Health Care Bill Delayed: Costs a Worry

by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Working Californians blogs]

Today was the day the AB 1x1 was to be brought up in the Senate Health Committee. It didn't. Senator Don Perata asked to delay the vote until Monday since there were not enough votes to pass the bill. To complicate matters the Legislative Analyst came out with her report that had enough consternation about cost containment for the state that it made Senators nervous about moving forward. AP:

Given the Democrats' resistance, it seemed unlikely Perata could obtain the votes without changing the composition of the 11-member panel, although he has said he does not plan to do so. The committee's four Republican members have been opposed to the bill as an expensive and unnecessary expansion of government into the private health care system.

Democrats also sounded queasy about the potential expense, and they sought assurances that the state would not be saddled with new costs.

"It just seems to me that we go into it with a little more certainty of what the price might be," said Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. "Otherwise we don't go forward."

There are many more reasons for legislators to say no to major health care reform than to say yes. That does not mean that the bill shouldn't pass or that it is impossible to pass reform, but rather that this was always an uphill battle. The state of the economy and the budget made the odds even worse. It is providing an easy out for Democratic legislators who might otherwise be supportive.

Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill fed their fears with a report that undermined the administration's insistence that California can extend medical coverage to millions of uninsured people without having to spend additional state money.

More likely, she said, the new health care program would become a drain on the state budget. Hill said she estimated conservatively that within five years, the program would cost the state between $300 million and $1.5 billion a year.

"What you have in front of you is by no means the worst-case analysis," Hill said.

There is no way to guarantee that the cost of insurance will not rise at a higher rate than they anticipated. There are outs for the state. It's not as if it would be on the hock for the plan no matter what. Safety measures were built in. Howevier, if the legislators feel like it is more likely than not that we will encounter a situation where the costs exceed the revenue in the near future then it is not worth it for them to support a plan that they believe is headed for failure.

There are hard choices ahead for Senator Perata. Does he want to pull Yee or Kuehl off of the committee, or let this die a quiet death?

The status quo of our health care system is unacceptable, but that does not automatically translate into passage of this plan, no matter how well constructed.