Home | About | Donate

Nurses Scolded: Not OKAY to Play Hardball with Democrats


#21

To de-privatize healthcare is the only way to move forward. People before profit has to be firmly established to move forward. Spineless politicians have to bite the bullet and say enough is enough. The insurance and big pharma industries have to be dealt with or there's no hope for regular folks. Care shouldn't be the financial ruin of so many good hard working people.


#22

Seeing how hard it is for California only alludes to the country as a whole. Email all your representatives and push for HR-676 for all of us. Sanders is working on a senate version for the same bill. It will be hard but worth it in the end.


#23

The determination of the nurses along with all supporters of SB 562 is to be applauded.

Yes, there are problems with the bill, however, there are always negotiations with stakeholders as the bill moves through the legislative process. Language is struck, amendments added, the bill moves from committee to committee to floor vote to the opposite house and then back to the house of origin for a concurrent vote if language has been changed.

The real reason Speaker Rendon blocked the bill is exactly what was said in this article . . . no political will . . . or rather the political will has been purchased by campaign contributors. As long as big money is part of the election campaign process and does NOT have to be disclosed to the voters we will deal with stalls and outright opposition from the very people we elected to serve us.

The supporters of SB 562 and supporters of any bill that will seriously help we the people need to stand in support with the California DISCLOSE Act.

Supporters of the California DISCLOSE Act have been working for six years to get a DISCLOSE act that is easily viewed on campaign ads themselves and will reveal the REAL funders of the advertising through the maze of Sacramento. This year there is every reason to expect a 2/3 majority vote to help it pass in time for 2018 elections, yet Sacramento is finding ways to stall it. Why? Perhaps, they like the way the game is rigged and don't want to see serious change? Are they bowing to "special interests," as it appears with SB 562? To take Single Payer to a ballot initiative without a strong CA DISCLOSE Act in place would be an act in futility. Special interests will just dump millions of dollars on misleading advertising to kill the ballot initiative just as they did with Prop 61 last year.

Are "We the People" angry enough to persevere and hold our public servants accountable? Will we expose electeds that clearly engage in quid pro quo by passing legislation favorable to special interests or stopping legislation that favors their constituents while possibly reducing profits for their campaign contributors? There is so much at stake here. Yes, Americans/Calfiornians deserve Universal Healthcare just like every citizen in other industrialized countries receive, and, we are also fighting for our democratic process. Stand together, take action and revitalize democracy!


#25

There was never a proposal for a 15% payroll tax increase, indeed a study prepared for passage of the bill recommended the balance needed to fund the plan could be addressed by much smaller taxes, on gross business receipts and sales tax with multiple exceptions to protect low income people and small businesses.

And the claim that "several previously passed ballot propositions would have to be change in order to make the bill work" is simply your rhetoric, not backed by reality. You're spinning the same misinformation about that as you and your cohorts have about Prop. 98.

Here's what Sheila Kuehl said about the Prop. 98 falsehood spewed by David Dayen and others - “That theory won’t fly,” she told IBT, asserting that there is likely breathing room within the Gann limit. She said after a decade of debate over single-payer, lawmakers should be able to come up with ways to deal with Proposition 98. “I don’t think it would actually be a problem,” said Kuehl, who is now a Los Angeles County Supervisor. “You would craft it so that it would not be part of the state budget. It would create a separate state health plan.”

Would be nice if you had the same compassion who can't pay for the care they need for being being forced to wait for action by Rendon and his corporate donors as you do for attacking this bill and its sponsors.


#26

Good one. Disclosure is vital to the future of your state. Public financing/some hybrid thereof, of all federal elections, is the key to all of our futures.
" Sunight is a great disinfectant ". We're trying it again, in a hybrid form, in Portland.
Keep up the good fight.


#27

To paraphrase Langston Hughes - Democrats. Democrats. Waitin' on Democrats.


#28

I urge you to read the legislative analysis from Lara's committee (Appropriations) that you claim to know about, the amended one in particular (dated the 25th). It's here in the link:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB562

No financing was formally proposed for this bill, but as the amended analysis notes,
"Assuming that this cost [$200 billion] was raised through a new payroll tax (with no cap on wages subject to the tax), the additional payroll tax rate would be about 15% of earned income."

As for Khuel's claim, well, that's nice. Have you seen her bill? I could pass it to you if you want to look at it. I've commented on it before.


#29

I'll let my previous comment from a few week ago stand:

Sellouts everywhere, right? No reason to be angry about the stupidest legislative strategy for a "major" bill in years though.


#30

There is a bigger issue that healthcare falls under, and that is the issue of our "health". The poorer that our collective health is the higher is the collective cost of our healthcare irregardless of who is paying for it. Our relatively poor health is now straining the ability of our private insurance system to adequately fund our health care system. In part we are largely an unhealthy society because of the way that we eat and live, and we have been eating the way that we do largely because we have allowed powerful interests to profit by knowingly selling us unhealthy food as they decieve us about the effects of that. We have behaved quite ignorantly as a society. Chris Hedges outlines some of the arguments about this in his recent column " http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/eating_our_way_to_disease_201707091 ".

What I am suggesting is that if society is to take over from individuals the payment of the financial costs of healthcare, then society has an interest in reducing the costs of healthcare by significantly improving the safety and quality of the food and water that we consume. If we do not the costs of poor health will continue to rise. Health is such a beautiful blessing. Improving our collective health is in so many ways the best way of lowering the costs of healthcare. Even if we do significantly improve the safety and quality of our food supply the costs for healthcare will continue to rise for quite some time because it will take many years for the effects of several generations of poor diet and lifestyle to work its way through the system. However we can significantly reduce the costs in the longer run by improving our diet today. The costs already have gotten high enough that it is difficult and becoming impossible for private insurance to adequately insure the large portion of the population who are suffering from the largely preventable conditions that are caused by how we eat and live.

Can we recover some of the healthcare costs from the people and companies that knowingly have profited greatly in causing the problem? Can we subsidize healthy food while adding an insurance cost to the unhealthy food to recover the expected future costs from its consumption? In other words, can the "polluter pay principal" be applied to solving part of this problem?

I hope that the nurses and supporters of single payer healthcare succeed soon in their efforts to establish single payer healthcare in California. If they do then one way or another the rest of the country will soon follow.


#31

Bought off. Those who will be economically effected in the negative sense let their displeasure be known. The US is the most politically corrupt developed country on Earth.


#32

K, who doesn't seem at all cold hearted, referred to a specific tax proposal that would cover the cost of the plan, 15% payroll tax. It isn't pulled out of the air.
You dismiss his number, and offer an amorphous idea that other taxes will pay for it. Ks point is, get serious. Get detailed. If you are serious.


#33

First, this was never about the minutiae of the bill -- it was about getting rid of the insurance middlemen and the campaign contributions and lobbying money they spend to control people like Rendon. If it were about financing, that could have, and should have, been considered during the legislative process that Rendon stopped.

There is a detailed financing study and proposal by several University of Massachusetts economists. Here are the basics on the financing:
- 2.3% tax on business' gross receipts with the first 2 million exempt and
- 2.3% sales tax with exemptions on groceries, housing, and utilities.

A few more details are below or you can read the whole proposal on the Healthy California Act .org website the file is called Pollin-Economic-Analysis-SB-562.pdf. (I'm a new user so it won't let me add the link.)

1) A gross receipts tax of 2.3 percent. This tax will be applied to all businesses in California. It will include an exemption for the first $2 million in receipts for all businesses. Through this exemption, firms that average up to 9 employees will have no gross receipts tax obligation. Firms with up to 19 employees will pay taxes on only about one-third of their gross revenue.

2) A sales tax of 2.3 percent. The sales tax will exempt all spending on housing, utility and food at home. To be consistent with the existing California tax code, it will also include exemptions on a broad range of service expenditures. It further includes a 2 percent income tax credit for families currently insured through Medi-Cal, to fully offset their 2.3 percent sales tax spending.


#34

I think being enthusiastic about a California single payer idea and being disgusted with badly drawn bill is entirely consistent. If one is serious.


#35

I love our nurses union in CA. One of our few counterforces to the plutocrats.


#36

You think paying for single payer is minutiae?


#37

The damn thing is, and as I've indicated, I did support the bill, even went to a healthcare protest to bring attention to it and Republican efforts to trash the ACA. It just became obvious, by the time it was tabled, that it wasn't a serious effort, at least in the way you'd need to pass major legislation. For the Senate Appropriations Chair, the bill's author, to punt on financing, or at least develop financing language, is like an accountant refusing to add and subtract, but telling you your balance is solid. It's terrible strategy.

More to the point, for a big bill to be successful, finances have to be worked out by the jurisdictional committees. You don't have a real bill until that happens. That's also what makes G's mention of Sheila Khuel funny. Her bill, SB 840, was vetoed in 2006. It punted financing to a board that would be responsible for, well, working everything out. Even if signed, that bill required the board to report back three years later, I believe. She hardly followed her own advice per what is mentioned above.


#38

Keep holding the Dem Party feet to the fire and make them decide who they are working for. We the people or their corporate doners. Thank you RoseAnn


#39

That's the Pollin report and I'm very familiar with it. It should speak volumes that the committee analysis didn't adopt those numbers, right? You also understand those numbers aren't formal financing recommendations too, don't you?

I made a pretty deep comment touching on the "report" a few weeks ago, but I don't feel like searching for it now. Its Friday and I'm ready for dinner and a beer.


#40

irregardless is not a word. Even a guy who refuses to use any formalities in writing anything knows that. But, you have some good points.
P.S. I've gotten drunk with some of the best writers in America ( U of I Writer's Workshop ) and they couldn't spell, either.:wink:


#41

How about Roseann and Adam Schiff for Pres and in any order. These two stand out head and shoulders above everybody else.