There is a lot being written about Governor Schwarzenegger’s health care proposal, but one of the most interesting analyses I’ve read lately is Senator Sheila Kuehl’s take on the plan. For free market types, it is a look at how committed the liberals are to having government take over health care (and how little they care about the cost of health care, as long as employees don’t have to pay for anything). For the governor’s staff and legislative Republicans, it tells them exactly what Kuehl and other universal health care advocates will continue to push for as the legislature begins to debate the governor’s proposal (She doesn’t even like the liberal stuff he proposed!).
Here are a few highlights from an essay Kuehl wrote this week critiquing the plan:
** ON THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE: "The central basis of the Governor’s plan is simply to mandate that every Californian must, by law, carry health insurance. There is no requirement that it be affordable and no minimum coverage. This means that the requirement can be met by a bare-bones policy covering only catastrophic events, with a $5,000 deductible and up to $7500 in out of pocket expenses for all the things that aren’t covered by the policy."
** ON THE EMPLOYER MANDATE: "Employees of businesses with fewer than 10 employees would be required, under the individual mandate mentioned above, to buy insurance for themselves and their families. Their employers would not be required to do anything."
** ON COST CONTAINMENT: "The Governor’s proposal contains no real cost containment measures. It merely shifts the cost of unlimited premiums onto consumers. The proposal attempts to label the fact that he would allow insurance companies to offer greatly reduced coverage as “cost containment”."
** ON THE "COVERAGE FOR ALL" MANDATE: "It does not…address the fact that the insurance companies would likely raise their overall premiums to cover the new risks they would be required to assume."
** ON COMMUNITY RATING: "The Governor’s most recent explanation of this section of the proposal, however, could potentially exacerbate the problem by adopting a “modified” community rating system that would allow the private insurance companies to differentiate in premiums on the bases of age, gender and regionalized location. A strict “community rating” system would not allow these differentiations, so, at the very least, some clarification is needed."
** ON PHYSICIAN/HOSPITAL SHARE OF COST TAX: "Logically, this means that, should doctors and hospitals raise their fees to adjust for these taxes, the sick would be paying a disproportionate share of subsidizing health insurance for the poor."
So, as they say in school, let’s review: In Sheila Kuehl’s world, employees shouldn’t have to pay for their health insurance plans, the sick shouldn’t have to pay, insurance companies should not be allowed to charge higher risk consumers more or allowed to raise premiums as they are forced to absorb more risk, even the smallest employers need to pay for their employees health care and everyone should have a premium plan of coverage.
It is no surprise that for Kuehl and her ilk, the end game is universal, government-regulated health care that costs consumers nothing. Who pays? Employers, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and, of course, the taxpayers.
Kuehl refuses to recognize the benefits of the give-and-take of our economic system. She laments that an employee of a business with less than 10 employees has to pay for their own insurance, but doesn’t recognize that that employee has a job, thanks to the entrepreneurial spirit of their boss who may not even be taking a paycheck home or may have remortgaged their home to raise the capital for their business. She wants insurance companies to insure everyone without regard to their age, gender, health history, etc. And why would an insurance company stay in
While none of Kuehl’s thinking is surprising, it is always good to be clear on where the opposition is coming from as one goes into negotiations. Keuhl must know that her extreme-left position of creating a Canadian-style health care program in
Governor Schwarzenegger has said that he listened to the voters when they rejected the measures he promoted in the 2005 special election. Kuehl’s, Perata’s and Nunez’s approach to health care are all more extreme than Senator John Burton’s SB 2, which the voters repealed in 2004. We don’t have to guess at whether Californians support this type of health care reform–we know with certainly that they reject this flawed approach!
The governor also has said that he is open to compromise. The GOP needs to continue to educate the media and press on why Kuehl, Fabian and Nunez are extremists on this issue, willing to kill jobs and hugely expand government spending in their effort to achieve government-controlled health care. The Republicans also need to work with the governor’s people to inject more market-driven approaches in their plan.
The governor was committed to sealing a deal on global warming last year. Make no mistake, he is as committed to hammering out a comprehensive health care reform plan this year. Republicans in the legislature need to do what they can to shape a plan that protects jobs and the economy, while helping the governor achieve a deal that he can comfortably label as comprehensive health care reform.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.