[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Anthony Wright
Executive Director of Health Access California

Earlier this week, I spoke at a press conference with Governor Schwarzenegger, Speaker Nunez, and many different stakeholders in the health care field, with the message that we aren't going to give up on health care reform. Video from that press conference is available at the Governor's website.

The Governor answered some questions, but he gave longer ones earlier in the day at the Sacramento Press Club. Here's a transcript on his answers on health reform, which give some insight into what he's thinking as we move forward...

Q: George Skelton, LA Times. Is there anything about the present, or the killed health care plan, that you would like to preserve and maybe make some incremental steps, instead of making the big comprehensive program, waiting and doing that? Or would you just do children, for instance, or would you do requirement for 85 percent patient care, that kind of thing?

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Opponents of health care reform won't have much to brag about, now that the analysis of the Nunez/Perata health care plan supported by Governor Schwarzenegger has been released by the Legislative Analyst (a.k.a, the "Budget Nun.").

The LAO found, as always, some issues. And it made a lot of assumptions that differ from proponents (for example, on the tobacco tax). Nonetheless, the report reinforces the overall soundness of the approach and financing for health care reform.

Any plan -- particularly single-payer or doing nothing -- contains major risks. Just as insurers shouldn't cherry pick who they cover, opponents of health care reform shouldn't cherry pick comments from the LAO report to help make their case for maintaining the status quo.

Perhaps the single-payer folks will put SB 840 up for the same type of scrutiny? Don't count on it.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Anthony Wright
Executive Director of Health Access California

To add to the article Friday that had our preliminary analysis of the new amendments of a health care deal out of the negotiations between Governor Schwarzenegger and Speaker Nunez, here's some more information about the framework for the financing:

EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION

The minimum employer contribution would scale up to 6.5%. All employers would need to contribute:

• California employers with payrolls of up to $250,000 a year would have to spend at least 1% on healthcare for their workers.

• Those with payrolls from $250,000 to $1 million would have to pay 4%.

• Those with payrolls of over $1 million up to $15 million would have to pay 6%.

• All larger employers of payrolls of over $15 million that would have to pay 6.5%.

Employers would have the choice of providing coverage privately, as they do now, or paying a fee of this amount to the statewide purchasing pool. The expectation is that employers who provide coverage now, with no requirement, would continue to do so, just as employers pay more than the minimum wage, but the minimum creates a floor from which workers can bargain up from.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Anthony Wright
Executive Director of Health Access California

Mike Zapler of San Jose Mercury News has a downer of an article about the hurdles of winning health care reform on the ballot. He writes about the odds of any ballot measure, especially those with a funded opposition. The history on health reform isn't pretty either. In the early 1990s, two such measures, Prop 166 and Prop 186, got 32% and 27% of the vote, respectively.

THE CASE WE CAN WIN: But as my colleague Beth Capell says in the article, we've been through a lot of campaigns since then, and we've learned a lot. The two most recent ballot measures that would have expanded health coverage were much, much closer. Prop 72 in 2004, to expand on-the-job coverage, got 49.2% of the vote--so health reform went from double-digit trouncings to a less than one percent gap. Prop 86 in 2006, a tobacco tax that partially went to expand children's coverage, got 48.2%--a similarly narrow margin. The public has seemed much more willing to support health reform, even with heavy spending against these measures, and is seeming more inclined by the moment. While these weren't victories, the trends are in the right direction.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Dave Johnson
Seeing the Forest

Why is it so hard to get things done for the people of California? The front page of Friday's San Jose Mercury News has a story that points out one of the problems: the "insurmountable" influence of big, moneyed interests.

From the story, Analysis: Tobacco tax could doom plan for health overhaul:

"... A new cigarette tax would be tantamount to a declaration of war on Big Tobacco, which last year spent more than $65 million to defeat a $2.60-a-pack tax on the California ballot and just this week easily turned back an attempt in Oregon to raise tobacco taxes.

"... Any attempt to overhaul health care is bound to invite opposition, given the huge financial stakes in the system. The tobacco tax idea is an example of the difficult balance that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrats are struggling to strike at the negotiating table: achieving meaningful reform without triggering insurmountable opposition.

"The challenge is amplified by the fact that any health care proposal is certain to end up on the ballot, where interest groups can spend tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat it."