The primary hearing on the water bond measures has moved to Monday 1 pm.  I had previously been schedules for Oct. 4. Does this indicate that there have been some smoke filled room (Arnie’s Cigar) deals?  I don’t know, but I always fear it has.

Restore the Delta is trying to get as many well informed people as possible into the hearing.  If any of you know people in Sacramento, by all means call them up, send them an IM, an email, whatever.  Just make sure that they hear the public’s message and not the big money lobbyists.

Restore the Delta is mandatory reading.  So is Aquafornia.

( – promoted by Robert in Monterey)

I have not posted anything here for quite a while.  Frankly, most of my political time has been spent becoming more educated on the issues surrounding California’s Water Crisis.  What I figured out is that it is just basic common sense.

I have been posting most of my observations on my main blog, California Greening.   I have been reading Aquafornia almost every day lately. This all leads to some interesting conclusions.

A. The primary focus of the environmental movement  is on Global Warming.  Not enough attention is being paid to the issues of water, even though those two are intimately related.  Global warming will make the ocean level rise.  It will change rainfall patterns.  It may make some current dams useless as they will not catch enough water to keep their reservoirs full. California environmentalists need to pay more attention to water.

B. The local newspaper coverage on the “water crisis” is pretty good. Much of it is summarized faithfully at Aquafornia (link above).  The editors of all the major papers seem to understand the urgency (Orange County Register is not one, though.)  They differ somewhat in their idea of the proper solution, but they all seem to understand the we have put off doing anything and it is now time to pay the piper.  I have summarized much of the editorial coverage at CA Greening.  As I indicated before, on the extreme Libertarian views of the OC Register fail to understand the need to spend a dime.  They don’t understand global warming either.

C.  It is really important to follow the special session of the legislature called by the Guv.  This will be an ideological battle.  It may happen in a short time. Schwarzenegger wants it on the February Primary Election ballot and that means action in Sacramento no later than mid-October. Hah!  If they do get it on the ballot for February, it just may be that they have to deliver two versions, Schwarzenegger’s and Perata’s. Highest vote total wins.

The real reason for doing it in February is that there is generally not a very high turnout in a primary election, even a presidential primary.  So, they will want to sneak this through.

D.  The focus on the “progressive netroots” on Iraq, etc. will prevent their being much of a participant in this unless we do something (like I am trying to do now) about getting them energized. 

E.  In the marketplace of idea, the survivors often are the ones with the biggest Ad Budgets.  This may be the Governor and the Association of California Water Agencies.

F.  The biggest question for us all is whether or not the general voter will care enough to think about water until the faucet is shut off or the levees fail, just as they did in NOLA.

This is truly worth spending a lot more time on and I hope that you all do just that.  I also hope that you will help me put increasing pressure on our legislature to make sure we do the right thing, not just look to grab all the water for their favorite user… which is normal practice for a legislator. 

(I love me some liveblogging. Just so everyone is clear: SB 840 is Keuhl’s single payer bill and AB 8 is the Nunez/Perata bill that stays within the private insurance model. – promoted by juls)

Things are about to get underway as It’s OUR Healthcare! will be liveblogging from the John L. Burton Hearing Room where the Senate Health Committee chaired by SB 840 author, State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), will meet at 1:30pm.

Senator Kuehl is setting the ground rules for the hearing. (No cheering, clapping or booing.)

Scheduled to speak are the Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland).

Check for updates below the fold.

Speaker Nunez has just arrived and will start the discussion on AB 8. Senate Pro Tem seated right beside him.

In front of Senator Kuehl is a white sign with black text: “DO NO HARM.”

Speaker Nunez says that he and Perata are pleased to be here to make a major step in ailing a system that is broken.

Nunez: [Kuehl] You are a champion of healthcare for all Californians.

Nunez: AB 8 built on the idea of shared responsibility between employers, government and individuals. These measures will not fix the entire healthcare market, but improve it. This is a rare opportunity to fundamentally improve our healthcare system. We need to act now; take advantage of this opportunity.

Nunez: All of the uninsured children in California will be covered by this legislation. It will move 3.4 million (of the 6.5 million) under coverage.

Nunez: This is not a perfect plan, but will help pave the way for “real healthcare reform.”

Senator Perata now at the podium.

Perata: “[Bills merged because] we got tired talking to each other. We wanted to talk to the Governor.” Says we should have a national healthcare program. “Scandalous” that the U.S. is “woeful” on healthcare. California must provide the leadership [for the country].

Kuehl: In MA, they just added “affordable” to the name.

Witness: (Speaking of SB 840 support) “It seems like Kuehl’s gang were all over the place.” Kuehl replied jokingly, “Kuehl’s angels, we call them,” and the room chuckled.

Angie Wei, California Labor Fed acknowledged the huge number of IOH supporters that have traveled from across the state today. Provisions supported: Creation of statewide purchasing pool; establishment minimum of healthcare spending requirement; subsidies and discounts for families below 300% poverty level.

Concerns: issue of cost containment (union members have been able to hold on to their healthcare but pay a dear price for that; early retirees face risk of losing their healthcare; current system is unsustainable); affordability (we need to protect families from maximum exposure out of pocket).

Beth Capell, Health Access California: [Legislators] have been receiving healthcare Stories of the Day. Retells her own personal healthcare story involving her husband. “Never once did we worry we whether we could pay for his care. It should be that way for everyone.”

Number of studies released today on employer-based coverage. AB 8 would have a modest, yet positive, impact on California’s economy and not cost jobs.

Capell: We can do something this year that will improve the economy and help with people’s care.

Witness: AB 8 would improve healthcare for low-income Californians.

Mary Hernandez, SEIU: We support AB 8 if amended to control healthcare costs.

Gary Passmore, Congress of California Seniors: Add amendments on two issues for support; truly a work in progress; “we like what we see”

Consumers Union: support if amended; transparency a must;

AFSCME: We want to make sure this bill includes cost controls.

California Medical Association: support if amended; refinement of cost control efforts; inclusion of fiscal transparency

CNA voiced opposition to AB 8, instead favoring SB 840.

Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) suggested to the Speaker that he work with the chair, put a hold on the bill and work on it through the fall.

Kuehl: “I don’t like your bill as much as I like my bill.” (The assembled crowd laughed.)

Kuehl: If we had the right Governor, we’d have it (SB 840). But my responsibility, is to now. Responsibility to push as hard as I can to hammer on the issues at hand. I am going to support this bill today (AB 8). It must keep moving to have a vehicle better than the Governor’s plan.

Nunez: Your bill (SB 840) is not only a bill that I not only support, but enthusiastically support. AB 8 is not perfect but will help a lot of people — 3.4 million.

Kuehl voted in favor of AB 8, vote is currently still open.

(cross-posted from Working Californians)

The May Revised budget was released by Arnold yesterday.  He wants to pay off some bonds early, sell off State assets and make cuts to welfare for children, the blind and elderly.  That prompted John Meyers to ask Arnold if that was like “making an extra mortgage payment when you can’t pay the utility bills.”  Naturally, Arnold did not have a good answer, simply saying it was not an ideal situation, but he wanted to pay off more debt.

Yes, the state is facing a revenue slump for the first time in years, but like Fabian Nunez says, this budget it “mean spirited”.  Its priorities are out of whack.

Lawmakers’ skepticism of the privatization plans is just one obstacle the governor faces. Democrats do not accept Schwarzenegger’s assertion that the state is so deep in the red that it cannot avoid removing thousands of families from the state’s welfare program, freezing cost-of-living adjustments for low-income elderly and disabled and raiding public transportation accounts for more than $1 billion.

“I wish we could fund all of those programs,” Schwarzenegger said at an afternoon news conference. “But I have an obligation, which is a promise to the people of California that I will bring down the structural deficit to zero, that we will be fiscally responsible.”

Your priority is to pay off our debt early, pleasing Wall Street instead of aiding the poor, disabled and elderly.  Where is the sense it that?  Closing the structural deficit is a good thing, but it should not come at the cost of our long term assets and the most vulnerable Californians.

Democratic leaders, who worked relatively harmoniously with Schwarzenegger last year, criticized his proposals, calling them quick fixes that disproportionately hurt the less affluent.

“When it’s all said and done, this is reminiscent of the pre-postpartisanship governor,” said Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), referring to Schwarzenegger’s depiction of his bipartisan leadership style since his fiscally conservative political program was rejected by voters in the 2005 special election.

The governor’s budget “punishes middle-class, working-class and poor Californians,” Nuñez said.

This is not a long term solution to our state’s fiscal problems, in fact it goes the opposite way by selling off our assets for short term gains during a relatively minor budget squeeze.  Sometimes the real Arnold rears his ugly head.  This is one of those times.

For more see Frank Russo’s coverage of Perata’s and Nunez’s press conferences and dday’s post below.

(Cross-posted from Working Californians)

There is major public support for single payer health care in California, according to the PPIC poll released today.  Arnold is in the minority with his opposition to this concept.

Think Californians don’t like taxes? Sort of. Sixty-one percent said they would prefer a “universal health care system” where everyone is covered by a government program and “financed by taxpayers,” over the current system. Of course, this is a two-option choice. But 63% supported raising taxes to “guarantee health insurance for all citizens.” And 54% said they would generally favor higher taxes for more services. This is good news for lawmakers such as state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, who is attempting to do just that, but also gives a little breathing room for Schwarzenegger as he attempts to surcharge doctors, hospitals and employers for his universal plan. And even larger number, 71%, said they favored Schwarzenegger’s plan for shared responsibility.

The study shows real viable public support for major health care reform.  Californians are willing to pay more taxes to have government run health care.  They also support Arnold’s plan.  That may sound contradictory, but it makes one thing clear, they want something done about our current health care system.  It is not working.  They live with it on a daily basis and want to see change.

None of the state’s major politicians are pushing for single payer.  This just about sums up their attitudes.  It is Sen. Perata on Sen. Sheilia Kuel’s single payer bill, saying:

“It will receive the same consideration as it did last year when it got to the governor’s desk,” said Perata, an Oakland Democrat. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill.

(I would give you a link to it, but it is behind the new SacBee pay wall, known as the Capitol Alert.)

Perata is saying that it probably could pass both legislative houses, but it would go no further than Arnold’s desk.  Absent some unbelievable turnaround, that will probably hold true for the remainder of his term.  He is out of step with the majority of Californians, as the PPIC poll makes clear.

This has led Nunez and Perata to push for a deal with Arnold that relies on the private insurance industry, rather than advocate for single-payor.  It is a pragmatic approach, but not revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination.

(cross-posted on Working Californians)

One of the worst parts about our current health care system is the ability of insurance companies to deny people coverage because of preexisting conditions.  They are slowly turning it into a system where only healthy people can get insurance.  I recently had to sign up for health insurance, luckily I am very healthy, young and do not have major hereditary problems.  Others are not so lucky.

Bloggers are starting to share their personal health care stories.  CJ from the Courage Campaign wrote today:

When I moved to Chicago, I stayed at a dead-end job because I was scared of not having health insurance. Finally, I decided I was going to move home to L.A. – and gratefully accepted my parents’ help in paying for Cobra insurance coverage. I don’t know where I’d be right now without my parents’ financial support. Because recently, I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and if I hadn’t paid for Cobra insurance, my new employer’s insurance would have denied coverage for my treatment.

And here is dday from a few weeks ago:

I want to interject here at this point, because I am in exactly the same position as those in this article. I’m self-employed, living in California, and I have, in fact, a prior history of asthma. I had to practically beg Blue Cross to take me in 2004 (when I fully went free-lance, and dropped the coverage I had with my employer), and since I have had Achilles tendon surgery since then, I pretty much have to stay with the greediest, sneakiest, most depraved insurer in the nation. It seems like it’s only gotten worse since then. As it is, I have high-deductible coverage that doesn’t cover routine things like MRI’s (which I paid completely out of pocket in the summer of ’04). I can certainly afford coverage that’s better, but at this point, nobody would cover me. This is well-known to anyone who has to arrange for their own insurance. I’ve been turned down before, even by so-called “good guys” like Kaiser. It’s this knowledge, that any prior history will cause rejection, that pushes people to fib on their forms, which Blue Cross uses to its advantage later by dropping people after they make a claim. Blue Cross doesn’t mind if you lie a little on your form if you pay them; it’s only when you want something FROM them that they’ll drop you.

We will need more of these stories to be told in the public.  We are talking about life and death here.

There are a few proposals for fixing this problem, which has two distinct parts.

1. Requiring insurance companies to insure all people regardless of pre-existing conditions
2. Regulating what variables insurance companies can use to set their price-points

In order to share risk we need to include not just the healthy in insurance pools.  It is completely inefficient to push people who are sick to get their health care from the ER, rather than actually pay for preventative measures and ongoing treatment.  We need to share the costs of coverage and like recent reforms to the car insurance industry, ensure that people are not discriminated against when it comes to fees.

Nunez, Perata and Schwarzeneggers plans deal with this in different ways and level of detail.  Expect these to be more fleshed out as the debate progresses.

Insurance industry. The governor’s plan would require all insurance companies to provide coverage to anyone who applies, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Insurers could charge varying premiums based on age and geography, but not health status. Insurance companies would also be required to spend at least 85 percent of their premium revenue on services to consumers.

Perata’s plan would require insurers who contracted with the state purchasing pool to provide coverage without regard to pre-existing health conditions. Nunez’s plan envisions tighter regulation of issues surrounding pre-existing conditions but has not specified the details.