So after being peppered with criticism from both term limits groups and the California Nurses Association, the Speaker’s office has chosen which group to strike back at: the nurses, of course, using the exact same standard of judgment that they called a “smear job” when it was used against Nuñez.

This is an argument over improving the delivery and cost of health care, and there’s plenty of ideological rigidity to go around.  What started as a promising “year of health care reform” has devolved into putative allies arguing about how much money the other spends on hotel rooms.  Behind the mere gaining of political points is a serious debate about how to best allow all California citizens, not just the ones with full-time employment (us freelancers need health care too), the highest quality affordable health care they can manage.  And the real truth of the matter, the one that nobody really wants to talk about, is that none of these state-based plans, by definition, have any hope of working and have serious potential consequences, besides.  I think that’s why everyone’s getting so mad at one another, because it’s easier to do so than to face the facts.

We’ve got all these great universal bills passing at the state level, and I’m here to tell you that, well, they are pretty great, but they’re not going to work. It didn’t work in Washington State, when they tried it, and the insurers first jacked up the premiums, and then moved out of the state in order to kill the model. It didn’t work in Hawaii, which saw an economic downturn move more people onto their subsidies exactly as the state’s revenues dropped. It didn’t work in Tennessee, where the Democratic governor, Phil Bredesen, upon killing off Tenncare and leaving 300,000 people uninsured, told his state that, “I say to you with a clear heart that I’ve tried everything. There is no big lump of federal money that will make the problem go away.” Similar plans failed in Oregon, in Massachusetts, and many other states.

The plans fall for a few small reasons, and one big one. The big one is that states don’t have the fiscal stability to run universal health care. 49 of 50 states cant deficit spend. That means that when the state goes into recession and more people need subsidies and the revenues to give them don’t exist the state can’t borrow the money. So they dismantle the program. It’s happened time and time again — in some states, like Oregon, more than once.

Moreover, you don’t really want this being a state-run solution. As a stopgap, increasing coverage through state plans is worthwhile, but health care reform is more than access – it’s actual reform to bring down costs, which are, at the end of the day, the biggest problem in the system. And the states don’t have the regulatory authority, the money, or, save in a few cases, the size to do that. I simply don’t trust them to fundamentally reform the system.

California is obviously one state that has the size, and certainly could float ever more bonds to spend the necessary money.  But we’re almost certainly on the cusp of a new recession, and the combination of massive debt passed on to grandkids and a pay-to-play system that still reigns supreme in Sacramento is unpalatable to reform.

I repsect the efforts of groups like Physicians for a Naitonal Health Plan, who have studied the issue and recommended some of the best possible solutions.  But that word “national” is hard to get around; it’s the only way to create the real economies of scale and managed risk necessary for a solution.  I believe in health care for everyone, not simply in red states or blue states.  As Ezra Klein notes,

You know, whenever you talk about the state reforms, you always hear the old Brandeis quote about the “laboratories of democracy.” But there’s another Brandeis saying that I think is more applicable: “If we would guide by the light of reason,” he said, “we must let our minds be bold.” And that’s what I’m asking: Be bold. Because nothing else will, in the long term, work.

(Edited for space only. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

California Psychological Association (CPA) Signs on as Amicus to American Psychological Association’s Brief to CA Supreme Court Re Gay Marriage.

As you know, the issue of Marriage Equality has been simmering below the radar for quite some time since Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, first recognized Marriage Equality for same-sex couples.  Newsom gained international attention in February 2004, when he directed the city-county clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.  Newsom claimed the California Constitution’s equal protection clause as his authority.  From February 12, 2004, until March 11, 2004, when Marriage Equality was halted by the California Supreme Court, about 4,000 couples were issued marriage licenses under Newsom’s directive in San Francisco.  On August 12, 2004, the California Supreme Court voided all of 4,000 licenses.

More below the flip…

Since then, courts in Massachusetts and New Jersey have ruled that Marriage Equality must be recognized.  The legislature of Massachusetts passed legislation for Marriage Equality.  More recently, the courts in New Jersey have ruled that the State must accommodate Marriage Equality.

In California, the people, through their duly elected officials in both legislative chambers have attempted to recognize Marriage Equality in 2005 and once again in 2007.  Both times, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Marriage Equality Terminator, vetoed the legislation.  He has indicated that the issue should be a matter for the courts and the voters of California to decide.  Schwarzenegger has obviously ignored the fact that the voters of California have spoken in 2005 and again in 2007 in favor of Marriage Equality through their legislators.  It so happens that the California Supreme Court may make a decision on Marriage Equality.  The Court will hear oral argumentss in a case for Marriage Equality in which fifteen (15) same-sex couples will be represented by the the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal.

Now, Miguel E. Gallardo, PsyD, President, wrote the following to the members of the CPA:

“Dear Members:

“I hope this message finds you all well and in good health. I am writing to inform you that, as an association, the CPA signed on to an Amicus Brief recently filed by the American Psychological Association with the California Supreme Court. Additionally, this email is intended to provide you with some background information and inform you of the process used by the Executive Committee (comprised of the CPA’s elected officers) and the Board of Directors in determining the appropriate action for CPA.

“Background

“In July 2007 the Public Interest Directorate of APA requested that CPA sign on to an Amicus Brief that the APA planned to file with the California Supreme Court. An Amicus Curiae Brief (literally, “friend of the court”) is a brief that is filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case, but who has an interest in the case and believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest.  Amicus Briefs often include educative information and resources that may be useful to the Court.

Re full disclosure, BlueBeaumontBoyz is a member of the American Psychological Association.

Gallardo’s message continues:

“The Issue

“The current case stems from the original action of the San Francisco Mayor to allow marriage between gay and lesbian couples.  This case comes to the California Supreme Court from the California First Appellate District Court (Division Three), which reversed an earlier trial court decision, and upheld the constitutional California’s Family Code, that defines civil marriage as the union between a man and a woman.  The California Supreme Court must decide whether to uphold the Appellate Court decision or to overturn it and find the current definition of marriage unconstitutional (as did the earlier trial court).  A decision to overturn the Appellate Court’s decision would, in essence, enable gay and lesbian couples to be married in the state of California. 

“APA has filed similar Briefs in other states, including in Maryland where the Supreme Court recently rejected the Brief, but APA believes that the California case is probably the most important case to date on this matter and that this case will have a very large impact on the rest of the country. In addition to CPA, APA was joined in this Brief by the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers.

“The Decision Making Process

“The Executive Committee of the CPA Board of Directors based its actions on our newly adopted guidelines from the Social Issues Task Force which stipulate that the Executive Committee, after considering any issue, will determine how to involve the full Board of Directors. In this particular circumstance, the Executive Committee involved the CPA Board of Directors as early as was feasible in the review process. The Executive Committee ultimately reviewed all the relevant documents provided by APA, as well as other materials provided by various Board members and other interested individuals in this case. The final meeting of Executive Committee occurred on September 10th when a final decision was made to support the Brief. It was during this meeting, and several others, that the members of the Executive Committee reviewed the comments gathered from the Board of Directors comments, concerns, and suggested actions to change the language in the Brief. Based on the final meeting on the 10th, and the Executive Committee’s review of the comments from the Board of Directors, and by a majority vote, the CPA Executive Committee agreed that CPA join the Brief as an Amicus. 

“In essence, we followed what we believed to be the appropriate mechanisms to make an informed decision on behalf of the CPA and its members.

“This decision was forwarded to Dr. Clinton Anderson in the APA Public Interest Directorate.  Dr. Anderson and other members of the APA expressed their appreciation for CPA’s position on this issue.  A copy of the Amicus Brief that was filed with the California Supreme Court is attached for your information and review.

“We hope you find the information contained in this email and in the attached document helpful in understanding the significance in maintaining a level of integrity in our decision making process, as well as, ultimately deciding what final action to take on behalf of the Association, its members, and the communities in California that we serve.

“I appreciate your membership in the Association and I look forward to continuing to serve you in the future.

Best regards,

Miguel E. Gallardo, PsyD

President, CPA

The full brief may be viewed at [http://www.cpapsych….]

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally.

Tsk, Tsk

• GregDewar.com: O Hai! Leno Attackers Love My Photos – But
  Don’t Feel a Need to Pay Me For Them! WTF?
  http://www.gregdewar.com/2007/10/o_hai_leno_attackers_love_my_p.html

Houses

• Calculated Risk: DataQuick: Bay Area Record Low Home Sales
  http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/10/dataquick-bay-area-record-low-home.html
• Seeing the Forest: Today’s Housing Bubble Post – OUCH
  http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2007/10/todays_housing_126.htm

Healthcare

• The Bayne of Blog: Nuñez gives us one more
  reason to vote against Proposition 93
  http://blog.bayneweb.com/2007/10/nu-gives-us-one-more-reason-to-vote.html
• California Progress Report – The California Nurses
  Association v. Nunez
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/10/the_california_42.html
• California Progress Report – “Shared Responsibility?”
  Doesn’t Seem Like it From New California
  Labor Federation Report on Schwarzenegger Health Care Plan That
  Analyzes the Numbers
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/10/shared_responsi.html
• California Progress Report – A Day in the Life: Riverside
  Electrician Can’t Get Medical Care Three
  Years After His Injury on Job–Asks California Insurance Commissioner
  to Investigate
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/10/a_day_in_the_li_1.html

Immigration

• Erik Love @ Courage Campaign | Arnold’s Veto Can’t
  Stop The DREAM
  http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/eriklove/BJD
• California Progress Report – A Missed Opportunity to Lead
  on Immigration and Education: The Veto of the California Dream Act
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/10/a_missed_opport.html
• happening-here?: Immigration poll
  http://happening-here.blogspot.com/2007/10/immigration-poll.html

Local

• Unanimously Passed Ordinance Goes to City Council :: The
  Ojai Post
  http://www.ojaipost.com/2007/10/unanimously_passed_ordinance_g.shtml
• SFist: Muni Loves To Count
  http://sfist.com/2007/10/18/muni_loves_to_c.php

So many other different topics I’m having a hard time categorizing any
more today

• Liberal Atheist Vegetarian » Blog Archive
  » Kucinich in Laguna Woods This Weekend – SqueezeOC.com
  http://lav.freedomblogging.com/2007/10/17/kucinich-in-laguna-woods-this-weekend/
• Elliott Petty @ Courage Campaign | NARAL
  Determines which Legislators are Pro-Choice
  http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/community/post/elliottpetty/BJf
• California Progress Report – Perata to Schwarzenegger:
  You’ve Failed Twice This Week on California’s Water Crisis
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/10/perata_to_schwa_2.html
• Working Californians | What is a Living Wage?
  http://workingcalifornians.com/blog/julia_rosen/2007/10/17/what_is_a_living_wage
• From the Fever Swamp: How Telco’s Can Get Off the Hook
  http://fromthefeverswamp.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-telcos-can-get-off-hook.html
• BeyondChron: San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily News
  » Pelosi Stands Up to the Neo-Cons on Iran
  http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5015#more
• California Progress Report – California Police Get an
  Important New Crime-fighting Tool
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/10/california_poli_3.html
• Politics in the Zeros » No Three Strikes in
  Connecticut
  http://polizeros.com/2007/10/18/no-three-strikes-in-connecticut/
• California Progress Report – Local Level Work in California
  is the Best Way to Have National Level Impact
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/10/local_level_wor.html
• The California Majority Report // Today’s Fresh Meat
  http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=9&aid=2356
• Just a reminder (Daddy, Papa and Me)
  http://www.lathefamily.org/2007/10/just_a_reminder.shtml
• happening-here?: Hope for progressives in rural areas
  http://happening-here.blogspot.com/2007/10/hope-for-progressives-in-rural-areas.html
• Hoffmania!: Backbone
  http://www.hoffmania.com/blog/2007/10/backbone.html
• Badlands Journal » Victory for SB 719: expansion
  of the Valley air board
  http://www.badlandsjournal.com/?p=399

Well you know I took public transit, right? I'm normally kind of bad about using the car, but I really took the MUNI, I promise. It seems it would just be too hypocritical to drive to a public transit rally. (plus, it would have been slower to drive). Anyway, I digress from the point about the two rallies I attended. 

The first was for It's OUR healthcare. They even have a live feed of the event. Hey that's cool. At this Civic Center Rally political leaders like Supervisor Tom Ammiano, Asm. Mark Leno, and Senator Carole Migden signed a letter for the Governator. Just to let him know what's up, and what's down, with his health care plan.  Also at the event was some people talking about how their particular Holy Books affect this debate, giving a spiritual element to this story. 

The next rally had an entirely different tone. It was a rally for public transportation and against Gap Founder, and GOP major donor, Don Fischer. It seems Fischer has given about $80K so that he can park his many vehicles wherever he wants in the city. Specifically, he has helped fund the campaigns of Yes on H and No on A. The Campaign sent out a pretty dishonest mailer (PDF here) this week, and now, well, he's getting his name in the headlines. 

Board President Aaron Peskin, along with labor and transit leaders, spoke about the importance of defeating Prop H. Furthemore, SF Democratic Central Cmte. member talked about the role of Fischer in Republican politics in general. He’s given hundreds of thousands of donors to some of the worst politicians across the country, including the Worst President Ever. While some politicians have felt it appropriate to praise him, that doesn’t take away what he’s done to promote class warfare.

More photos over the flip. Flickr set here.

Health Care: 

No on H, Yes on A: