I guess we will find out in early January whether California Republicans — especially mainstream GOP voters and those in the GOP donor community — elected a Governor who will stand by the most significant major tenets of the Grand Old Party, or whether they were used by a politician who is prepared to turn his bust of Ronald Reagan to face the wall. How Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger approaches his self-imposed top priority of working to tackle the issue of access to and affordability of health insurance for all Californians will define his commitment to core Republican principles.
Arnold Schwarzenegger campaigned for re-election saying that he is fiscally conservative, socially moderate and progressive on environmental issues (or something close to that). Well, as we said at the time, EVERY issue facing state government is ultimately a fiscal issue, and improving access to healthcare is definitely a fiscal issue. As such, we are all hoping that it will be fiscally conservative Arnold Schwarzenegger that steps up to give his State of the State Address in January.
**There is more – click the link**
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I wonder how many of the so-called uninsured are that way by choice. How many actually do without health coverage because they spend their income on (what to them) are higher priorities. The various plans to force coverage (be it though single payer, employer mandates, or mandatory individual coverages) can only serve to drive prices up. Our slow (and at times rapid) decent into socialism is what is most frustrating. That’s what causes me heartache–but I bet Arnie doesn’t see THAT as a hiddent tax.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Someone create a list of the top ten reasons for increased health care costs (and related lack of access) in California, and see how many items are government mandates. Who will be creating and analyzing the list in this administration? Gray Davis’ people or Arnold himself?
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Being uninsured is not a choice. According to the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, more than 85 percent of the uninsured are either not offered or not eligible from health insurance from their employer. Nearly 90 percent of the uninsured are in low income or moderate income families making less than $34,300 or an individual or $70,000 for a family of four. Coverage is often deined to individuals by private sector insurance companies because of “pre-existing conditions.”
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I hope Republicans are not shocked to learn Arnold wants to have universal health care for all Californians. At least we now know that Arnold doesn’t have a fiscally conservative bone in his body. Now that he’s been re-elected, I would feel more comfortable if I saw a “D” next to his name. He is a Democrat pure and simple. I’m so glad that I didn’t vote for that man.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Some people have a hard time understanding choice. Its a choice not to get a HS diploma, its a choice not to go to college, its a choice to take a job without healthcare benefits and its a choice to start a family when you are not financially able to support it. I have a hard time being taxed at a higher rate because some people make a liftime of bad choices. Maybe what we need is to hold people accountable for their bad choices.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I am intrgued by your approach of lowering the cost of health insurance premiums, and increasing the economic well being of those who do not have insurance so that they can afford to buy it.
How?
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
You and me both, Allan. I will happily keep my clean conscience rather than be able to say “I voted for the winner”.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Steve Maviglio–that fact that an employer does not provide insurance as part of an employment contract is NOT the ssame as insurance being unavailable. Further ‘pre-existing’ by definition means it would not be ‘insurance’–can you buy fire insurance or flood insurance after the fact? No, and the same is true for health. Before anything is done, the debaters need to grock the difference between ‘insurance’ and ‘health care’ Being uninsured IS a choice.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
It’s hard-line positions like this that are driving the Republican party towards being just a party of the Central Valley. Employer based health care is an idiocy; it hardly made any sense when it started and today it makes less than none. People may not like taxes, but they like being held up by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries a lot less.
Unly by “increasing people’s economic well being” you’re proposing a guaranteed minimum income. Now we might be getting somewhere!
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
That’d be “Unless” – itchy trigger finger on the submit button there, sorry.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I will guarantee your income will be directly proportional to the value you provide to the marketplace.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 am
We offer the employees of our small business health insurance. We pay the majority of the cost and the employee is only required to pick up a small portion. I am amazed that almost two thirds of our employees choose not to participate.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
To Steve Maviglio —
Eleven years ago, I was uninsured by my own personal choice. I was young and single, with a good job and very few expenses, so I had a relatively large disposable income. Health insurance was simply not a priority for me, but many other things were.
There are millions of people in the same situation now that I was in back then. In fact, all the people I know who lack health insurance are uninsured by choice.
The right NOT to buy health insurance is critical to keep the market functioning properly. If insurance is ever mandated, we know that service will deteriorate and prices will sky-rocket (which will inevitably lead to price caps, which will necessitate rationing, which will lead to the kind of unnecessary suffering they have in Canada and Britain).
Instead of crying about the plight of the “insured,” we should worry more about the government mandates (includes the tort system and labor regulations) that have caused the price of healthcare to increase so dramatically.