Universal Health Care Proposed by California Gov

Howard Dean did it back in the 1990s when he was Governor of Vermont. Providing health care insurance/coverage to 95% of his state's citizens.

It has been in the Democratic Party platform since the days of Harry Truman, more than a half-century ago.

Hillary Clinton led an unsuccessful effort back in the early years of her husband's presidency.

Today there are two news stories that caught my attention regarding this achingly long-overdue need:

• USA Today has a front-page article on states moving towards universal health care coverage
• AP has a story from a few minutes ago about California Gov Schwarzenegger, clearly a moderate Republican who has advocated for environmental protection, proposing universal health care coverage for everyone in the State of California - including immigrants.

CONTINUED BELOW THE JUMP

The California story:

Calif. gov calls for universal coverage

Associated Press
January 8, 2007

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday proposed to extend health coverage to nearly all of California's 6.5 million uninsured people, promising to spread the cost among businesses, individuals, hospitals, doctors, insurers and government.

< snip >

All children, regardless of their immigration status, would be covered through an expansion of the state and federal Healthy Families program.

<snip>

Under Schwarzenegger's plan, all Californians would be required to have insurance, although the poorest would be subsidized. Businesses with 10 or more employees would have to offer insurance to their workers or pay 4 percent of their payroll into a state fund. . . .

Also, insurers would no longer be allowed to deny coverage to people because of their medical problems.  Business groups and Republican legislators are likely to object to the extra costs imposed on businesses.

<snip>

SOURCE

Frankly, I hope Gov Schwarzenegger is successful and wish him luck in overcoming what is sure to be a big push to block his efforts by the likes of the AMA, insurance industry, and others.

The second article, from USA Today, proves the point that in terms of domestic issues, health care is the # 1 concern of the American people and the Democratic position on this issue has the support of the majority of people.

States to expand health coverage
Legislatures seek to help uninsured

USA TODAY
January 8, 2007

States are planning large expansions in health care coverage this year in an aggressive and potentially expensive attempt to reduce the ranks of the 42.4 million Americans who are uninsured.

<snip>

Governors and state legislators in both parties and most states have made expanded medical coverage a priority for legislatures . . . .

Popular proposals include guaranteeing medical coverage to all children; subsidizing medical insurance at small businesses; and providing tax incentives for businesses and individuals to make coverage more affordable. A few states are considering universal health coverage for all residents. Others are focusing on price competition and preventive care.

The politics of health care has shifted dramatically, too. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, tried to trim Medicaid enrollment two years ago when his state's budget was tight. Now he's supporting universal coverage for children.

SOURCE

Again, it's clear that the majority of Governors and state legislatures, regardless of party, are in tune with the Democratic Party position.  Why?  Because they're hearing it from the people!

Eventually, I hope it will 'go national' so that we don't have a situation where the majority of states cover all or most of their people - but a few poor states don't or can't.

This is an issue that is 'near and dear' to my heart:  a family member who was without health insurance ( had just started a first job and had to wait 6 mos to get coverage ) tried to put off surgery until after the insurance started - and nearly died at the time. Eventually, this close family member of mine DID die, at a way-too-young age, after battling a terminal illness for more than 2 yrs. I will always wonder what would've happened if the necessary surgery had taken place sooner instead of later - would death have been prevented ?

In any event the business / economic part of this issue is critical because this deceased family member of mine had no money to pay the tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills that accumulated - and those costs were 'absorbed' into the system, paid for by the rest of us, increasing the cost of health care for everyone else.

It's the right thing to do - both morally and economically - and I don't care if it starts at the state level.

It's gotta start somewhere !