Sen. Kuehl tries again for universal health care system in California

[aggiesal]

Source: Sacramento Bee

By Aurelio Rojas - [e-mail]

Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, July 17, 2008
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A4

Six years after launching her effort, state Sen. Sheila Kuehl made a final pitch Wednesday to a legislative committee for a government-run universal health care system.

Senate Bill 840 would establish a single-payer system in which the state would assume the role that private insurance companies now play.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a earlier version of the legislation in 2006, calling it "socialized medicine," and has vowed to do so again.

That did not stop Kuehl, now in her last year as legislator because of term limits, or the Democrats who control the Assembly Appropriations Committee from praising a single-payer system during the overflow hearing.

"This plan would cover every California resident with comprehensive, affordable health benefits," Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, told the committee. "Once put into place, it would seriously contain the growth in health care spending and improve the quality of care that's provided."

Earlier this year, the Senate Health Committee that Kuehl heads rejected a health-care expansion plan negotiated by Schwarzenegger and then-Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez. SB 840 then became the only option left in the Legislature.

...

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1088781.html

---

Who will pick up the mantle when Sen. Kuehl leaves office?
Will it die with her efforts?

This just makes way too much sense, so it will never pass.
Anyway, as long as Herr Gropenator is in office, this will always get vetoed.

[regnaD kciN]

1. Go, Zelda...!

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0473861/

[slackmaster]

2. SB 840 has the same fundamental problem as Zelda's previous attempt

It doesn't say how the program would be funded.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_840_bill_20070710_amended_asm_v96.html

Schwarzenegger will surely veto it for that reason. His track record has been pretty consistent in that regard.

[aggiesal]

3. Even if it showed how it would be funded, ...

Senor "I'll be back" would veto it.

His campaign $$'s come from the insurance industry.
They are making out like bandits, so why change this
system, when his good buds are raking it in.

[slackmaster]

4. The Governator is not the issue

If I were in his shoes, I'd veto SB 840 in its current form. The source of funding needs to be spelled out explicitly. As it stands now, the bill basically says "We'll figure that out later".

That is not acceptable, especially in a state with such horrible financial management issues. California at present is at the bottom of the stack in that regard.

[Cleita]

6. Yes, he is the issue.

He won't eliminate his health insurance company backers from the equation, which premium money will be diverted into single payer. He wants to bring us a plan like Massachusetts has that has already proved to be costly and wasteful because of the insurance companies feeding at the government trough.

http://capa.pnhp.org/abx1_1_universal_health_insurance_without_health_care.php

[slackmaster]

7. A stronger bill could be passed by overriding his veto

SB 840 is a flawed, weak bill.

[Cleita]

8. How so?

If it was so flawed and weak, how did it pass a referendum, a vote, and then passed both the assembly and senate in the legislature? How could a majority of Californians be so wrong and one steroid bloated actor be so right?

[slackmaster]

9. "California voters defeated a single-payer proposal in 1994, 73 percent to 27 percent"

Is that the referendum and "majority of Californians" you are referring to?

If it was so flawed and weak, how did it pass... ...both the assembly and senate in the legislature?

Our senate and assembly are dumb. That's why our fiscal house is so badly out of order. The voters, when asked about the issue, wisely saw that the source of funding was not defined.

That's the issue.

[defendandprotect]

11. Don't quite understand . . .

It seems that you're saying CA wanted single payer but there was some

confusion as to how it would run . . . ?

Or are you saying something else?

[slackmaster]

12. I'm saying Cleita screwed the pooch when she said a majority of Californians voted for it

That was 1994, a different proposal and a different time.

The problem with SB 840, Zelda Gilory's current bill, is that it doesn't say where the money would come from.

I like the idea of single-payer health care, but as a taxpayer I can't support any bill that doesn't present a complete plan.

[Cleita]

16. So the whole plan has no merit because I screwed the pooch???

The backers of the bill clearly states that the money that is paid by employers and individuals to insurance companies will be used to cover this plan. They are cutting out the for profit middle men and making it single payer by the state.

[slackmaster]

17. The plan has merit, but it's not acceptable

Because it doesn't say how it will be funded.

The backers of the bill clearly states that the money that is paid by employers and individuals to insurance companies will be used to cover this plan.

That's great in concept, but the bill itself doesn't say jack shit about how that will be done.

[Cleita]

20. Why do you keep saying that?

It's not true. They will do it like every other civilized country in the world does it by taxes on employers, payroll and probably some sales tax to make up any difference for people who can't be taxed. Also, Medicare and Medicaid payments from the federal government will figure in. With the insurance companies out of the way employers will be able to pay that money and it probably will be less than the insurers charge in premium for health care that isn't going to be canceled or raised in premiums because of the risk pool. This is what Arnold doesn't like not to mention because of all the campaign money that he received from the health care industry and his reluctance to raise taxes on the very wealthy individuals and corporations in this state, wealth that makes it the sixth largest economy in the world and wealth that is increasingly being diverted to foreign companies.

[Guaranteed]

28. With the *8 BILLION DOLLARS* saved by California in its FIRST YEAR, I'm sure we could find a source

for the money.

Yes, that's $8 billion in its first year alone, according to the Lewin Group's study.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/06/lao_confirms_ca.html

[slackmaster]

29. The Lewin study was done in 2004

The numbers have changed since then.

[Cleita]

38. If the numbers have changed, why don't you put them up here so

we all can see them?

[slackmaster]

42. I know I'm paying more for health insurance and getting less for it

Aren't you?

[Cleita]

46. I get Medicare, a government program that everyone should have.

Until recently when the Bush Adminstration tried to defund payments to caregivers, and thank God Congress overrode his veto, I have had the security of basic health care that I don't have to worry about payments, pre-existing conditions or jacked up premiums. I go to the physician of my choice. I don't have to get permission from an accounting clerk to go to the ER or call an ambulance if I need one. I am covered anywhere in the USA not just where my insurance, PPD or HMO says I can be covered. The only problem is that Medicare needs to be updated so that payments to health care professionals is commensurate with the cost of doing business for them. It needs to cover copays. I have medigap to cover the 20% copay and yes the private insurer keeps raising my premium. Yet because it's under Medicare rules they must pay what Medicare approves and they can't discriminate because of age, preexisting conditions and any other number of problems people have with private insurance. I really would rather pay more into the Medicare premium directly to Medicare to have full coverage because I know it would be cheaper and yet more comprehensive than the middle man insurance companies I still have to deal with.

[defendandprotect]

25. Do you remember "Zelda" . . . ??

They used to do repeats . . .

Back to health care . . .

Well -- with single payer, doesn't the government just begin to assess a fee on those
of a certain income to pay for it? Create a pool as you would, let's say with a college fund
program for the state?


Poorest wouldn't pay --- and probably a high ceiling cut-off point . .. ???

Actually, since Medicare takes over at 65 . . . you'd have the healthiest people, I think .. .??

[slackmaster]

30. Maynard G. Krebs was my personal hero

I still have an urge to run and hide when someone says the word "work".

I'm trying to convince myself that this bill is the right way to get there. I still see too many undotted i's and uncrossed t's.

[Cleita]

34. You aren't putting those t's and I's up here for us to know what you are talking

about except how it will be funded, which we have already addressed. So it makes me believe you haven't read it.

[slackmaster]

43. I appreciate the links but am not satisfied that the source of funding or the implementation plan

Have been fleshed out adequately.

[Cleita]

33. What we need is Medicare to be extended for everyone, which is what

SB840 in California and HR676 in Washington D. C. in the House of Reps is about. Then everyone would be covered. Of course we need to update it, improve it and cover those things that Medicare doesn't cover today, like co-pays, dental, mental health care and eye care, but the mechanism to run this is already in place and has a proven record of only having 2% to 3% rate in administrative costs and it doesn't have to deliver profits to Wall Street.

[defendandprotect]

35. IMO, that's the way to go --- and going state by state would be a great idea--!!!

We can all begin hammering away at our state officials --- !!!

Let's go --- !!!


And true . . . Medicare has been starved --- and lots of stupid loopholes which permit organized

theft --

Definitely DENTAL, EYE CARE ---

Of course, Bush is pushing to destroy all of Medicare before he moves on to Paraguay?

[Cleita]

13. So you are saying that the people of California are dumb because of

the legislators they elected? That's a pretty broad statement. Also, you say the plan is weak but aren't specific as to where it's weak.

Here's two links you might want to read on the subject:

http://www.onecarenow.org/materials/history.htm

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/january/comparison_between_s.php

[slackmaster]

14. No, not at all

Voters select legislators who they believe will support their interests, and to a lesser extent the interests of the state. As a result, the interests of the state play second fiddle.

Also, you say the plan is weak but aren't specific as to where it's weak.

One more time with feeling:

The problem with the plan is that it doesn't say where the money to fund it will come from.

That's not just weak, it's a non-starter. It's an Underpants Gnome business plan.

[Cleita]

18. One of those links I gave you has a frequently asked questions part that

addresses this. You might try this website for better information than I will ever be able to give you on a post to refute insurance company propaganda as it comes up. http://www.pnhp.org

[pinto]

19. I disagree in part. Prop 13 started a lot of the fix we're in, overlooked in the dot com flush,

but back home to roost, big time. Local and County governments are hemorrhaging fiscally. That and a long list of poorly written, expensive propositions sold by and to the public on 'feel good', not fiscal terms.

[Cleita]

22. Proposition 13 was probably the single most destructive thing that ever

happened to this state. It brought us the homeless problem. It was sold to us as a way of relieving home owners on a fixed income from increasing property taxes, but all it did was bring in speculators that turned our housing into a free for all way of making money at the expense of the working class who were soon priced out of home ownership. The money lost in property taxes caused all the social programs that housed the handicapped and mentally ill to be turned out on the street with no resources.

[defendandprotect]

26. Agree . ..

but your description just confused me . .
can you play that in a little slower motion --- ?
it's been a long time since I read about Proposition 13 -- but obviously not good.

It seemed to really be in there to pull a lot of threads on opening up bad things ---

And was one of the first really overt PROPANDA plays by the GOP ---

How did you feel about the Gray Davis recall . . . ??

Soon after taking office, Davis was able to fast-track the first power plant construction in twelve years in April 1999, but the plant did not come on line before the electricity crisis though in-state production was not the cause.<48>

[Cleita]

31. Quite honestly I had a personal experience with Grey Davis when my husband

and I moved back to California after a ten year absence where he interceded for us in a matter with the Department of Motor Vehicles after I wrote him a letter complaining about how my husband was treated by them. This is something that people don't know about him. He did not ignore Californians who asked him for help and he gave real help not a palliative we are working on it response like most of the Republican jackasses give you. I was really hurt for him over the recall because he was not guilty of the charges that were thrown at him and the recall was only done to upend an election that had just happened reelecting him to a second term in order to install a more obedient Republican as governor. This has been happening all over California in all levels of government where Republican operatives are going to the courts or other venues to overturn what the voters have voted for in elections. Grey Davis inherited his problems from Pete Wilson but was blamed for them. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not solved the problems Grey Davis was recalled for. They are still there and worse. I have a sinking feeling that this is going to happen to Obama. They will find a way to blame him for all the shit BushCo pulled. As far as GOP propaganda, proposition 13 was classic bait and switch. There are several website pages explaining it thoroughly. Unfortunately, I lost a lot of my bookmarks in a computer crash, but Googling the Jarvis Amendment or Proposition 13 should take you to them if you are interested in doing research.

[defendandprotect]

36. Well, we agree --- I thought it was quite a propaganda coup on CA --- sad!

Yeah . . . Prop 13 was a long time ago so I've pretty much forgotten what I read at that time.

:)

[slackmaster]

45. I remember looking at the property tax bills on my parents' home

The County of San Diego reassessed it five years in a row from about 1973 - 1977, which was illegal under existing state law but they did it anyway. The tax amount nearly quintupled during those years. My mom had quit her librarian job to stay home and take care of the kids. My stepfather was approaching the end of a career in the rapidly declining aerospace industry, and his salary was flat except for the periods when he was temporarily laid off. He was still paying about $900 per month in alimony from his first marriage, and paying my stepsister's way through college because her worthless drunk mother blew all her income on herself.

We were basically living on a fixed income in those days of high inflation (remember Nixon's price controls and Ford's Whip Inflation Now or WIN buttons that people wore upside down so they read No Immediate Miracles?), and the county kept jacking up our taxes every year. There was no effective appeal process back then. Proposition 13 was a godsend. It helped keep us clothed and eating decent food.

This is one DUer who will never support an outright repeal of Prop 13. If you want modify the rules so owners of commercial properties can't dodge reassessment as easily we might have something to talk about, but I think I'm paying more than my fair share of property tax on the house I've worked my ass off to own.

People in states like Texas that have no personal income tax pay much higher property taxes than we do in California. We have reasonable, fair property taxes for homeowners and high income taxes. There is enough money to fund needed state probrams, it's just not being spent wisely.

[Cleita]

47. Here's what the problem was.

People like your parents were getting squeezed by rising property values. which raised the cost of their property taxes sometime beyond what their income could handle. The Republic opportunists came along and sold us Prop 13 to help those old people on fixed incomes. Instead it was a cynical means for them to accomplish the biggest tax rebate to rich people ever perpetrated. What should have been done is that a law should have been passed exempting retired, elderly and other people on fixed incomes from paying property taxes on higher property values, by freezing them at the rate they were when such property owners reached that stage of their lives. Conservatives who live for money can't do that because they don't care about helping a segment of the population who can't compete in society anymore like the elderly unless there is something in it for them. That's what happened.

[slackmaster]

51. My parents were working, middle-class people in their 40s when Prop 13 passed

The middle class was getting its pockets picked by county governments that were out of control. The San Diego County Assessor, over a period of five or six years, bumped up the assessed value of their home from $35 K to $175 K based solely on local market values, when there had been no real improvements to the property and no change in ownership. California had been "discovered" by wealthy East Coast people and Middle Easterners. Property values were climbing faster even than they did in the late '90s to early '00s.

The neighborhood we lived in happened to be very desirable because of proximity to the coast and the intellectual center of UCSD. When the Prop 13 tax rollback took effect, it put a little over $1,200 per year back in their pockets. $100 per month that they used for necessities like food. My mom was a lifelong Republican but not conservative. Dad was a lifelong Democrat who had lived in deep poverty as a child. He was a World War II veteran, socially liberal and a pacifist. The two of them often disagreed on political issues, but not on Proposition 13.

The only people who have benefited unfairly from Prop 13 are owners of commercial property, who are able to preserve a thread of ownership from one distinct individual or group to an unrelated individual or a completely different group by forming and dissolving one dummy corporation after another.

A little advice for anyone who doesn't like the Prop 13 rules or the 2/3 majority vote required to raise taxes in California: Don't use words like "repeal" and "rollback" wehn you present your ideas. Those of us who remember the cluster fuck of a system we had before those protections will stop listening. I get the same gut reaction as when I hear people talking about reversing Roe v. Wade.

[Cleita]

54. Your memory is a bit flawed. Although I agree with you that it shouldn't be entirely repealed.

I remember that the real estate speculators started coming around right after prop 13 was passed inflating the value of properties, which was a boon for property owners who were able to sell their homes for sometimes three times what they had paid for them and move to Washington state to buy three similar homes inflating property values across the country in this matter. Yes, the reason many of us voted for prop 13 was because it would help people like your parents. We didn't realize the awful repercussions to the infrastructure of our education and social programs that would happen, and that it was actually a big birthday gift to wealthy investors. I agree, it shouldn't be repealed entirely, but I would change it so that second home owners and owners whose primary residence is out of state pay 5% to 10% in property taxes and that any residence that goes beyond a modest single family home, like a mansion also pay at least 5%. I would freeze taxes for homeowners over 65 so that they don't have to worry about rising property taxes when they are on a fixed income. This would be fairer and more equitable and let's face it we have a glut of really wealthy people and corporations in this state that aren't paying their fair share but are using more in infrastructure than the ordinary person. That was why the move to replace Grey Davis with a Republican happened. Those people knew Grey Davis would have to start raising taxes to bail this state out of the troubles it had because of Pete Wilson and Enron.

[Thothmes]

40. They why did the State Government not replace that lost

revenue with increases in those taxes not covered by prop 13.

[Cleita]

41. You really have to ask?

This was pushed by Republican politicians. You really don't think that they are going to raise taxes elsewhere? In order to undo this, the Jarvis amendment would have to be repealed. It's a very hard thing to do and Arnold would veto it anyway. Arnold stubbornly refused to raise taxes on the very rich and the super corporations, which is why he can't solve the problems in California either.

[Thothmes]

50. So the republicans have been in controll of both the legislature

and the Governor's mansion since the passing of prop 13?

[Cleita]

52. Of course not.

But once it became an amendment, it's almost impossible to change with so many Republican governors that we have had to veto it. If Grey Davis had been allowed to finish his second term, I believe you would have seen the health care bill passed and probably some grass roots beginning on putting out a referendum to repeal Prop 13. But forget it with Arnold. If we don't get our own charismatic star to run for governor when Arnie's term is up, we no doubt will get another Republican governor who pretends to be middle of the road and more of the same economic mess and gridlock.

[Thothmes]

56. Probably a fair analysis of thinks.

[slackmaster]

23. Property tax revenues have grown by almost 10% per year since Prop 13 passed

Every year there are more people living in more homes that they paid more dollars for.

Proposition 13 is a red herring.

Local and County governments are hemorrhaging fiscally.

That is mainly the fault of the state legislature.

[Cleita]

32. BS, California property owners and that is people like Steven Spielberg and

a lot of Saudi Arabia princes pay only 1% on property values. Also, many of those people own other homes, like vacation homes that go empty most of the year putting an additional squeeze on available housing because the property taxes are so cheap. Just because property values went up doesn't mean that they are paying their fair share. Just to bring you up to speed Governor Jerry Brown was able to keep the state afloat with a surplus he had created after proposition 13 was passed, but once that surplus had been spent in three years, there was a flood of homeless on the streets. Something we had never seen since the depresssion. Just because there was inflation doesn't mean that the taxes are covering the needed programs. Now with people abandoning their homes to foreclosures there will be no income until those homes are sold for less and of course the taxes collected will be less.

[defendandprotect]

37. Jerry Brown . . . still like him . . .

[pinto]

48. Again, I disagree, to a point. Prop 13 cut essential, *local* services. The pass through

deficits to the Counties by the State, though, have only made a bad situation worse.

I see you mentioned the commercial loopholes embedded in Prop 13, and agree. I don't think we need throw out the Jarvis anti-tax prop altogether. But a whole lot of equity is sorely needed - at the local and state levels.

It's a strawman argument, I think, to conflate Prop 13 with State legislature fiscal bumbling. And it overlooks increasing costs passed to the state from the federal government.

[pinto]

15. There are some financial provisions to fund the program.

i.e., funds previously applied to Medi-Cal (Medcaid) and local, publicly funded medical care programs would be applied to the CA Healthcare System fund.

Concurrently it allows for negotiation of drug prices, and intends to offset the use of emergency room care, an enormously expensive 'replacement' to routine outpatient care. - pinto

Existing law does not provide a system of universal health care
coverage for California residents. Existing law provides for the
creation of various programs to provide health care services to
persons who have limited incomes and meet various eligibility
requirements. These programs include the Healthy Families Program
administered by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, and the
Medi-Cal program administered by the State Department of Health Care
Services. Existing law provides for the regulation of health care
service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and health
insurers by the Department of Insurance.

This bill would establish the California Healthcare System to be
administered by the newly created California Healthcare Agency under
the control of a Healthcare Commissioner appointed by the Governor
and subject to confirmation by the Senate. The bill would make all
California residents eligible for specified health care benefits
under the California Healthcare System, which would, on a
single-payer basis, negotiate for or set fees for health care
services provided through the system and pay claims for those
services. The bill would provide that a resident of the state with a
household income, as specified, at or below 200% of the federal
poverty level would be eligible for the type of benefits provided
under the Medi-Cal program. The bill would require the commissioner
to seek all necessary waivers, exemptions, agreements, or legislation
to allow various existing federal, state, and local health care
payments to be paid to the California Healthcare System, which would
then assume responsibility for all benefits and services previously
paid for with those funds.

<snip>

140240. (a) (1) The commissioner shall seek all necessary
waivers, exemptions, agreements, or legislation, so that all current
federal payments to the state for health care services be paid
directly to the system, which shall then assume responsibility for
all benefits and services previously paid for by the federal
government with those funds.

(2) In obtaining the waivers, exemptions, agreements, or
legislation, the commissioner shall seek from the federal government
a contribution for health care services in California that shall not
decrease in relation to the contribution to other states as a result
of the waivers, exemptions, agreements, or legislation.

(b) (1) The commissioner shall seek all necessary waivers,
exemptions, agreements, or legislation, so that all current state
payments for health care services shall be paid directly to the
system, which shall then assume responsibility for all benefits and
services previously paid for by state government with those funds.

[jamesinca]

44. SB 840 is a payroll tax

Arnold vetoed it because he is an asshole. If this went on to be the California way, Oregon would have to do this, Nevada would have to do this Arizona would have to do this. If they did not, people and business would leave their states. The cost of doing business in CA would drop tremendously. It would spread across the country and eventually become a state adopted system and that would open it up to becoming a federal thing. God forbid we have a national policy that is not in the best interest of privatized money grubbers.

I forget the specific numbers on SB 840, but I do remember it is a payroll tax.

[xxqqqzme]

55. You're wrong w/ that assumption.

If you go to Kuehl's site http://dist23.casen.govoffice.com/ you can learn exactly how it will be funded (as well as other vital information about SB840).

Steroid boy will veto it because HE has 'socialized' coverage(we pay for his health care).

[Cleita]

5. Yes, but there will be those who still praise the Governor as an

environmentalist and for some liberal ideas he has, but if we can't bring health care to everyone in a cost effective way he is just another neo-con. He wants to bring a version of Massachusetts health care program to California that is already proving to be costly to the state because it doesn't eliminate the health insurance industry from feeding at the government trough.

[defendandprotect]

10. What a lady this is . . . !!!! Wonderful . . . and run for president, will ya...???

And remember the nation falling for Newt's "term limits" . . . ???

What a shame . . !!

Arnholt gets to veto this and Sheila will be out . . !!

Are Californians wondering what they've done with putting this right-winger in the Governorship?

[Bette Noir]

21. According to the imdb link above,

she'll be running for Secretary of State here in California. I'll put voting for her on my to-do list.

Maybe President Obama can find a spot for her in his cabinet.

[defendandprotect]

24. Oh -- great news! . . . sorry I missed that . . .

I'd love to see her rise higher in government ---

She's a goodie -- always has been!

Is CA happy with Schartzenegger ???

California voters defeated a single-payer proposal in 1994, 73 percent to 27 percent. But supporters cite polls showing that backing for the concept has increased dramatically as health care costs have escalated.

Who's sorry now . . .???

[Cleita]

39. I remember voting for it and that there was a concerted effort by publicists at

that time, whom we subsequently found out had been hired by the health care industry lobbyists, that were planting propaganda throughout the media about how Canadians were crossing the border in busloads to get health care here and how people were waiting months for appointments and well you know the usual pitch. I had to laugh because everything they were accusing Canadians of was happening to me at my HMO Kaiser Permanente. Also Americans have been crossing the Mexican border for cheaper dental care and prescription drugs too. So it turns out it was all hogwash but it was effective in getting the uniformed to vote it down. Subsequently, initiatives and grass roots movements have pushed to change this and they are in the majority now and they are out there educating people on this. California would have single payer universal health care today if it weren't for Schwarzenegger.

[Guaranteed]

27. There's that "universal" word again, conveniently placed to confuse.

This SINGLE-PAYER plan is so different from the tripe that Clinton and Obama are proposing and calling "universal."

This is the TRUE universal health care, but we need to be using different terms for the different proposals. People are not going to be able to make the distinction at a glance.

[bluesmail]

49. The Recall Govenator will NEVER take profits away

from BigPharma/BigHealthInsCorps. It's the beast: Hiding the beast. More like a beast in Goldilocks costume. These psychopaths are all the same.

[wvbygod]

53. How would such a thing be funded?

And how would such a large government program avoid the $1000.00 toilet seat issue that seems to creep into every instituted program?