Straightforward, thorough, and balanced account of the California health reform fiasco by Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee: “The death of health care reform: How Arnold Schwarzenegger’s overhaul plan was doomed by the Legislature’s liberal-conservative partisan crossfire.” Money quote is at the very end:
But ultimately the bill died because Schwarzenegger was the only one in the Capitol who truly believed in it from the beginning, and Núñez’s late support was not enough to pull it across the finish line. California’s Legislature is dominated by leftist Democrats and right-leaning Republicans, and trying to push a major, centrist proposal through the narrow space between those two factions is like trying to drive a fully loaded semi-truck down a twisting, one-lane road. You can try it, but most of the time you are going to crash.
Addendum: Anthony Wright on the Health Access California Blog (on 2/10/08) offers some thoughts on what Weintraub got wrong.
Why is it the Paul Levy’s of this world only see what they want to see?the facts remain alot of citizens suffer from this law and they don’t care.It’s almost like they come on this blog to gloat.The state does not even know how many uninsured and the governor is helping none of us deal with the cost of insurance.The governor and lawmakers work for the people,not the insurance companies.We are the ones hurt by this law and not one of you tell the truth.The state house is full of career politicians who could care less about the people.Believe me one by one we will vote them out.
Thanks, Dave. Excellent points.
Paul,
(2) Bingo!
I would add: (6) a relatively low percentage of uninsured persons compared to other states; and (7) the fact that substantial funds were already being spent to fund the uncompensated care pool, creating an opportunity to redirect those funds toward comprehensive coverage.
The deception continues… no surprise.
Mr Levy, you left out one teeny weeny little detail in your lilting prose on “a variety of constituency groups who understood that the perfect would be the enemy of the good, knew each other well, and fundamentally trusted one another.”
YOU left out the bothersome fact that these “constituency groups” excluded any meaningful participation from the public. This entire law is the product of one huge protracted BACKROOM DEAL.
The truth of the matter is that the “constituency groups” do all share the special feature of being connected by BIG CORPORATE MONEY, especially insurance company money and some from the mega-hospital chains.
Go check the AG’s office and you’ll see public records on the steady payout (hush money) since 2002 from the Blue Cross Blue Shield “Foundation” flowing to the so-called “consumer advocacy” groups that support this RomneyBush&Co healthcare privatization scheme.
Mr McDounough and Mr Levy, I hope the public knows that thousands of people — people who are our co-workers, our neighbors, and our relatives – continue to suffer needlessly and to die prematurely largely b/c of the unwillingness of so-called “leaders” like you, and the politicians, to put ordinary people’s needs AND state fiscal responsibility ahead of the big time corporate special interests whose cash helps to keep your organizations flush and the politicians in office…
The public is not gonna keep falling for your “the perfect would be the enemy of the good” crap that is, in effect, killing people.
California’s legislature has passed A TRUE UNIVERSAL COVERAGE BILL, SB 840 but their corporate-sponsored Governator vetoed it. The CA legislature rejected the harmful individual mandate bill (would that our legislature have been so brave to also do the right thing) and, together with the people of their state, will work to enact portions of SB 840 and eventually enact SB 840 itself.
Accurate information is more readily available to the public in CA, as in this spot-on piece that provides a more honest “Post Mortem” on CA bill ABx11:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/02/the_new_bailout.html
The New Bailout: Individual Health Insurance Mandates and Greater Personal Debt
“…Compelling people to buy insurance, however, is not the easiest sell. Big insurers and HMOs have a well deserved bad reputation for heartless denials of care – that’s how they make money. And, it’s pricey. Premiums the past decade have gone up 87 percent, not to mention the ever climbing bills for deductibles, co-pays, and a host of other transaction fees.
The finance industry is over the moon with this scheme.
For insurers, it means millions of new customers marched into their offices with the force of law. With no controls on costs, many consumers will just add on more debt. That’s a boon for the credit card companies and other financial institutions, but a heavy new burden on many of the same people now losing their homes or struggling with other financial hardship.
Moreover, it doesn’t work. The carrot is public subsidies for those least able to pay, but that approach has noticeable flaws, best evidenced in Massachusetts, the individual mandate pioneer and model.
As a result of the state’s failure to control premium hikes, costs of the subsidized program are projected to double over the next three years to $1.35 billion, the Boston Globe reported February 6, and Massachusetts is debating whether to slash the health services offered through the subsidized plans or cut payments to doctors and hospitals.
To shroud the colossal problems and the real story of who actually makes out like bandits under this scheme, the proponents, including some liberal policy experts, have dressed it up with poll-tested rhetoric that mandatory insurance is “universal healthcare.”
But “having” insurance is not the same as being able to use it. You’re only being mandated to purchase the premiums; they’re not mandating the insurance companies to make sure you get the care you need. Nor does “having” insurance protect you from financial ruin. …”
I think, if we were to analyze why the MA law passed, we would find: (1) An objective analysis of the number of uninsured by the BCBS Foundation that could be the touchstone for all discussions; (2) the financial pressure of the federal waiver, which required that something HAD to be done and therefore created a unifying force for action; (3) a governor who really wanted something to take into his national campaign, something about which he was fixated; (4) strong leadership in the House and Senate that held the members together; and (5) a variety of constituency groups who understood that the perfect would be the enemy of the good, knew each other well, and fundamentally trusted one another. Have I left out anything else?