All posts by rbayne

California, Health Care

Stockton Board of Education supports a single payer health care system

x-posted from California Notes

On February 27 State Senator Sheila Kuehl introduced SB 840, a single payer health care plan for California. At the press conference Kyle Harvey, a carpenter with the Stockton Unified School District, told reporters,

Last summer our school district narrowly averted a strike. The reason [for the strike], the rising cost of healthcare. Four years ago we paid $5 out of pocket monthly for health insurance. Three years ago the price went to $40 per month, two years ago it went to $180, last year we were requested to pay over $400 per month.

As an example of what this meant, we had workers who were forced to choose between paying their mortgage or buying insurance. Maria, a sheriff’s widow and one of our food service workers, faced this choice. She could either sell her home and buy insurance, or keep her home, put her kids on Healthy Families, and go without her own insurance.

Fortunately, we were able to come up with a compromise and averted the strike. Thankfully, Maria was able to keep her home and insurance – that is for now.

This year, once again, we are facing double digit rate increases for the fifth year in a row. We cannot continue a system that raises costs and lowers benefits year after year.

Fortunately for Harvey and his co-workers, the Stockton Unified School District Board of Education is supporting single payer health care for California. Citing a “strong link between healthy children and student achievement,” the board passed a resolution last week which “affirms its support for a California single payer health care plan.”

“Once this plan is enacted, we will be able to concentrate on educating our kids, not jumping through hoops to find affordable comprehensive care,” says Harvey.

In the resolution which passed with only one dissenting vote board members noted, “a basic employer interest in the health and welfare” of employees. Employee health care has a direct impact on efficiency and productivity they said. If more employers would recognize the connection between employee health and productivity perhaps there would be more emphasis placed on finding ways to provide employees with affordable and comprehensive health care, like single payer.

Health care isn’t only an issue in school districts. Public and private employees everywhere are feeling the impact of increasing insurance cost, cuts in services, and insuring retirees. “The lack of affordable health care is a crisis of growing proportion in our local community, California and in the nation as a whole,” the Stockton Board said in their resolution.

Stockton Unified has chosen to support a solution that benefits the broader community. They noted findings from a January 2005 analysis of a proposed California single payer health care plan conducted by the Lewin Group. The report “confirmed that by pooling California’s purchasing power; creating efficiencies, and greatly reducing the administrative costs of health care, that all Californians would receive affordable, quality health care with the creation of a California single payer health care plan.”

If a single payer health care plan, such as SB 840, were in place now, Stockton Unified would save an estimated $10 million to $17 million. That’s money that could go toward actually teaching kids and improving schools.

The Board also noted “skyrocketing health care costs” which create serious economic problems for both employers and employees. With money diverted toward health care, wages and pensions are undermined. This increases the number of uninsured and under insured and places “a significant strain on funding for public institutions.” It also places significant strain on the rest of us who end up paying for the uninsured.

Stockton Unified has taken the lead among school districts, now it is time for the rest to get on board and pass their own resolutions. Resolutions supporting single payer should also be coming from cities, counties, and special districts. In an earlier post I wrote,

It makes sense that school boards would endorse single payer as a health care solution. Millions of dollars could be saved, if single payer becomes a reality. That’s money that would then be freed up to be used improve education and enhance student programs. Certainly employees would make their claim on the new money, and that will have a direct positive impact on schools as well.

Let’s hope that school boards across the state follow Stockton’s lead and support single payer health care in California.

Stockton Unified is leading the way in what could become another groundswell of support for single payer. Having more public employers join them in support will greatly enhance the opportunities that, at the very least, a pilot program can be established to prove the claims of a single payer system. At most, single payer becomes a reality in California and the nation.

California, Central Valley

County Democratic Chairs plan blue strategy

1 Comment

(Now if only more folks at the CDP realize that this is a real opportunity that’s ripe for the picking! – promoted by atdleft)

by Randy Bayne
The Bayne of Blog

X-posted from California Notes

Look at any election results map and you would think that California is two states. Progressives democrats have a very strong hold on coastal areas, especially Los Angeles and San Francisco, with conservative, moderates and republicans claiming majority status on most of the inland areas.

One group of people sees change in the air and wants to bring more progressive attitude into the central valley and foothill areas. They call themselves the “Coalition of California Central Valley County Central Committee Chairpersons” — the “7 C’s,” for short — and though the name might not stick, they have banded together to get the attention of CDP Chairman Art Torres and the California Democratic Party. Their strategy is to get more party resources devoted to California’s rural counties, and turn “red counties blue.”

Certainly a tall task, but by no means an impossible one. Some counties that have traditionally been in the conservative red camp have moved to blue, or at least purple. The switch in San Joaquin County resulted in the only California congressional seat to change party hands in the ’06 election when  freshman congressman Jerry McNerney beat incumbent Richard Pombo. Other rural counties want to repeat San Joaquin County’s success, but say they don’t have the resources to do it on their own. This is where the State Democratic Party comes in. The chairs of the Democratic Central Committes in Amador, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Mariposa, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare Counties say they are not interested in a “one-size-fits-all” approach that may not address the unique situations found in individual rural counties, but want to make decisions based on the needs of their particular counties with support and resources from the state party. They also want the state party to focus on them early, not after polls show they can actually win tough races.

Next month the group plans to meet again to refine the framework plan they came up with at Saturday’s meeting. Then they will take their plan and present it to Torres and the “powers that be” at the party’s executive board meeting in July.

Part of that plan will focus on getting Democrats into local elected and appointed positions to begin building a “farm team.”  They feel it is important to not only elect Democrats in red counties to the Assembly and Senate, but also get Democrats established in local positions, such as Board of Supervisors, School Boards, and a myriad of commissions and special districts, so that a viable farm team can be built for future candidates for Assembly, Senate and even Congress. Early involvement, they feel, means a better chance at success, both immediately and down the road.

With term limits in place into the foreseeable future, strong local candidates will be needed to replace officer holders who are termed out. In order to have candidates ready to replace termed out Assembly and Senate members, the “7 C’s” want the state party to help them with resources so that county central committees will be able to register Democrats, get out the vote, do voter education and follow up, build their precinct operations, and elect Democrats to local offices.

Their ultimate goal is to turn each of their respective counties blue. They realize it is an uphill battle, but one they believe they can win. “With so many people moving into Amador County,” says Amador County’s Vice-Chair Randy Bayne, “you just gotta believe that a lot of them come with a progressive mindset. We need to make sure they know the Democratic Party is alive and well in our rural counties and that it is okay to register Democratic and vote Democratic.” All agreed this will take help from the state party.

They also agreed it will take commitment on their part and the presentation of a strong plan to the party’s executive board in July.

There are other groups, like Take Back Red California, that are dedicated to turning “red counties blue,” but the “7 C’s” is the only group made up exclusively of County Central Committees, officially representing the Democratic Party in each county. For them, turning their respective counties blue is job one.


In attendance were Amador County Vice Chair Randy Bayne, Tulare Central Committee member Minerva Zapalac, Kern County Chair Candi Easter, Mariposa County Chair Jery Lacayo, Fresno County Chair Joel Murillo, Stanislaus County Chair Donna Patterson, San Joaquin County Chair Bill Perkins,Kings County Chair Mark Trezza, Tulare County Chair Barbara Waldron, and Crystal Strait, California Democratic Party Deputy Political Director (not pictured).
Photo by Candi Easter


Following the meeting, the Party Chairmen were guests on the Marc Scalzo Show, of Fresno Air America Radio.
Photo by Candi Easter
Uncategorized

Will a labor dispute disrupt Democrat’s party?

X-posted from California Notes

by Randy Bayne

Even on vacation in San Diego I can’t seem to keep away from labor and politics. The weather hasn’t been great. Today started out cool and windy, so we decided it would be a good day to travel into San Diego from where we have been staying in Del Mar and do some shopping and pre-convention reconnaissance. Marcie and I are both delegates to the State Democratic Convention in April.

Our first stop was at the hotel we will be staying at. We arrived to see a big sign being held by two members of Carpenters Local 1506. The sign read, “Shame on Hilton” and “labor dispute.” I would have pictures except that I had forgotten my camera back at the condo.

One of the carpenters has been with the union for 36 years, the other 4 years.

They said they were doing roving informational pickets at area hotels which subcontract with Morgan Development, a company they call a “rat.” According to a flyer they were handing out,

“A rat is a contractor that does not pay all of its employees prevailing wages, including either providing or making payments for family health care and pension benefits.”

  Some have criticized Local 1506 for their tactics, but there is nothing wrong with demanding fairness and equity in the workplace, especially when it comes to paying a fair wage that meets community standards. They do this by pressuring those who subcontract with offending employers. Not unlike consumers protesting against offensive TV shows by pressuring advertisers. Placing pressure on the one paying the bills can be a very effective tool.

Carpenters Local 1506 sees these protests as an obligation.

“Carpenters Local 1506 objects to substandard wage employers like Morgan Development working in the community,” says their flyer. “In our opinion the community ends up paying the tab for employee health care and low wages paid tend to lower general community standards… believes that Hilton has an obligation to the community to do all it can to see that area labor standards are met for construction of their resort.”

  This particular Hilton is a union employer. That’s one of the reasons the CDP chose it to house delegates. As a union employer, they should be committed to using subcontractors that are also union, or at the very least pay union scale or prevailing wages, health care, and pensions. So yes, “Shame on Hilton”.

Local 1506 is asking people to “tell Hilton that you want them to do all they can to change this situation and see that area labor standards are met for construction of their resort.”

Local 1506 has been doing this across the state. It is not likely that it will cause any disruption to the State Democratic Convention, but maybe it should. At the very least the CDP should express their concerns about a union hotel subcontracting with employers who do not pay prevailing wages. After all, the block of rooms the CDP reserved is sold out, and believe me, its no small amount of money.

California

Pension commission gets to work

3 Comments

The newly created Public Employee Post-Employment Benefits Commission started work today. First order of business, deciding whether or not there is actually a pension crisis.

Chairman Gerald Parsky said the panel will find “a calm and reasonable way to educate the public about the magnitude of this issue.” That doesn’t sound like someone who is buying into this being a crisis.

Marcia Fritz, vice president of California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a front group for proponents of risky defined contribution plans, has already declared a pension crisis.

“This is a crisis,” Fritz said in an interview. “We have a liability and we need to stop it from getting worse.”

Fritz and her group need a crisis. It is the only way they can push their favorite solution – a defined contribution plan – onto public employees. California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility was founded by former Assemblyman Keith Richman who is a champion of defined contribution pensions.

On the other side are employee groups who argue that the state’s retirement system is fiscally sound and that the biggest issue is unfunded retiree health cost. They say that solutions to the unfunded liabilities can be found without going into crisis mode.

“The pension system is largely funded…If you are a nurse, a firefighter, a teacher or a custodial worker you have a safe, secure system,” Willie Pelote, a representative for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, told the panel. “We can only ask that you deal with the facts. There is no crisis.”

The commission has less than a year to complete their assignment. If all they do is argue about whether or not there is a crisis, what can they possible accomplish in that short time.

Uncategorized

Thinking through a February primary and term limits

6 Comments

(The real reason behind the Feb. primary? – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

X-posted at California Notes

Legislative leaders and the Governor are determined to move California’s Presidential primary from June to February 2008, and I am still convinced they are doing it for purely personal political reasons and not to give the state more clout. Legislation to move the primary (SB 113) cleared the two Senate committee hearings on votes of 3-0 and 11-1. It pains me to say it, but the only Senator who had the good sense to vote against it is a Republican, Dave Cox. It now goes to the Senate floor where we can only hope for the bill’s demise, but that looks like even a remote possibility.

Frank Russo likens SB113 to a speeding train.

“SB 113 is a fast train with no curves or other obstacles on the track—at least ones that will slow it down. The proponents of the February primary, which include the leadership of both houses and the Governor are taking no chances on anything that will delay it from becoming the reality.”

More on the flip.

But it isn’t the early primary that interest them most, but rather the potential to alter term limits and give them all more time in Sacramento. The plan is to pass a term limit change in time for them to run in the regular June ’08 primary which will still go on as planned, sans the Presidential race.

Moving the Presidential primary will probably depress turnout June, but the ramifications go beyond voters sitting out one of three elections in 10 months. Candidates who are scheduled to be termed out in ’08 are making decisions about their next step right now, and aspirants are lining up to run in the open seats.

Here’s an example of the mess this could bring. In the 8th Assembly District, Lois Wolk, at the moment, is termed out and has her eyes set on the 5th Senate seat held by also termed out Mike Machado. But, if term limits are changed next February, Machado could continue in the Senate and Wolk in the Assembly. That’s not bad, but if Wolk wants to run in what could be a hotly contested Senate primary, she needs to be able to start planning now. The same goes for any challengers.

Imagine that you’re on the outside wanting to run for a seat that is scheduled to be open. You declare your candidacy, start raising money, put a stellar team together, and make a substantial investment. You like the person who is in office, and would be just fine with them continuing, but the law won’t allow it, so with the blessing of the incumbent you declare your candidacy for the soon to be open seat.

Then, four months before the primary term limits are changed and the incumbent is allowed to run again, and does. Because you like the incumbent, who is of your party,  and has done great things in office, you don’t want to put them out and face the reality you probably couldn’t anyway. So, after a major investment, months of work, and thousands of dollars raised and spent, you decide not to run. 

The entire dynamic changes if a change in term limits happens in February ’08, and leaves very little time to make adjustments before the June ’08 primary. If you thought our elections were screwed up now because of term limits, just wait and see how screwed up June ’08 will be if we make this change this way.

If the goal is to move the primary so California has more clout, do only that and leave off the term limit and redistricting initiatives. That won’t happen because the real reason for an election in February is to change term limits. The Presidential primary just happens to be convenient.

Term limits should be repealed altogether. They’re horrible and do nothing to make government better. As a matter of fact, since term limits things have only gotten worse. So, repeal term limits, but make the repeal effective only for incoming legislators. Then, current legislators would show that they want them repealed because it is the right thing to do, not because they benefit by lengthening their stay in office. It could be done in such away that after sitting out a term, the formerly termed out legislators could run again under the new rules.

Doing this gives us a change in term limits, but doesn’t screw up a whole election cycle for challengers and others. It also goes a long way to convince many of us that they really do want the Presidential primary earlier for the sake of California’s clout.

Uncategorized

Early Primary doesn’t give California a role in choosing President

4 Comments

Cross posted at California Notes

How quickly we forget, especially when it comes to political agendas. In a rabid push to move the 2008 primary election to February 5, the players in this obscene power play are forgetting the lessons of the past. Three times, 1996, 2000, and 2004, California moved the primary election to March only to see presidential nominees named even earlier. What makes supporters of a February primary think the outcome will be any different this time. We all know the definition of insanity.

Other states are also pushing for earlier primaries, mostly to keep ahead of California. As every other state moves earlier and earlier, California once again loses the clout it ridiculously hoped to gain. But clout, state clout at any rate, isn’t the real reason behind the move to an early primary.

For some time now, I have been pointing out to friends, family and any other ear that would listen, that the real reason behind the change is personal power. This is politics after all. Three current office holders stand to gain the most from moving the Presidential primary to February and severing it from the June regular primary in which we’ll have to vote on everything else. Tony Quinn, co-editor of the California Target Book, agrees.

“Schwarzenegger has become addicted to campaigning and political fundraising. He has already made clear his desire to campaign in early primary states, even though, as foreign born; he cannot be a presidential candidate. He and his political team want an early primary so he can be a player.”

Democratic legislative leaders have another agenda — changing term limits and remaining in their powerful positions at least a little longer. Besides the Presidential primary, two initiatives, one dealing with redistricting and one with lengthening the time legislators can serve, are planned for the ballot in February. Both Senate President Pro-Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez are in their final terms under current rules. Both want to remain in their current leadership roles beyond 2008. Neither can without a rule change, and changing the rules at the normal June primary won’t apply to them since they currently can’t run in June ’08.

Their only hope is to pass a measure on the same early ballot as the Presidential primary to go into effect immediately, thus making them eligible for the separate June vote. That’s right my political junkie friends, two elections within six months of each other. But wait, there’s more.

Not only do you get two elections, but we’ll throw in another in November, just because we have to. That’s three elections in the span of 10 months, and it doesn’t cost you anything extra. Well, actually it does, millions of dollars, but only about 90, spent on an extra election. There is also the very real issue of low turnout and voter fatigue.

“The February primary would be for president and favored ballot measures alone, and California would still have its June primary for state and other federal offices. Holding three elections in 2008 is a perfect formula for lower voter turnout. Why would people turn out for the June primary after having gone to the polls in February?

“Voter fatigue, as we saw in the 2006 primary, contributes to elections in which only hardcore partisans vote. That results in the election of a polarized Legislature without a political center.”

Democrats were right to complain about the cost of recall and the special election and to label them unnecessary expenses to be born by counties. Republican Quinn calls Democrats who favor an early primary hypocritical. Once again, I agree.

“The Democrats’ position is especially hypocritical, because they moaned and groaned about the cost of the special recall election in 2003 and Schwarzenegger’s special election in 2005. But there is nary a word from them about the cost of a special primary in 2008 — probably in the neighborhood of $90 million, according to the secretary of state. Special elections are just fine when you benefit.”

If lengthening the time legislators can serve is the right thing to do – and it is, then it can be done at any other election. This is clearly and admittedly planned to benefit those who are currently serving, particularly the Pro-Tem and the Speaker. Any benefit the people of California receive from an ultra-early primary is only secondary and not very likely anyway.

The major benefit to the Governor is a pumped ego, but not much else. He can’t run for President himself, and an ultra-early primary has the outside possibility of making him a “king maker.”

I can find no compelling argument for moving the primary to February. It is too close to the holidays, too close to the Super Bowl, and won’t produce the supposedly desired result of giving California more clout. It will cost about $90 million, may benefit a few individuals, and could drive down voter turnout in other elections.

But of course were going to have a February Presidential primary.

Uncategorized

CA Presidential Primary in February: Ready to campaign during the holidays.

6 Comments

(There are a lot of issues to think about when it comes to campaigning that time of year. – promoted by juls)

cross-posted at California Notes

Missing from the discussion on moving California’s primary from June to February are two very real issues. First, the campaign will be in full swing during the holiday season where it will compete with the rampant commercialism surrounding this once festive time of year. Don’t get me wrong, I welcome anything that will take people’s attention away from the incessant need to get more, but the real fear for campaign and political junkies, like me, is that voters will be paying more attention to shopping than to who they would like for the next President of the United States.

Nothing says “Happy Holidays” better than the fake robo-call just as you’re sitting down to a nice Christmas dinner with family and friends. And all those bowl games are a great opportunity for endless campaign ads. More people are home during this time of year, so we can beef up our door-to-door efforts.

Seriously, has anyone really thought this through. Does any candidate really want to spend their holidays on the campaign trail?

The second issue is Election Day itself. It would be February 5, 2008, which puts the last day weekend of campaigning, the GOTV (Get out the vote) weekend squarely in conflict with the Super Bowl. I know I don’t want to face some irate fan when I interrupt his Super Bowl party so I can tell him about why he should vote for my candidate. Again, robo-call strategy. That’ll really piss ’em off.

Hmmm, with the fake robo-call potential, this could be a better opportunity that I thought.

Uncategorized

Taking back the CA Democratic Party

6 Comments

(Arnold is a Democrat? – promoted by juls)

x-posted at California Notes

I’m not against reaching across the aisle in an effort to find common ground that benefits all Californians and makes this great state even better. I’m not against finding bipartisan solutions to the complex problems facing the state. I am against selling out.

Not to exonerate Phil Angelides for complicity in his own defeat, but the Democratic leaders, and yes, even the party itself, are not blame free. Throughout the summer months as it became clear that the gap in the poll percentages were not closing, Democrats seemed to flee the Angelides campaign and, desperate to be aligned with a winner, flocked to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This morning while reading the morning paper, I managed to keep the coffee from spewing across the room, as I read about inaugural bash plans.

Schwarzenegger released his deep list of 22 inaugural committee co-chairs, which includes incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, as well as U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.

While the inaugural co-chairs are ceremonial positions, it doesn’t bode well that Democratic Party leaders are seen as being “co-opted” by the Republican Governor.

Statements like this don’t help either.

Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the California Democratic Party, said Schwarzenegger “ran as a Democrat. We’re going to hold him to it,”

Is Salazar out of his mind? This is the same Schwarzenegger who tried to take away public employee pensions, take away teacher’s job security, silence the voice of working Californians, denied health care to all Californians and to California’s children, and has said he plans to try at least some of it again.

This could be the reason why progressives across the state are putting out the call to get themselves elected as delegates to the Democratic State Convention.

In one month, the California Democratic Party is holding elections for the DSCC (Democratic State Central Committee).  There will be 80 separate caucuses, one for each assembly district, on the weekend of January 13-14.  The 6 men and 6 women who win these elections will become 1/3 of the delegates to the CDP, and will as part of their duties become delegates to the state convention in April, where they can vote on the party platform, party operation and machinery, and specific candidate endorsements.  This is a real opportunity to get progressives and reformers into the state party to attempt to steer it in a direction that is more responsive to the grassroots, more engaged with the electorate, and generally more functional and successful.

I also have previous post here and here.

Bipartisanship is all fine and good, but let’s not go to calling the Republican Governor a Democrat just because he signed a minimum wage bill that doesn’t adjust for inflation and says – there’s no proof yet and evidence (veto of SB 840) suggest otherwise – that he supports universal health care. While I support our Democratic leadership, Pelosi, Núñez, Boxer and Feinstein should be ashamed to allow themselves to be co-opted.

And, Roger, get a clue. Schwarzenegger did not run as a Democrat, but as an opportunist who took advantage of a Democratic Party afraid to stand up for progressive values and stand strongly with it’s chosen nominee.

Click this link for information about how you can help take back your party and become a delegate to the CA Democratic State Convention.

Diaries & Misc., Health Care

Health Care: What if we didn’t, and what about the people who don’t?

1 Comment

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

My day on Wednesday started out in the emergency room at O’Connor Hospital in San Jose.  My wife was awakened at 3:00 A.M. by a severe pain in her right side. At 5:30 she finally woke me and we decided she needed to go to the emergency room. We were in San Jose on business, staying in a hotel and had no idea about hospitals in the area. I picked O’Connor because it was the closest one according to the hotel binder, and I knew our insurance would cover it. My wife was in severe distress. The last thing I wanted or needed to think about was; is this hospital covered, how far away is one that is, how do I find one that is, what if I just go and find out it isn’t. Here’s what I did think about; “What if we didn’t have great insurance, and what about the people who don’t?”

I was surprised to walk into an empty ER. I’m used to the horror stories of people waiting in pain for hours unless they are spurting blood across the room. We found out later that O’Connor is not a trauma center. It is an outstanding private hospital that I’m guessing most uninsured can’t get near. Flashing our insurance card, we quickly got through the paper work and in to be seen by a doctor. My first thought was for my wife, my second was, “I’m glad we have good insurance and don’t have to worry about how much this is gonna cost.” My third thought is what lead to this article, “What if we didn’t, and what about the people who don’t?”

After a few questions, giving up a couple vials of blood, and a dose of pain medication my wife was whisked off to radiology for a sonogram. The sonogram confirmed that she had gall stones and would need to have surgery that afternoon. Without hesitation we agreed to the surgery. We could agree, without hesitation, because we knew we wouldn’t have to face a large surgery bill afterward. In fact there would be no bill at all, not for us anyway, because we have good insurance. My next thought was, “What if we didn’t, and what about the people who don’t?”

During our consultation with the highly regarded, Stanford educated surgeon who would be operating on my wife later in the day, we were told an option to expensive surgery, a painful option, but an option nonetheless. It was to wait and hope that the pain would go away which he said sometimes happens. He didn’t recommend it, but it was an option. Maybe that’s what people without health insurance do; painfully endure while they get sicker and sicker until finally they have no options. I was glad we didn’t have to think about that, but I did because, “What if we didn’t, and what about the people who don’t?”

The surgery went very well. The surgeon told me afterward that we made a good choice. My wife’s gall bladder was worse than the sonogram had shown and really did need to come out. It turned out we didn’t have an option. She would need to rest for awhile and recover from the surgery. That meant an overnight stay in the hospital. That was okay, we have good insurance and once again I catch myself thinking, “What if we didn’t, and what about the people who don’t?”

We’re back home now, but will have to go back to San Jose to see the doctor for follow up. We could probably skip the follow up. I’m sure everything will be okay, and I might take that chance to avoid more cost, but I don’t have to think about that. We have good insurance but, “What if we didn’t, and what about the people who don’t?”

So maybe I beat this drum one too many times, but I’m deadly serious, and yes, the pun is intended. I do think about the people who don’t have health insurance and the people who have poor health insurance with exorbitant co-payments and deductibles. The sad truth is they either don’t get the care they need, even in an emergency, or they just don’t pay, leaving the tab for others to pick up. Bankruptcy is no longer an option, but that’s another article. In the end, we all pay, and it cost us dearly.

What I think about mostly is how unfair our system of health care is, and it makes me angry. It makes me angry that I can walk into any health care provider anywhere in this country, flash my insurance card, and get the care I need without any concern over whether or not I’ll be stuck with an enormous bill that I can’t possibly pay. Everyone should be able to do what we did without financial concern. That would be fair. What really makes me angry is that there aren’t enough people angry enough about the unfairness of our current health care system pushing hard enough to force something to be done about it. There are a few, but all to often I hear the deep sign of resignation, “It will never happen.” But it has to happen, it can happen and it can happen now.

Universal health care is within our reach. The question isn’t can we, but will we. Do we have the will to insure every citizen in this state and this country and provide universal health care as every other industrialized nation in the world has? Do we have the will to recognize health care as a right to be protected, rather than a privilege to be hoarded. Unfortunately, I don’t have confidence in a positive answer to either question, but I do know this; together, we can do better.

This short episode in my life won’t be soon forgotten. It has given me pause to count my blessings. Yes, I count myself among the blessed in this nation, but the next time I go to the hospital I really would rather not catch myself thinking, “What if we weren’t so blessed, and what about the people who aren’t?”

On health care, together, we can do better.

California

Hike in minimum wage favored by small business

1 Comment

[Thanks to Julia Rosen of Alliance for a Better CA for suggesting I cross post this from The Bayne of Blog.]

One of the arguments leveled against increasing the minimum wage has been the assumed negative effect it would have on small business. The fear expressed by many, mostly outside of small business it seems, is that raising the minimum will drive small businesses out of business as they struggle to pay the help. Of course, this has never happened with previous wage increases. When low-wage workers get a raise they spend it. This in turn puts more dollars in the pockets of businesses of all types which drives the economy because more employees are needed to service more consumers.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, an increase in the federal minimum wage ($5.15) is favored by almost half of all small-business owners. Seventy-five percent of small businesses claim that a 10% increase in the minimum would have no effect on their businesses.

Wouldn’t it be great if these small businesses would get behind the effort to raise the minimum wage. Low-wage workers could earn more, put more back into the economy, and everybody wins as businesses do better and hire more workers which in turn puts more money into more hands continuing the cycle. Bubble up economics sounds a whole lot better to me than trickle-down. But then, I’m not the one doing the trickling, and have seen to many people, including myself, get trickled on. If the small businesses favoring a hike in the minimum wage would get on board and help in our campaign to increase it, we would have a powerful ally that would have to be heard. Alas, many small business owners are under the thumb of big business through Chambers of Commerce and other business organizations.