"California Speaks": We Want Single Payer

What is to say about this article but to applaud it?

Right on, Sheila! I was at the rally with my husband and loved it. A fellow HCA member here in San Luis Obispo brought up SB840 at our California Speaks session and scored some powerful points with it.
One local paper, the New Times, has a spread on healthcare. There are three horror stories, and one of the victims states she backs SB840, and another belongs to HCA.
Your staff might want to get a copy for their files.
Marguerite Bader

SB 840 is the only health proposal that meets the MORAL test of equality for all people. It is not only incredibly practical it is humane. Most of the mainstream and progressive Protestant faith community members - and we are a large part of the faith landscape - support Senator Kuehl's outstanding legislation. As long as legislators and politicians are wedded to protecting the insurance industry rather than people, no proposal will pass the test of democratic and human decency. Hallelujah that one Senator, Sheila Kuehl, has both the legal wisdom and moral sense we crave!

We are all overwhelmed with the chaos in our healthcare system, with the growing power of poverty driven by an out of control greedy corporate minority that is eroding the viability of our communities, our schools and our job markets.

We must act to expose and stop this greed that is a bigger threat to all of us than any external enemy we can imagine.

It is time we turn this around. We know what is right and we must stand up and say 'enough is enough'.

A first step is ready to go: SB 840, Senator Sheila Kuehl's legislation for a Universal, Single Payer Health System will eliminate the health insurance industry middle man and create a health system based on universality and quality.

Become part of this first step, go to www.healthcarefor all.org. This is a grassroots organization of individuals around the state that has sponsored legislation achieve just this - health care for all. Join us.

My name is Joe Goldman, and I'm the Vice President of Citizen Engagement for AmericaSpeaks. I wanted to take a moment to clarify a few things about CaliforniaSpeaks with regard to what topics were addressed at the meeting, what results emerged from discussions, and who is behind the initiative.

To start off, CaliforniaSpeaks is a 100% nonpartisan effort that has not and will not take a position on health care reform proposals. Our sole mission is to ensure that the public has a chance to influence the decisions that are being made by state leaders about health care policy in this legislative session. At the end of the day-long meeting, 80 percent of participants said they were satisfied with the outcomes of the day.

In order to fully appreciate the context of the statewide conversation, it is important to recognize the status of California’s legislative calendar. The California legislature is coming back into session on August 20 for a single month. It is during this brief deliberation period that months of proposals, hearings and deliberations will come to a head—this is a real opportunity to achieve a negotiated agreement to pass health care reform legislation. While there may be other opportunities in the future for reform legislation to pass, the people of California have this opportunity right now.

Therefore, our commitment was to make sure that the public had a chance to influence the major issues that will be dealt with by state leaders during this short period. For conservatives, this may be frustrating because many of the major options that have been proposed by Republicans in the legislature have not been passed by the Senate or Assembly. Similarly, single payer advocates may find this frustrating due to the current political dynamics in Sacramento.

Senator Kuehl recently referred to these dynamics when speaking to an LA Times reporter. She said: “she intended to hold back the latest incarnation of SB 840 and to await a hopefully more sympathetic Democratic successor to Schwarzenegger.” She told the reporter: "I don't want to send SB 840 to the governor simply so he can grind it once again under his heel.”

Our goal was to identify the topics that are actually being considered in the upcoming session and may be influenced by the public in order to give the people of California a chance to weigh in on these options. As a result, much of the agenda of the event was focused on issues raised by either AB 8 or the Governor’s plan (which feature significant differences in approach and policy.) These policy options need to be evaluated and responded to by the public because these are the options being seriously considered for approval in the next month. Regardless of it’s merit, SB 840 has far less chance of being considered.

We strived to provide a balanced presentation of each of these policy options. Arguments for and against each policy proposal was presented, as well as contextual data to help make informed judgments. And while the agenda of the CaliforniaSpeaks meeting did focus on these policy options, it also created ample space for people to voice concerns and opposition to them, as well as to identify other topics that should be discussed. For each proposal that was considered, people were given the chance to discuss what they liked, what concerned them and what they felt was missing from the option. They were then given the chance to say what would need to be in place or changed about the option for them to support it.

In addition, we did set aside time in the agenda to discuss single-payer health care. It is absolutely true that we handled it differently than we did the other topics on the agenda. This was clearly explained from the stage early in the day and the reason is reflected in my explanation above about the different situation facing the passage of single payer legislation.

At two of our eight sites, some participants either didn’t hear or didn’t believe the lead facilitators who promised that the single-payer discussion would take place. As a result, additional assurances were made throughout the day that we would get to that important discussion shortly—which is exactly what we did.

So, what were the results of the day’s discussions?

A preliminary report was published immediately at the end of the town meeting, and is available on our web site at www.californiaspeaks.org. A more complete report will be available online next week. Make up your own mind about what the data says and what the data means. Clearly the most important data to look at are the conditions under which people would be willing to support different policy options. In some cases, the conditions reflect elements that already exist in legislative proposals. In many cases, they do not and it will be important for lawmakers to make decisions about whether or not their bills will be modified to reflect the public’s will.

From our point of view, the two most interesting overall messages from the data are: (1) there is an overwhelming mandate for the state to take action to reform the state’s health care system, and (2) the public is quite sophisticated about the conditions under which it would support the passage of health care reform options. Clearly, the public understands the link and connection between a variety of different reform options and conditions that are very important for state leaders to take into account.

Senator Kuehl has written in a blog post that participants in the conversation overwhelmingly supported single-payer legislation. It is worth noting that Senator Kuehl only shares half of the data. While it is true that more people supported government-funded health care under any condition than any other proposal considered at the town meeting, it is also true that almost as many people said they would oppose such a system under any condition.

While it is likely that many political leaders will try to use the preferences articulated at the meeting to their own advantage, I encourage everyone to take a look at the preliminary report and see for yourself where a diverse group of Californians came out on a series of critical policy options.

So, who was behind CaliforniaSpeaks?

CaliforniaSpeaks was organized by AmericaSpeaks which has been convening large-scale public forums for a decade on some of the most difficult issues facing our country. We are completely nonpartisan and take no position on health reform policy. Our statement of neutrality can be found on our website at www.americaspeaks.org.

CaliforniaSpeaks received funding from six local, nonprofit health care foundations: The California Endowment, Blue Shield of California Foundation, and The California Wellness Foundation were our three primary funders. The San Francisco Foundation, The Alliance Healthcare Foundation, and the Sierra Health Foundation also provided funding.

Each of these independent organizations gives away money to improve the public good. The intent of each of these organizations in supporting CaliforniaSpeaks was to ensure that the public has a voice in the final negotiations on health care reform legislation this year. None of these organizations have taken a position on the health care reform proposals and none of these organizations are advocating for the process to favor any one proposal over the others.
CaliforniaSpeaks has been transparent about where its funding has come from. We encourage you to investigate what kinds of organizations each of these foundations gives grants to and make your own judgments about their political leanings.

Additionally, we published the list of policy experts who we consulted with on the development of our discussion guide on the last page of that guide. The project was a very large undertaking and we appreciate the many people who contributed much of their time to shape a constructive experience for the participants. Go to www.californiaspeaks.org to download the discussion guide.

Finally, the date of the statewide conversation was selected based on the legislative calendar and the availability of the elected leaders who attended the event. It was not orchestrated to conflict with any other event.

We welcome feedback from anyone about CaliforniaSpeaks, but more importantly, we hope that everyone will reach out to your elected officials about whatever policy you think should be enacted.

The single payer option is the only way to go. It's time for California to set the pace, and it's time for California to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world. I whole-heartedly support SB 840.
My eldest sister, Ruth Derus, suffered an aneurism in one of two arteries to the liver. Her BP was practically non-existent. She was rushed to the Royal Victorian Hospital in Belfast, Northern Ireland. A team of surgeons was standing by - on a Sunday. After 5 hours of lifesaving surgery, Ruth was placed in the ICU. She undewent another 1 hour surgery, then back to the ICU. Ruth spent about two weeks in hospital altogether. When checking out, she told the administrator that she was a member of Kaiser. Their reply was, "That's nice." Ruth was never billed, Kaiser was never billed, the UK Health Care System took care of EVERYTHING. And that is why I support SB 840.

If we got rid of middlemen the economy would leap into prosperity overnight. What possible justification do strangers and outsiders have in controlling health care funds? Who elected them? How can people tolerate those salaries and profits that suck away money that prevents it from being used on sick people? Why cant hospitals make their own medicines, pay their doctors, nurses, etc a unionized salary, all at a reasonable cost? The "middlemen" phenomenon is endemic. To understand it, here's another example; The International Red Cross is refusing to accept millions of dollars from the US. Why? Because the stupulation is that the money can't be used directly to help people in need (wars, disasters, etc.) but it must be used to buy US products, and then the money from the profits can be used for humanitarian work. The middlemen phenomenon, besides being "cruel and unusual punishment" creates a bureaucratic nightmare that the IRC, at least, would rather not deal with.

I am sorry but I beg to differ. Our political leaders, Department of Managed Health care in Sacramento are lying to public. We have fought both Blue Shield of California, the Department of Managed Health Care in Sacramento and to no avail, both the insurance and our "objective" Department of Managed Health care have refused physical therapy for our 9 year old son who has orthopedic impairments. Despite 85 pages of documentation and letters of medical necessity from doctors at Lucile Packerd and Children's Hospital Oakland. We have been paying out of pocket for the therapy (cost annually including premiums to Blue Shield , $20k) and now our son can walk independently. I have written letters to my local constituents, Don Perata, Governor Schwarzeneger and Mary Hayashi. Only Ms. Hayashi responded and tried to help, but could not pursue as once a decision is made by the Department of Managed Health care it cannot be appealed. The review that was performed by the Department of Managed Health Care was inaccurate did not consider all the therapy procedures involved nor did a representative visit the medical site to see first hand the therapies being administered. These same physical therapies are currently vendorized by the California Department of Developmental Services and State Regional Centers. How can these therapies be approved as medically necessary by the Department of Developmental Services but not by Blue Shield and the Department of Managed Heatlh Care. The incongruities are infinitely apparent. If the single payer system operates like our Department of Managed Health care it's a bust, but if functions like the Department of Developmental services perhaps there is hope.

Its really too bad that those who've commented and supported SB840 will be in for a rude awakening if it is signed into law.

For one thing, its a job-killer bill

Secondly, it would be under the control of the state Budget, meaning if the budget doesn't get passed and signed into law on time, the longer it would take to make payments to doctors/providers and I don't think they would stand still long enough--they would definitely bolt the state.

Also, since there wouldn't be any competition, SB840 would allow legislators to raise your taxes every year. This would harm California's economy more than you would ever imagine.

Finally, as long as this state is still under deficit spending, it would be ill-advised to sign SB840 into law.

Darrell: Ah, yes. Now the old "job killer" chestnut is pulled out. The one that is trotted out against clean air, clean water, flood control, and even food safety bills and any forward thinking idea.

Senator Kuehl,

I was at the California Speaks event. I was so excited when the day started. I left, like so many others, feeling like a pawn--used and not heard.

I've written Mr. Goldman several times and his response above was partially cut and pasted from a post he made on a blog. You can see the exchange here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/13/144640/362

For the most part he--and the rest of America Speaks--have ignored my letters.

I suppose that should come as much of a surprise.

The whole event was set up to silence, as much as possible, the voices of people who support single payer health care.

I was told by representatives of America Speaks, repeatedly, that you Senator NO LONGER SUPPORTED UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE and that I should stop bringing up the issue.

Obviously, that isn't true. A large number of us in Oakland felt that we were being used for political ends by America Speaks. We were told not to bring up that concern and to sit quietly and participate in their biased polling.

America Speaks may be "nonpartisan" but they are on the side of the health insurance industry, that's for sure.

At the beginning of the event, we were all asked to make extra room for voices that were underrepresented relative to the general public (the event had few Latinos and many women for example).

I've asked over and over whether America Speaks will follow its own advice and make a disproportionate amount of their final report about the single payer solution. It would only seem fair since that idea was, by far, the least well represented in the program. In fact, without a lot of vocal uproar across the state, it wouldn't have even been on the agenda.

America Speaks has, sadly, done little more that make a lot of people feel silenced and jaded.

Finally, on the issue of funding Mr. Goldman asks us to investigate their funding sources ourselves. OK.

The Blue Shield Foundation, for example, gets all of its money from annual payments made by one of the state's largest insurers, Blue Shield. So, without the company, the foundation would not exist. Further, part of their mission is supporting "universal coverage" for Californians.

But, of course, they want everyone to have health insurance, provided by a for-profit company, like, for example, Blue Shield!

The very idea that we should have for-profit health care in California is a political viewpoint. I just can't imagine how America Speaks can think these Insurance industry backed foundations are neutral.

Well, again this is all very sad because a lot of us left that event feeling like America Speaks just doesn't listen.

I don't understand why, even now, they can't admit that they made poor judgment when they decided to exclude single payer health care in the discussion. They seem to trust our political leaders and experts more than regular folks when it comes to deciding what is and isn't "realistic."

But just like our president and too many of our leaders today, AmericaSpeaks can't seem admit it when they make a mistake.

Robin,
I sent this letter to California Speaks regarding this forum on August 11th. I was very concerned about who was invited to this forum. As I can see from your entry, my fears were confirmed. Why is the media and these forums ignoring SB840?

Letter sent...
Although you express that you wish to insure that participation at this event is representative of the demographics of the state, (hence participation is by invitation only); I do have some concerns as it is sponsored by Blue Shield of California. I would like to know if any Californians who have disputes and or have filed grievances with Blue Shield of California were invited to this forum? If Blue Shield is funding this forum, how likely will it be that this “invitation only” was granted to Blue Shield Customers who have legitimate disputes with Blue Shield of California?

Also, will there be a discussion regarding health care and populations with disablilities at the California Speaks Forum on health care?
I am a Blue Shield of California customer and a parent of a child with special needs. I have much to contribute to a discussion on health care in California, specifically with regards to children with special need and our struggles with Blue Shield of California and the Department of Managed Health Care in Sacramento. I have yet to see any representative speak about children or any population with special needs/disabilities in any discussion on health care reform? My hope is that somewhere in this forum the health care issues of children and adults with special needs/disabilities will finally be addressed. Please see letter that I have sent to Governor Schwarzenegger enclosed as .pdf. Unfortunately, I never recieved a response from Governor Schwarzenegger, but I am hoping that you will do one better and respond to my email. Please consider my requests and I urge you to include these issues in your forum.

Thank you for your time and energies.

Sincerely,

Maureen Gilhooly
Concerned Parent of Special Needs Child.

These are the guys YOU want to run your Healthcare?HAHAHA. They are NOY paying the providers they have now.
Every year trying to find the money (budget issues). Get real Our healthcare system may not be perfect, but leave my Medicare alone. Ask some of the healtcare providers how they like CA making their payments. State of CA Stay out of Healthcare.

Despite the efforts of "CA Speaks" funders, PR spinners and Gov. Schwarzenneger, the August 11 Forum was a resounding Shout Out for SB840! The bias intended was exposed when the Moderator in Los Angeles repeatedly referred to Gov. Schwarzennneger's plan as "The Government Plan".

I watched the satellite feed live on Comcast Channel 28. By 2pm, it was truly thrilling to see fellow Californians holding up papers to the cameras (politely) demanding the single payer/SB840 plan be included in the discussion.

I would estimate that out of a 7 hour Forum beginning at 9:30am, only about 10 minutes of time was given to SB840--finally at about 3:45pm. The 3500 participants voted overwhelmingly for that plan. I wrote it down “stongly supportive”, “very supportive” and “supportive” votes aggregated to about 90%!) Then after that vote, the Moderator came back and related she had a “surprise” phone call from the Governor who wanted one more question put to the participants: “Would you be willing to pay more taxes to enable a single payer, everyone covered plan?” I would guess the Guv and his political guys expected that question would be The Deal Breaker. But as trial lawyers say “never ask a question you don’t know the answer to”. The majority voted “YES” they would pay more tax as long as everybody got healthcare.

BRAVO to the participants who gave their entire Saturday to be active, informed citizens for the biggest domestic issue troubling America’s mind--our healthcare. You were awesome! It was a seminal day for Californians. Thanks. Susan Craze (Redwood City)

Sorry about the duplications. The "Post Comment" click wasn't working for me - so I thought. Can you delete the duplicate comments for me? Thanks. Susan Craze

Amidst all the verbage, Mr. Goldman demonstrates an astonishing lack of understanding of the California legislative calendar. California has a two-year legislative session which will end September, 2008. It's Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislative leadership that wants healthcare reform legislation before the end of 2007. The question you should be asking is, "Why?"
If legislative viability was the criterion for topic worthiness at California Speaks, why was the governor's proposal discussed? Speaker Nunez has committed to try to find someone who will submit a bill based on the governor's proposal (Sac Bee 8/25)which Republican Minority Leader Assemblymember Mike Villines termed a "political Stunt" and said, "The (governor's) plan, as outlined, won't get any Republican support. We are fundamentally and unalterably opposed to tax increases to pay for health care." Go to www.mahealthconnector.org to see the brave new world of mandatory health insurance envisioned by the governor.
The addition of SB 840 as a discussion topic, at the end of the day without benefit of the proposed changes and arguments for and against that were printed in the Participant Guide for the other bills, accorded lower status to SB 840 and made the discussion chaotic. This treatment of a valid legislative proposal, vetted for years through the legislative process and passed by 60% of California's senators and 56% of assemblymembers in 2006, was shameful.
Twenty-first century snake oil is sold with Orwellian marketing expertise. Californians see through the coordination of the California Speaks event with the ad campaign run by one of the California Speaks sponsors to rush a bandaid healthcare reform bill into law so that it doesn't have to be scrutinized side-by-side against SB 840, the gold standard of healthcare reform legislation. America Speaks compromised its reputation as a neutral broker of public opinion for a $4 million fee and this is one Californian who was happy to see their revival tents folded and leaving our state.

RE: CA Speaks
The legislative calendar should have had NO INFLUENCE upon this discussion. It should have been a public evaluation of the various systems for health care reform. The fact remains that every time the public is given the objective information about how these systems work Single -Payer comes out on top. Why? Because it does what people want most: covers everyone;shares the cost;cuts administrative overhead;eliminates the wild-west competition among plans and puts the competition where it belongs---for quality of care;is NOT attached to employers. The only things standing in the way of getting this done is ignorance and greed. The ignorance has been diminished greatly by SiCKO, but the greed continues.

Joe Goldman claims the sole mission of CaliforniaSpeaks was to ensure the public had a chance to influence the decisions that are being made by state leaders about health care policy but "in this legislative session" as an excuse to rush compromised legislation that would solely benefit private insurance companies - the major funders of the event. Because once the insurance Trojan Horse moves forward, it would be next to impossible to reintroduce the genuine reform, SB840 and this is the real reason behind all their efforts – to kill single payer. No thanks, Mr. Goldman. I and others would rather wait for the real reform instead of the phony reform. And, by the way, if you are so concerned about giving the people of CA the ability to influence health care policy, where were two years ago when single payer was first introduced?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n10_v23/ai_11384558 ---
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070805/news_mz1e5mair.html ---
http://www.mises.org/story/2424 ---
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071015/wl_uk_afp/britainhealthdentists;_ylt=AkV.J2DQ_XxFRLGSL71yh8Os0NUE ---
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/012312.php ---
http://www.freemarketcure.com/socializedmedicineissicko.php ---
http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html ---
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/070801-williams-socialized-medicine.php ---
http://www.rangelmd.com/2007/08/socialized-medicine-less-advanced-care.htm ---
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/02/14/do_we_want_socialized_medicine

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.