CA: Children's healthcare likely on governor's agenda

Capitol Weekly ^ | December 8, 2005 | Malcolm Maclachlan

[calcowgirl]

Groups that want California to support universal healthcare for the state's children are looking to the governor's office with growing optimism, despite the veto of such a bill earlier this year.

"This is high on their radar screen," said Wendy Lazarus co-president of the Children's Partnership, a group that advocates for low-income children. "They've certainly suggested that they want to do something in 2006."

The Partnership is part of a coalition of groups that are working to qualify an initiative for next November's election. The Tobacco Tax, Disease Prevention and Children's Health Insurance Act of 2006 would fund provide $435 million to cover 800,000 uninsured children by adding a $1.50 tax to the price of a pack of cigarettes. If it passed, the measure could take in $1.5 billion a year, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. The remainder of the money would be used to fund a variety of other health programs, including disease prevention and anti-smoking campaigns.

The governor's spokesman, Rob Stutzman, said the governor is evaluating a number of ideas around children's healthcare coverage and had not endorsed any bill or initiative.

However, the initiative would address the concerns articulated by Schwarzenegger in his veto message of AB 772, the bill by Assemblymembers Wilma Chan, D-Oakland, and Dario Frommer, D-Glendale, which would have provided health insurance for all California children. At the time, Schwarzenegger said he supported the idea in concept but said he could not sign it without a funding source.

The optimism among advocates that the governor may take steps to cover uninsured children reflects changing political realities, both in California and nationwide. Illinois enacted a law to this year to guarantee coverage to children. Several other states, including Texas, have lesser plans but have expanded the number of low-income children they will cover.

Meanwhile, the governor's loss in the special election and staff changes that have brought Democrats into the Horseshoe has raised speculation that Schwarzenegger shift his policy goals in an effort to reclaim the political center before next year's election.

If the governor is looking to recast himself as a centrist, health care policy would be a natural for him to tackle. Already the administration has backed away from some of the unpopular health care stands that got him into trouble this year. In the days after the special election, the governor dropped his effort to oppose the five-to-one patient-to-nurse ratio the California Nurses Association had won. Meanwhile, the CNA put out an aggressively-worded press release calling for "genuine reforms," including "universal healthcare based on a single standard of quality care for all."

The nurses are backing SB 840, the single payer healthcare bill proposed by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles. It would provide health insurance for every citizen in California out of a single fund, paid for with a combination of existing federal funds and insurance premiums charged individuals.

Proponents of the bill have argued that it would merely shift the cost the state is already paying in the form of emergency room visits for indigent patients. Kuehl also sponsored the legislation establishing the five-to-one patient to nurse ratio.

"It's still very early in the process, but we're working very closely with her," said Charles Idelson, a spokesman for the CNA. "That's the key bill in California at this point. That's the one that's live."

However, given California's budget crunch, many expect SB 840 to join a long list of other dead bills that would have provided universal healthcare in the state. The one that came closest was SB 2, the so-called Employer Mandate bill that was signed into law by Gray Davis in 2003 but defeated by referendum the next year, in the form of Proposition 72. Another bill, AB 1670, the so-called Individual Mandate bill, died in the Assembly Revenue & Taxation Committee in April, despite gaining support from the business community.

Still, many say a health plan for children could prove political viable, even while more ambitious plans fail.

"We would eventually like to see that everyone have insurance," said Peter Warren, a spokesman for the California Medical Association. "But that's not going to happen immediately. It's politically a lot harder to attack a program for young people."

Malcolm Maclachlan is a Capitol Weekly staff reporter.

[Carry_Okie]

Maybe FairOpinion can tell us how this represents fiscal conservatism.

[Brilliant]

Can anyone say "bond default?"

[TheDon]

Children's Partnership

No friend of low income children.

[joesnuffy]

Bankrupt California...for the children...

[Amerigomag]

The Tobacco Tax, Disease Prevention and Children's Health Insurance Act of 2006

A more accurate title for this transfer of wealth is:

The Alien Children's Relief and Wellness Act of 2006.

Over 3/4 of the recipients of this money will be a consequence of illegal immigration.

[Kimmers]

I guess I cannot speak for CA but children are not denied health care. Immunizations can be received at the county health department at greatly reduced costs or even free, same with childhood physicals.....I have neve known hospitaliztions denied for children or adults for that matter, it may be at a county hospital rather than private but the health care is still available....if children do not receive health care it is usually because parents aren't bothering to see that they get it....

[rellimpank]

---vote-purchasing by Commiefornia legislators and left-wing interest groups with the firm knowledge that at some point down the road, a Demotraitor-controlled Congress will bail them out when it becomes necessary--

[calcowgirl]

Just yesterday, when someone said that Arnold was a "fiscal conservative", I posted a 9 word response: "His record is in direct opposition to that statement."

In response to that, Newzjunkey accused me of posting "half-truths" and saying "You hate Arnold".

In addition to all the other things that have been pointed out (borrowing, spending, gun-rights, the SNC), all one has to do is read his veto messages. As pointed out in this article, Arnold said he agrees with this in principle as long as he can identify a funding source. Perhaps NJ can explain how support of taxpayer funded universal healthcare is fiscally conservative.

Four more years of this will be hard (if not impossible) to recover from.

[ElkGroveDan]

The best way to improve the health and well-being of children is to cut their parents taxes.

I saw a statistic once that showed that on average the second income in a family amounts to 28% of the families annual gross. At the same time government takes about a third of an average family's total income.

If they'd reduce the burden of government on families, more mothers could stay home with their kids, and that more than anything else accounts for better disciplined kids with stable upbringings.

[ElkGroveDan]

You don't hate Arnold. You hate children.

[calcowgirl]

LOL. That's the ticket!

[b9]

The best way to improve the health and well-being of children is to cut their parents taxes.

That just makes too much sense.
The government sucks the life out of families, with every liberal agenda possible, especially the so-called benefits for children.

[Amerigomag]

The driving force behind this approach to public health is the eventuality of a public health crisis that the political class can't talk about. To talk about that issue would first divert attention from what they can control and second be a tacit admission of a long time error in judgment and policy on both the right and the left.

As California's demographics shift the state is developing a population of children that have no or limited access to health services. This growing demographic would be an ideal incubator for communicable diseases and could easily overwhelm public policy which is based on rapid treatment and containment of a contagion whether that contagion is a super-flu or a WMD.

There is valid justification, for the public good, to explore avenues that minimize the risk that open borders present.

[FairOpinion]

Well, the voters didn't want fiscal conservatism, they voted down the propositions. So now you can all be very happy and proud.

[Carry_Okie]

Well, the voters didn't want fiscal conservatism, they voted down the propositions.

There weren't any propositions even resembling fiscal conservatism, especially Prop 78.

You offer no rationale, no data, and no references, just innuendo.

Pathetic, as usual, FO. It's nice to see you in your usual form:

One would think you just might note that support for your fascist figurehead is drying up here on FR. You might also get an inkling that the shrivelling minority who continue to support your cardboard icon still think he's a fiscal conservative, repeated introduction to incontravertable facts with sources notwithstanding.

I wouldn't want such a moronic following but you seem to thrive on it, so I suggest you go find a place where more people are dumb enough to listen to you. Try aol.