Skip to main content

View Diary: California Senate Appropriations Committee approves California Universal Health Care Act (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Does anyone know if Brown has taken (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tiggers thotful spot, glorificus

    a position on this?

    Greed's self-regulation is collapse. So is delusion's.

    by Publius2008 on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 07:31:50 PM PST

    •  i think his response to date has been (6+ / 0-)

      "if you can find a way to pay for it, be my guest"

      •  Ugh -- that's the same response we got from the CT (3+ / 0-)

        governor who proceeded to kill SustiNet, the only public option in America that was the law, and ready to go. Of course, Aetna and Cigna are headquartered in CT so that might make a difference...

        I'm not too bullish on this governor signing into law.

        •  brown's politics are a bit tricky (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tiggers thotful spot

          on the one hand, he likes austerity for austerity's sake, but he's also into doing really big visionary experiments. the trick will be convincing him that single payer is a big visionary experiment that will transform california while also saving the state a ton of money.

          the good news is that that statement is true. the tough bit will be getting that signal through all the lobbyist noise that will come down upon the state if we're within reach of pulling this off.

    •  He's taken the position that he's for it IF (6+ / 0-)

      he can be convinced that there's enough money the pay for it and it will eventually save money.  Something like that.

      It sounds to me like bullshit; that he's giving himself an excuse not to sign the bill.  But that's just me.

      But if it passes the legislature and he vetoes it I could easily see it becoming a referendum.

      •  If Governor Brown (6+ / 0-)

        does not sign it, it's the equivalent of (the not very uncommon) shiv in the back from Democrats on Democratic Party Base issues. At every point in history a poll of Democratic Party voters would show support for Single Payer.

      •  How long would a referendum take? (0+ / 0-)

        And how many times would the Rs try to appeal it?

        If life gives you melons, you may be dyslexic.

        by glorificus on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 08:19:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  until the next regular general election (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glorificus

          IIRC they have 90 days to circulate the petition for the referendum, then the state has some time to verify signatures. If that's not done by July, then the referendum happens in November of 2014. The law doesn't go into effect until after the vote.

          (Referenda and initiatives used to happen on primaries, too, but the election law was changed so June 2012 is the last primary with referenda).

          (It used to be the case that the governor could call a special election for these things. I don't know, because I haven't read the 2011 changes to election law in California, if that's still the case. Even if it is, Governor Brown would have to actually call a special election.)

      •  The above are pretty much accurate. But..... (6+ / 0-)

        His word to us has been "show me a way to pay for it and I'm in".
        Remember that this bill is basically a framework without a finance mechanism in it and that states are supposedly not able to get a waiver under the Afforable Care Act until 2017 and it becomes clear that this bill, even if passed and signed is really just a tentative commitment to begin the process of finding a way to finance it and to get that federal waiver.  Still leaves a long road ahead.
        However, the chances of it reaching his desk this time around are rather remote.  Yes, it's passed the leg twice before and been vetoed by Arnold, but the relative ease of passing it then was deceptive.  There are a number of Dems in both houses who are owned, lock stock and barrel by the insurers and banks.  Last time, with a veto assured, they were given permission by their masters to vote yes to appease the Dem majorities in their districts.  But with a governor who might sign it in place, that free pass goes away and they will do as they are told by those who pull their strings.

        "Wouldn't you rather vote for what you want and not get it than vote for what you don't want - and get it?" Eugene Debs. "Le courage, c'est de chercher la verite et de la dire" Jean Jaures

        by Chico David RN on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 08:23:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately (4+ / 0-)

          you're right about that... it will be interesting to see what happens if there was a realistic chance of a signature from the Governor.

          During the last several campaigns for the Governorship, none of the Democrats brought up the issue of the vetoed Universal Health Care Bill One could have imagined a Democratic campaign for Governor that said:

          [sound of Wayne's World Dream Sequence music]
          Hey, the last guy -- that Republican Rat Bastard who cheated on his wife -- he vetoed this bill. And that veto resulted in the needless deaths of thousands of Californians every year, and the needless waste of tens of billions of dollars from California taxpayers and California businesses ... but if I win a ticket to the Governor's mansion I will sign that bill and we will all have health care we can depend on!
          [sound of Wayne's World Dream Sequence music]

          Instead, what we got from the candidates on this topic was the sound of crickets chirping.

          That's the reality.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site