Building the bridge to a national health service

March 11, 2017

Stew Jenkins

OPINION by STEW JENKINS

In their head-over-heals rush to throw the nation backwards, Republicans are about to provoke the California bear out of hibernation to build its own model for a national health service, like every other industrialized nation has built.

The last time California tried this, 73 percent of voters rejected the proposition. But that was 1994; prosperous times, when health care cost was modest compared to what it is in 2017. Now the cost of staying well siphons off 17 percent of every dollar in the economy – everyone’s economy.

On March 23, 2010, when President Obama was able to sign the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the ACA), there was one thing everyone agreed on.

Whether it was democratic-socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont, or republican Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, everyone agreed that it was not good enough. President Obama described the law as a step forward. A step short of the universal coverage he saw as the nation’s ultimate goal. But a step toward achieving the “fifth Freedom” Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman sought to assure.

Compromises left the ACA with no “Medicare-for-all” option, no controls over drug company prices, and a system preserving and subsidizing the health insurance industry to bring those behemoths on board. In giving individual states the power to set up their own health care exchanges and expand Medicaid, the lead authors never expected that the majority of republican governors and legislatures would turn down local control or free federal money that would improve the health of their citizens.

But in California, the governor, legislature, and citizenry embraced and built a successful state exchange that has served as a major step toward universal health coverage. By Valentine’s Day this year, Covered California records showed that more than 412,000 new people had enrolled in 2017 than had been covered in 2016.

Even with the Trump administration taking steps to end adverting for new enrollment, the number of folks without health insurance had reached a record low in California.

In fact, it was a woman who spent her formative years in Los Osos and Cal Poly who helped build Covered California’s successful system under the ACA, Ms. Kathleen Keeshen, appointed as deputy director, (in plain English, second in command of the program) to the Board of Directors when Covered California was being stood up. With Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and President Trump’s concerted effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act this month, you will not be surprised that Ms. Keeshen flew out Monday to the District of Columbia for conferences about what the State of California is facing.

No doubt about it, we are facing a collapse in confidence and a breakdown in the federal structures that helped California stand up one of the best working health insurance systems in America. Everywhere it exists a single-payer health care system is less expensive, more efficient, and keeps people healthier longer. This fact cannot seem to penetrate the blind spot of the “free market” zealots, McConnell, Ryan and Trump.

In 1994, the legislature found the funding for a universal California health care plan, an income taxes on corporations and the super wealthy. Then it was rejected by the electorate. But propping up Covered California without federal subsidies and mandates will require revisiting a progressive income tax.

If the public is to consider taxing themselves, the cheaper, more efficient and more effective single-payer should be our state’s goal. Either way, the experience of folks like General Counsel Keeshen will be needed to preserve or build California’s health care system.

Prudent preparation to replace the federal structure and funding takes more than marches. Under the arcane rules of the California Legislature, state representatives have a short time in which to introduce a bill. And, when the Republican Congress and President don’t even know how they are going to gut the Affordable Care Act, setting up a state replacement in the few months allowed for introducing state legislation presents a challenge.

There are two California senators who are doing more than marching. Ricardo Lara, of Long Beach, and Toni Atkins, of San Diego, did not wait. They’ve introduced Senate Bill 526, entitled Californians For a Healthy California.

Short as it is, by proposing that it is “the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would establish a comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage program and a health care cost control system for the benefit of all residents of the state,” it presents the California Legislature with the legislative spine from which to build out a universal California health service available to every resident during the upcoming two-year legislative session. Senator Lara and Atkins deserve support for seeing that something needed to be done to preserve our state’s options.

But they will need more than that. They will need your support and ideas on how to structure and pay for a California health care system.

You can help by sending letters and calls of support to Senator Ricardo Lara, State Capitol, Room 5050, Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone: (916) 651-4033.  And send letters and calls of support to Senator Toni Atkins, State Capitol, Room 4072, Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone: (916) 651-4039; Fax: (916) 651-4939.

More importantly, send copies of those letters of support to our own state senator and assemblyman. Democrat, Bill Monning, needs to know you support a California single-payer health system at his address: State Capitol, Room 313, Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone: (916) 651-4017; Fax: (916) 651-4917.  So does Republican, Jordan Cunningham, 1150 Osos Street, Suite 207, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; 805-549-3381.

And, for your neighbor Jordan Cunningham, it might be helpful to remind him what another good Republican, Ohio Governor John Kasich, said to a Republican legislator when he was trying to expand Medicaid under the ACA.

“I respect the fact that you believe in small government. I do, too. I also know that you’re a person of faith,” Kasich said. “Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer.”

A single-payer state plan is not just for the poor, it will provide effective health care for all at less cost for all. Now is the right time for California to lead the way.


Loading...
39 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Jenkins’ article should explain the major issue of Obamacare in California. What is the current proportion of Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program) to the other enrollees in Covered California.


The proportion of Non Medi-Cal enrollees were to subsidize the Med-Cal proportion. And it doesn’t. Med-Cal is estimated to exceed 75%.


The result appears to be a disaster for California when Obamacare is cancelled. It is stuck with Med-Cal, a big loser. So, what are the numbers? What financial tricks will the Democrats devise to obfuscate this pending catastrophe?


Not to worry though; our “savior’s” are on the way! We’ll have a new health care program that cuts mental health and addiction coverage, FIRST! Wow, talk about taking one step forward and a world record pole vault backwards!!!


And all the while it will cure the insurance companies pesky ass loss of profits that share holders demand not happen! “F*** ’em! Let ’em die or leave ’em maimed so they can sue the shit out of us!!!”


Capitalism at its f***in’ best! Leavin’ the most of us in the wake of the corporate and share holders profit driven armada that is our current government/foreign agents…


Damn selfish ass trumpster cowards…


Oh great, the VA system for all of us, only made worse by California running it! Can’t wait! Health care brought to you by the Bullet train to nowhere, Oroville Dam maintenance people!


Government control over our lives and our health will never be a choice that many of us who despise the waste, fraud and incompetence of all things government. When government programs like Obama care fail, liberals want bigger and “better” government programs.


Unfortunately the fools who govern us couldn’t even run a free lunch. No thanks.


Stew… it’s not government’s role to provide health care. It only promises to “promote the general welfare”….not provide for it. We should have never started screwing with a perfectly good private system. But no… the government just can’t help itself from getting involved. As for those other countries that have so called “successful” health care… they are all socialist systems that can only exist as long as we defend them with our military since they can’t afford to do it on their own. Count California among them.


After calling the Democrats to praise their social justice you might want to ask them why the state has stopped paying the Drs. on this fine healthcare system they have created. Pick up the phone CC News and call the DDS and Drs on the State list and find out how many are taking 1) new patients 2) how long they are staying with this great State run program. Enlighten us…


Head-over-heals (sic), really? indicates why education is so important as well as editing!!


I think this was an attempt at humor…sort of like Dems. driving the Obamacare healthcare system over the fiscal cliff and laughing at the explosion. Take a bad situation and make it far worse, way to govern Progressives.


As would proper capitalization, right?


” indicates why education is so important as well as editing!!”


Glass houses and all….


Somewhere along the line Health Care was defined as a right (by left wing not jobs). Health care is not a right. Nowhere in any document does it require that government provide access to medicine.


Human rights are not intended to be provided by government. they cannot be taken away by government.


The Declaration of Independence defines 3 and only 3 rights as endowed by the Creator. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


The bill of rights further defines what government may not take away from individuals.


Nowhere does the constitution define government as providing rights. Liberals have bastardized.the entire concept of what is a right in this country and where that right originates.


If healthcare were my right a doctor would have to provide it to me regardless of whether or not I chose to compensate him/her. Otherwise the doctor would be violating my rights. Thus the doctor is forced into servitude, which the 13th amendment abolished.


My ACLU brother! If I might question:

“But that was 1994; prosperous times, when health care cost was modest compared to what it is in 2017. Now the cost of staying well siphons off 17 percent of every dollar in the economy – everyone’s economy.”

Why do you think 1994 was more prosperous? Why are the costs now so high? What is the difference between now and then? Should we not examine THAT aspect of this?


I understand the need to sling political arrow (and the occasional mud), but the reality is, people in 1994 did not feel a need for it… why? Prosperity? OK, then why are we no longer prosperous? What has happened to the system, as a whole, to affect this change?


I do not think a single-payer system is the answer. I do not want Britain’s health care system. I’ve seen what their NHS has morphed into, and it’s a disaster. Thank God for countries brave enough to attempt a quasi-free-market system where innovation is rewarded and true progress in medicine can be had (and then used by the non-innovating nationalized healthcare countries).


Finally, what is the difference between Health Insurance and Auto Insurance? Will we, ultimately, require GEICO or AAA to pay for our fill-ups at the pump? Pay for those new tires? Should we completely avoid the Insurance versus Welfare expansion debate that this truly is?


I’ve been on the fence about this for quite some time. What we had before ObamaCare (ACA) was a system that was full of disasters for many people. (“Death Panels,” as described by ObamaCare opponents, were a common feature of many private insurance company plans.) Most countries with single payer systems bring much more “bang for the buck” than our old privatized system. The ACA was not a fiscal improvement but that could easily be because it did not go far enough (i.e. single-payer option to compete against Insurance Company greed) so that they could get something passed.


Even the British NHS, despite its problems, does a better job overall. No health cares system is going to be flaw-free. There are a few advantages to our old free market system but they are outweighed by the advantages economically and matched by differing strengths in the treatment models used by the systems.


My biggest concern for a real renovation of the health care system (statewide or national) is that it won’t be done well for political reasons and will not be the improvement that it could be — especially in terms of fiscal efficiency. Those with ideological objections will work to sabotage it anyway they can. Those in “debt” to various health industry interests will work to include subsidies and exemptions that further weaken it. A few naive supporters will try to make it do economically impossible things. I am skeptical that a good system would be implemented on the state level for these reasons. On the national level, it is likely impossible for the foreseeable future.


1 2 3