Rumor Time for Health Care Reform. Submit Yours Today!!

There’s a point in every political saga where rumors take over. The reason is simple: no one knows how it’s going to turn out. But like teenagers on a first date, most reporters and politicians are terrified of prolonged silence. So they read tea leaves, consult their horoscopes and offer opinions to one another. True, these are just guesses, but when one is repeated often enough, it becomes a rumor. And then instead of tea leave readings, folks can share rumors, which is so much more satisfying. They have an apparent heft.

Well, this is where we’re at in our current drama. California’s special session on health care reform continues. Staffers from the Governor’s office and their counterparts from the offices of the Legislative leadership continue to negotiate. The unions and their allies are outside demonstrating and anyone whose anyone is threatening/planning/thinking about qualifying an initiative for a 2008 ballot. In fact not having an initiative in the works is nearly as big a social blunder as not having a rumor to share. If you want to be one of the cool kids in the high school quad you better have both close at hand.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, many lawmakers of both parties and lots of political pundits have declared health care reform dead for 2007. At the same time, there’s plenty of legislators and Sacramento observers who claim a deal is right around the corner. If you count early December as right around the proverbial corner.

I stand by my earlier post that the parties are close enough that something will emerge this year, but I have no more basis for this prediction than anyone else. Remember, this is the stage where no one knows how its going to turn out. For the record, I have no initiative — and I was never one of the cool kids.

Chasing down every rumor would be fun, he lied, but why should I be so selfish? So instead I’m inviting you my greatly appreciated readers to report the latest story you’ve heard on the fate of health care reform. Or to start one. Or to simply give your opinion on whether a health care reform bill gets signed into law this year. Feel free to post your hearsay anonymously if you like (WordPress asks for your email but no one sees it but me and I won’t tell — or use a fake one if you prefer). Please list your rumor/opinion/guess as a comment to this post and we’ll see what trends develop. If you’re the first to post something that actually comes true, you’ll win, well, let’s see … you’ll win, ummm, well nothing less than the satisfaction of knowing you got it right. Ain’t that grand?

And to all of you caught up in the fires raging through California this evening, my sympathies and best wishes. Acts of nature certainly put the folly of humans in perspective.

Canadian Waiting Lists Getting Longer Dispite More Money

As part of my irregular perusal of Canadian media, I came across an interesting article by George Jonas in the National Post. The article reports on a Frasier Institute study showing Canadians waited on average 18.3 weeks for non-emergency surgery in 2006, about half a week longer than in 2005. This despite the provinces  spending more tax dollars to reduce unacceptable waiting times.

Mr. Jonas can’t understand Canadians’ tolerance of this, although he notes it “gives new meaning to the word ‘patient.’” He has no problem, or hesitation, in describing the predictable result of this situation, what he calls a three-tier medical system. The first tier is the traditional provincial health plan available to everyone, the “second tier is called the ‘inside track’ and the the third, the United States. Anyone who thinks that wealthy or well-connected Canadians stand meekly in line and wait 18.3 weeks to see a specialist doesn’t live on this planet. The well-connected jump the queue, while the rich hop on a plan … and get themselves looked after in Cleveland, Austin, Phoenix or Rochester.”

Mr. Jonas laments Canada’s lack of private health insurance. “No one can guarantee health, but people should be able to buy therapy. Making therapy a government monopoly, and then doling it out on whatever basis — first-come-first served, lottery, status, connections or some murky bureaucratic set of priorities — combines iniquity with inefficiency.”

Recent events in the debate over changes to California’s health care system will embolden single-payer advocates to push their legislative package, Senate Bill 840 (Kuehl) even harder. They’ll be out in force at the Assembly Health Committees hearing on the Governor’s bill currently scheduled for October 31st. Maybe someone will ask them about the three tier Canadian version of their proposal. I doubt it, but one can always hope. 

In the meantime it’s kind of fun to read both Californian and Canadian newspapers. In the former, liberals are seeking Canadian-style health care reforms; in the latter conservatives are seeking private coverage such as available in the California. Perhaps we could bring them together in one room, sell tickets and finance health care reform with the proceeds.

OK, perhaps not, but it would be entertaining. And maybe even enlightening.

Chances for Meaningful Health Care Reform Dim as Positions Harden

Unions and others have decided it’s their way or the highway when it comes to health care reform. According to the Los Angeles Times, these interest groups are mounting a full-on campaign to defeat Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s health care reform package. Their campaign will include prayer vigils, television ads and demonstrations at the Governor’s public appearances. Joining the California Federation of Labor will be organizations like Health Access, Consumers Union and It’s Our Healthcare! Their main argument is that the Administration’s plan gouges the middle-class by requiring every resident to obtain health care coverage, but failing to provide sufficient subsidies to enough residents. For example, while the Governor would offer tax credits to households with annual income of 350 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (about $72,000); the coalition wants this eligibility level to at least 400 percent of the FPL (a bit more than $82,600) — which is a bit lower than the $103,000 target union officials mentioned last week. They also maintain California’s businesses pay too little of the funding toward the state’s health care system under the Governor’s plan.

So the gloves are now off and rationale debate is about to flee the scene (demonstrations and prayer vigils rarely lend themselves to civil, reasoned discussions). Passing health care reform during the current special legislative session was a tough assignment to begin with. Given Labor’s influence with the Democratic majority, this turn of events virtually eliminates any chance of responsible health care reform any time soon.

Reform is not impossible, however. Governor Schwarzenegger can be one of the most skillful politicians Sacramento has seen in decades (he can also be one of the most clumsy politicians Sacramento has seen in decades, but during the health care reform debate his most artful political persona has been on display). Speaker Fabian Nunez and Speaker Pro Tem Don Perata are no political slouches either. Plus, they would like to see health care reform enacted to help justify the changes to term limits they are seeking on the February 2008 ballot.

Even the Labor coalition has incentives to reach a compromise. They are looking at putting a health care reform initiative on the ballot in 2008 (presumably it would look a lot like Assembly Bill 8, which the Legislature passed and the Governor vetoed). The Governor is threatening to sponsor a competing initiative of his own. Meanwhile business groups and advocates of a government-run single payer system are also considering initiatives. When multiple ballot measures on one topic are put before the voters, historically it’s been easier to defeat all of them than to get any one of them passed (although there are exceptions). So if Labor and their allies aren’t careful they could wind up with no health care reform passing at all and starting over from square one in 2009. That would be squandering not only two years, but all the momentum behind the current reform efforts. And it would be bad news for all those who effective reform could help much sooner if a responsible compromise could be reached.

I was talking to someone today (who prefers to remain anonymous) who pointed out another dynamic in this situation that could make Labor’s position uncomfortable. The unions are supporting employer-centric reforms like AB 8. Governor Schwarzenegger supports an individual-centric approach. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson are among the Democratic presidential candidates whose health care reform proposals mirror, to some degree, Governor Schwarzenegger’s approach. So all the rhetoric this coalition is aiming at Republican Governor Schwarzenegger may apply just as strongly to Democratic presidential candidate <fill in the blank> come 2008. And the unions will be strong supporters of that nominee. 

Politics is politics. Attacking an opponent while praising an ally who has the same position is not uncommon. For all but professional contortionists, however, it’s not a lot of fun either. But that will be then and this is now. For now, positions are hardening and the hope for meaningful health care reform any time soon is growing faint.

Looming State Finance Shortfall Could Undermine Health Care Reform

Governor Schwarzenegger’s updated health care reform proposal sports a $12 billion annual price tag. To his credit, the Governor has identified revenue sources for his program. If legislation emerges from the current special session many of these funding mechanisms will be put before voters for approval through a November 2008 initiative. Of course, if that compromise includes the greater premium subsidies and the expanded eligibility for those subsidies, as Democrats are demanding, the cost of health care reform will be significantly higher.

The problem is the state is cruising toward a financial future which is looking increasingly dismal. And that spells trouble for health care reform. 

Judy Lin reports in today’s Sacramento Bee that current year revenues are already below what was projected in the state budget — yes, the budget passed just six weeks ago. During July and August state revenue from personal, corporate and sales taxes were $300 million below what was forecast. Ms. Lin reports state officials are already considering some of the revenue sources in the 2007-08 budget to be shaky. ,” she quotes Finance Director Mike Genest as acknowledging.

State finance officials were already predicting a $6.1 billion gap in next year’s budget.  Now they are recognizing this estimate is low, very low. ”It’s fair to say the revenue situation is not going to be as good as we had hoped. It’s likely the $6.1 billion (projected operating deficit will be higher,” according to Finance Director Mike Genest. By higher he means a lot higher: something like $8.5 billion. Keep in mind, this summer’s budget debacle centered around a little more than $700 million in spending. Multiply the problem by 12 and you can estimate the kind of political maelstrom we’re heading for.

Into this storm marches health care reform. Every plan out there will increase state spending on heath care. Most admit this although some advocates of a single payer system believe eliminating the insurance industry will save enough to pay for the medical care they promise to all residents. However, doing away with insurance companies, agents and the like will take time and in the meantime there will be bills to pay. And ironically, eliminating the industry will cost the state substantial revenue in lost corporate, premium and individual taxes (I don’t know how much, but I bet there’s a lot of zeros involved). In addition, nuking the industry is pretty much a one time event. Once the industry is gone, those savings, if any, are gone. As the underlying cost of delivering health care increases the state will need to find new revenue sources.

So the budget battle of 2007 was just a skirmish involving sticks and stones. Next time around we’re likely to witness a nuclear conflict. More evidence: state agencies have already been told any new spending they propose for next year have to be offset by cuts to existing spending.

State budgets are all about setting priorities. Some of those priorities are set in stone. For example, certain funds are earmarked for education and can’t be diverted to health care or fixing aging infrastructure. One might think that something as critical as health care will wind up near the top of the list for lawmakers, making its funding secure. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.

Consider: approximately three-quarters of the $700 million in cuts needed to close a budget deal this summer came from the Health and Human Services Department. Among the items cut : $55 million for a program to help homeless adults with serious mental illnesses; and $65 million for programs to get children already eligible for Healthy Families to enroll in the program. However, a tax deduction for new yacht sales survived — provided the new owner keeps the boat outside of California for a few months. There’s simply no way of predicting where cuts will fall, but no discretionary program is safe.

None of this means health care reform shouldn’t move forward. It should. But it does mean lawmakers have to face — and address — thee reality that making it work will be far more difficult than is currently being discussed.

Agents Need to Deliver Value — And Let People Know About It

It’s not that anyone wants to do away with agents. OK, let me rephrase that. Single payer advocates would like to do away with agents. They also want to do away with insurance companies, too, so it would be wrong to take this personally. Most of the folks working on health care reform don’t think that way. In fact, part of the problem is they don’t think think about agents — and the value we add to the system — much at all. As a result, a lot of the reform proposals out there are likely to eliminate agents and brokers from certain market segments,  or at the very least, greatly diminish what we can contribute. This isn’t intentional, but it could be the result. And, of course, from the squirrel’s rabbits point of view, whether the truck runs them over intentionally or inadvertently, it’s still roadkill.

But it’s not only the truck’s fault. As insurance professionals we need to take responsibility for selling our value. And for earning it every day in our interactions with our clients.

Ross Pendergraft, who is Media Relations Chair for the Los Angeles Association of Health Underwriters recently circulated an email which is spot on, so much so, I’ve reprinted it below. (For those who aren’t aware of the background, Oprah devoted a recent show to health care reform. Her guests included Michael Moore, director of the film Sicko,and Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade organization. NAHU is the National Association of Health Underwriters, a professional organization representing insurance agents and brokers). 

**********

After viewing The Oprah Winfrey Show, “Sick in America: It Can Happen to You,” I have a NAHU challenge. The America public needs to know that there are Health Insurance Agents able to assist people with their insurance claims especially when they are too sick and vulnerable.

Case in point: 1. The Oprah show highlighted three individuals with severe medical conditions, each having a battle with their insurance carrier. There was not one single mention that a Health Insurance Agent could have assisted these individuals with their ordeal. 2. Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, in her commanding performance supporting the health insurance industry, never once mentioned anything about a Health Insurance Agent and the support the agent could have provided.

I would encourage everyone to read the transcript from the show (Summary of Oprah program, “Sick in America: It Can Happen to You) and, better yet, to watch the show.

When I watched the movie Sicko I was extremely disturbed by the many half-truths that Michael Moore broadcast leaving me very little respect for Mr. Moore. However, I have to say after watching Oprah, I found myself starting to resonate with some of the beliefs that Michael Moore has with regards to our country’s health care problem.

Rather than accept my comments, go to the Oprah Message Board and see what the American public has to say after viewing the show. I would also encourage all health insurance agents to respond to the Oprah show.

I love this from the show: Although Karen Ignagni admits that America’s current health care system has its faults, she says a government takeover is not the answer. “There’s no perfect system. What we need to do is craft something that’s uniquely American. We have to take responsibility in insurance plans of doing a better job dealing with mistakes, dealing with people who are falling in the cracks, good physicians and good hospitals,” she says.

Respectively,
Ross Pendergraft

***********************

Agents can make a huge difference in the health care outcomes for their clients. We serve as counselors when consumers shop for coverage and advocates when they encounter problems. Both NAHU and CAHU strive hard to get this message out to decision makers and opinion shapers. The reality is, however, that every agent needs to take responsibility for delivering this message. It starts with asking the question, “Do I add value to the products I sell?” If the answer is “yes,” then make sure your clients — and their legislators — know (CAHU’s current Operation Drumbeat communication provides a sample letter your clients can use as a starting point). If the answer is “no,” then it’s time to turn your business over to an agent who can provide meaningful services to your client or to change your ways before legislators, inadvertently or not, changes your business for you.

Canadian Health Care as Reported by Canadians

We read so much about the problems facing the American health care system I began wondering what folks in other countries complain about. After all, advocates for single-payer systems are always pointing to Canada or Europe to show how much better things are elsewhere. Yet reports on other health care systems are always filtered through the political prism of the presenter.

So I found a Canadian news service — CNW Group (”the nation’s number one resource for time-critical news and information from more than 10,000 sources coast to coast and around the world.”) It’s sort of a Canadian Associated Press. On eof the recent headlines caught my eye “Ontario Party Leaders message to cancer patients: Keep waiting.” It seems a grass roots campaign launched a cancer patient support group sent letters to the leaders of the province’s three major parties. They noted Ontario ranks poorly in funding new intravenous cancer drugs (British Columbia funds 20 while Ontario fully funds only four). Further, Ontario ranks last among Canadian provinces when it comes to funding PET scan imaging (Quebec funded 209 PET scans per 1000,000 population; Ontario only six).

The party leaders failed to commit to improving Ontario’s ranking, instead offering reassurances of their commitment to health care for all Ontarians. Or as one of the consumer advocates noted, “All three leaders have been talking about their commitment to health care on the campaign trail, but none of them seem to be willing to be accountable for measurable results.” The consumer group intends to demonstrate at public meetings of the candidate to educate their fellow citizens on the subject.

This all got me thinking about how a politicized health care system would work in America. Would we have candidates making the round of disease-focused associations pledging increased funding? Would incumbants be attacked for long waits for services? When health care costs continued to rise (as they will given the aging population, the cost of new technologies, and the like) would the rascals in charge be thrown out of office?

Even if voters punished politicians for failures in the health care system, I’m not sure much would change. The challenges facing the American health care system is about far more than the financing mechanism. It’s about making tough choices about what adequate health care is. It’s about making objective investigations into waste in the system and having the skill and tools to eliminate that waste.

A wise man once told me you never really fix problems, you just replace them with new ones. Folks who look to Canada and Europe for answers should subscribe to services like CNW. Because health insurance reform is only the beginning, not the end, to the challenges we face.

Sicko — Again

I thought, or at least hoped, we were done talking about Sicko, Michael Moore’s film on America’s health care system. But with a lull in the action up in Sacramento, the movie is having a bit of renaissance — or maybe it’s just the inevitable backlash. Recently, John Stossel of ABC’s 20/20 news program took Mr. Moore to task for distortions and inaccuracies in Sicko. The first segment focused on Mr. Moore’s claim in the film that Cuba’s health care system is superior to America’s. It’s less than six minutes long. The next week, however, the entire program was devoted to Stossel versus Moore in an examination of health care systems here and abroad.

Who won depends on where you stood before the interview, but most neutral observers seem to think Mr. Stossel came out ahead.  The interview can be viewed at on You Tube in six segments: Part 1. Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; and Part 6.

For the past several months, if not years, advocates of government run programs have been bombarding the public with horror stories about health care in the United States and, especially, about the evils of our current insurance system. ABC’s 20/20 is the first national broadcast I’ve seen questioning this drumbeat. To defenders of the current system it will be reassuring. To those attacking the system it will be an example of corporate America defending one of its own: the insurance industry. To non-partisans I think it will be eye opening and educational. It’s also the kind of program agents will want to share with their clients. Those wishing to can buy a DVD of the program at ABC’s online store.

For those in Los Angeles, there’s Sicko-related event worth taking a look at. On Thursday, September 27th, the Pacific Research Institute and Americans for Free Choice in Medicine are presenting  a program entitled “Sicko and Its Malcontents: Health Care on Film“ Promised is a debate on the accuracy, impact and purpose of films like Sicko and of others which attack the Canadian and European health care systems as vehemently as Mr. Moore attacks America’s. PRI and AFCM are both conservative/libertarian-leaning groups, so the emphasis is likely to be that government-run systems increase taxes while reducing access to health care. Interestingly, however, the moderator will be Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl. For many years before entering politics, he hosted a cable talk show and is, I believe he is a single payer advocate. The event should be interesting — and it’s free. (Really free. Taxes will not rise as a result of the event. OK, parking at the event is $8.00, but you might find something on the street).

Soon the Legislature will fully engage in health care reform again. Until then, well, we’ll always have Sicko.

Carpe Diem — or at Least Seize the Special Session

There are actually two special sessions in Sacramento right now: one on water; the other on health care reform. For reasons due to the timing of potential initiatives, water is the first focus. And from what I hear it’s not going well.

But that’s legislation under the bridge (sorry). In a few weeks the Legislature will turn it’s attention to health care reform in earnest. There will be tremendous pressure to do something. After the budget fiasco, the failure to address reapportionment, perhaps inaction on water, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata need a victory of some kind to salvage the reputation of the the 2007 Legislative Session. This is especially important for the Legislative Leadership who will be asking voters to approve a change to term limit laws on the February ballot. If the initiative passes Speaker Nunez and Senator Perata will likely remain in their positions for several more years. If it fails ….

So health care reform might be the last lifeline left to our heroes. Which means something is likely to emerge from the special session. What’s not known is what.

Many observers I’ve talked to are increasingly pessimistic that comprehensive reform will move forward. They think some insurance market reforms may pass, specifically the requirement that 85 percent of premiums be spent on health care services. But when it comes to insuring more Californians, they consider expansion of Healthy Families eligibility to cover more children is the only likely accomplishment (this would be ironic since approximately $66 million promised for enhancing Healthy Family and MediCal outreach programs was cut from this year’s budget).

This may sound reassuring to those who are concerned lawmakers, in their great need to pass some health care reform legislation will pass bad health care reform legislation. Certainly there’s a lot to be worried about. The 85 percent heatlh care services mandate, as currently proposed, will likely increase premiums and decrease competition, especially in the individual and small group market segments. A requirement that carriers accept all applicants, regardless of their risk profile passes, without an effective mandate for individuals to purchase coverage before they’re on their way to the emergency room, individual insurance premiums will skyrocket and carriers will flee the state. The purchasing pool could become a black hole, sucking up more of the marketplace than is healthy for the state’s economy or the private marketplace. And that’s just the start. There is plenty to fear from getting health care reform wrong.

There’s also much to fear in doing little, or even worse, nothing. There are real problems in today’s health care system. Insurance reforms are a part of what’s needed. It’s not the only part needing a fix, far more important is the need to deal with escalating health care costs.  Yet politics being what it is, the focus now is on the insurance industry. If not changes emerge from Sacramento, the demand for “doing something to stop the evil insurance companies” will continue unabated. Doing something, if it’s done right, will enable politicians, the media and the public to focus on deeper and more serious problems.

Another reason to do something right now is to deflate the momentum of building behind single payer alternatives like SB 840. There is likely to be an initiative next year to bring a Canadian-style system south to California. It will be much easier to defeat — as it should be for a host of reasons — if voters perceive lawmakers as addressing their health care worries.

Finally, it’s important to do something constructive on health care reform because it’s the right thing to do. In unveiling his reform package, the Governor state, “The status quo can no longer be everyone’s second choice.” He’s right. The issues have been on the table long enough. What we need now is to address those issues and then move on. What will be interesting to watch is whether the way lawmakers seek to address health care reform is aimed at scratching their political itch or in enacting constructive, meaningful public policy. We’ll know in a few weeks.

The Governor’s Health Care Reform Plan and the Goldilocks Factor

Whether it was intentional or not, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Pro Temp Don Perata did Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger a huge favor in pushing Assembly Bill 8 through the Legislature last week. They positioned the Governor’s health care reform plan as both more the more moderate and more comprehensive alternative. The result increases the Governor’s political momentum and his negotiating leverage.

Supporters of AB 8 claim the legislation will bring nearly 70 percent of the state’s current uninsured into the system. It’s primary source of funding is a fee on every business in the state equal to 7.5 percent of their Social Security-adjusted payroll. It gives an unelected state agency the ability to raise this fee by any amount once a year (yes, by any amount). Many in Sacramento believe the agency would need to invoke that power almost immediately.

Speaker Nunez and Senator Perata claimed there’s was the reasonable compromise between the Governor’s proposal and the single-payer approach championed by Senator Sheila Keuhl. However, their context was political. Yes, the Governor’s plan needs a two-thirds majority and with Republicans holding back support that was not going to happen. Yes, the Governor vetoed Senator Keuhl’s bill, SB 840, last year and he’d do it again. Yes AB 8 only requires a majority of Legislators to pass. All of this positions AB 8 as the politically viable alternative.

Yet politics is not positioning. Consider things from Goldilocks point of view. Like most Californians outside Sacramento County and a few newsrooms scattered across the state, Goldilocks doesn’t think politically. She does, however, instinctively understood positioning. SB 840, the Papa Bear of reform, represents a government takeover of health care. That sounds scary (or too hot as Goldi would say). AB 8, the Mama Bear, fails to deliver on universal coverage and is expensive to boot. Too cold.

Then there’s the Governor’s plan. Universal coverage and no government takeover. It even spreads the cost of expanding health care beyond business which seems just right.  Meet the Baby Bear.

With this kind of positioning it’s not surprising that the Governor’s proposal is gaining support. For example, last Friday a broad coalition representing business, labor, doctors, insurers, hospitals and consumers endorsed the Governor’s plan. Yesterday the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce lined up behind it. While possible, it is unlikely the Chamber would have endorsed a plan imposing a four percent tax on their members if it were not for the specter of AB 8’s 7.5 percent tax looming in the background, especially since AB 8 accomplishes less. No doubt more supporters will be joining the Governor in front of the cameras in the next few weeks.

As in the fairy tale, there is a danger here for health care reform Goldilocks. Governor Schwarzenegger’s health care reform plan is just that: a plan. It’s not legislation yet. The coalition forming behind it are endorsing a concept. In the next few weeks as the details emerge in that devilish way details do, some members of the coalition may start squirming. After publicly standing beside the Governor of the California it’s tough to walk away. The last thing anyone wants is the Governor publicly calling them  or their group “lying, backstabbing cowards,” or, in more politically acceptable language, “undependable and disappointing.” This is especially true if you’re a business, labor, doctor, insurer, hosptial or consumer who needs something from the state government in the next two years or so.

The Governor, whose political skills should never be underestimated, got a double win from the Legislature’s passage of AB 8. His health care reform plan looks moderate — even post-partisan. And he gains substantial negotiating leverage across a broad spectrum of stakeholders.  Which means he’s another step closer to living happily ever after.

Budget Battle Outcome Should Concern Single Payer Advocates

California liberals have rarely had it so good. Democrats dominate the Legislature. The most recent gerrymandering almost guarantees the most extreme members of each party will be elected, which for Democrats means they have an undeniably liberal caucus. And as an added bonus, Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger is about as liberal as a Republican chief executive as Democrats could ask for. It simply doesn’t get better than this.

Yet, the budget finally enacted by this Legislature gives tax breaks to rich Californians buying yachts and takes money away from our most needy residents.  Think about that for a moment.

• Liberal golden age. Money in the pocket of yacht buyers.
• Liberal golden age. Money out of the pocket for the poor and elderly.
• Yacht buyers win. The poor lose.

Yet advocates of a single payer health care system want to give monopoly-like authority to the state government for the health care coverage of every Californian.

If this is what happens during the liberal’s golden age what happens when the conservatives have their day in the sun? (Is anyone so naive to think that will never happen? The Democrats in Congress were in 1994 and the result was Speaker Newt Gingrich).

There’s a lot that needs fixing in today’s system. Completely politicizing the system is no solution. Single payer advocates should look at the budget their champions passed and be afraid. Very afraid.