias dollars, I don't believe he would be involved. I know some people think arnie is just misled and that bush is just stupid, I chose to believe that they are both severely bought by very corrupt corportions and know what they are doing when they are robbing us. They know who they work for(corrupt corporations, not us).

[AX10]

50. How will Arnie screw the public, yet again?

[Joanne98]

53. He's a liar. Read the fine print.

[Cleita]

57. He vetoed a workable plan. Anything he has to offer will benefit

the health and insurance industries. They were half of his campaign contributors so I can't see him passing anything that doesn't have nice dividends for them. Californians should pressure him to take back his veto and let the health plan passed by the legislature stand as it is.

[WHAT]

59. ahnuld is a proxy puppet...

purposely placed to nip the flanks of democratic reform. It's interesting because his positioning allows for subtle confrontational play-off with our Pelosi. Quite distracting, most probably intentional, and I don't think Pelosi should accommodate his "strong arming" (what an image, eh). Someone needs to wash-out or blow-up that levee ...metaphorically speaking.

That's what I think

[Fire Walk With Me]

63. And Bush called for a trip to Mars. Just hot air.

[depakid]

64. More corporate welfare for insurance companies

Which will NOT address the problems of affordability, access and quality improvement.

Here's another quote from a more comprehensive source:

"The governor's plan is bold, comprehensive and visionary," said Bruce Bodaken, chairman of Blue Cross of California. "Taking each part separately, there's something for everyone to hate. But taken as a whole, there's a lot to like."

Eh? The CEO of California's largest insurer lavishing praise? Now, isn't that special. If that doesn't prick your ears up, I don't know what will.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/16413241.htm

Criticism of this style of "plan" was leveled last year by two Harvard Medical school professors:

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

First, the politicians assumed that only about 500,000 people in Massachusetts are uninsured. The Census Bureau says that 748,000 are uninsured. Why the difference? The 500,000 figure comes from a phone survey conducted in English and Spanish. Anyone without a phone or who speaks another language is counted as insured. The 748,000 figure comes from a door-to-door survey carried out in many languages (including Portuguese and Haitian Creole, common languages in Massachusetts). In sum, the reform plan wishes away 248,000 uninsured people who don’t have phones or don’t speak English or Spanish. It provides no funding or means to get them coverage.

Second, the linchpin of the plan is the false assumption that uninsured people will be able to find affordable health plans. A typical group policy in Massachusetts costs about $4500 annually for an individual and more than $11,000 for family coverage. A wealthy uninsured person could afford that – but few of the uninsured are wealthy. A 25 year old fitness instructor can find a cheaper plan. But few of the uninsured are young and healthy. According to Census Bureau figures, only 12.4% of the 748,000 uninsured in Massachusetts are both young enough to qualify for low-premium plans (under age 35) and affluent enough (incomes greater than 499% of poverty) to readily afford them. Yet even this 12.4% figure may be too high if insurers are allowed to charge higher premiums for persons with health problems; only half of uninsured persons in those age and income categories report that they are in “excellent health”.

The legislation promises that the uninsured will be offered comprehensive, affordable private health plans. But that’s like promising chocolate chip cookies with no fat, sugar or calories. The only way to get cheaper plans is to strip down the coverage – boost copayments, deductibles, uncovered services etc. Hence, the requirement that most of the uninsured purchase coverage will either require them to pay money they don’t have, or buy nearly worthless stripped down policies that represent coverage in name only.

Third, the legislation will do nothing to contain the skyrocketing costs of care in Massachusetts – already the highest in the world. Indeed, it gives new infusions of cash to hospitals and private insurers. Predictably, rising costs will force more and more employers to drop coverage, while state coffers will be drained by the continuing cost increases in Medicaid. Moreover, when the next recession hits, tax revenues will fall just as a flood of newly unemployed people join the Medicaid program or apply for the insurance subsidies promised in the reform legislation. The program is simply not sustainable over the long – or even medium – term.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0406-35.htm

[Ayesha]

65. I would oppose state-only health care

I am for universal health insurance, but I do not want to be forced to use a state-run plan. I use a wheelchair and the current Medicare and Medi-Cal funding levels for power wheelchairs are extremely low. They only cover bare-bones models that would not suit my needs. I am lucky enough to have private insurance that covers everything. I am afraid that a state-run plan would be comparable to Medicare and Medicaid and even if it isn't, I'd live in fear of budget cuts as we disabled people are always the first to get the shaft. I don't want the government deciding that it won't pay for a new drug I need because it is too expensive, and then there is NOTHING I can do to get it but pay outright, which I really couldn't afford since many new lifesaving drugs cost thousands of dollars per dose.

For example, in the UK the NHS doesn't cover Avastin, a cancer drug that is saving thousands of lives here in the US. The UK system, however, is actually pretty good. Everyone has the NHS, which covers emergencies and basic things, plus most people buy supplemental private insurance, which they use for things the NHS doesn't cover, or if they really need a surgery but are stuck on a NHS waiting list. So all but the poorest people get excellent health care, and the poorest people get good health care. It's not perfect but it's a damn sight better than what we have here in the USA.