This Week in Northern California (TWINC) did a segment today comparing the three non-universal health care proposals currently on the agenda in Sacramento. There was only the briefest and most dismissive mention of Senator Sheila Kuehl's bill, SB 840. It went more or less like this:
I don't think that's going to go anywhere. It's not employer based.
Belva Davis usually runs a fairly tight and balanced program so I wrote a letter (twinc@kqed.org) to complain and to suggest that TWINC do a full half hour on all the health care proposals, using knowledgeable speakers rather than reporters winging it. I hope others here in Northern California will watch the segment and also write a letter. KQED needs to hear from us - this is too important an issue to die from misinformation. My letter, somewhat revised, is below the fold.
Hello, Ms. Davis,
I would have to rate KQED's coverage tonight of the 3 non-universal health care proposals currently on the docket in Sacramento as POOR to FAILING. It was far below TWINC's usual standard.
Did you mention that all three of the proposals you covered will leave large numbers of California residents without health care, low income people with a mandate to buy policies that cover very little, all the while delivering windfall profits subsidized by the poor and California taxpayers in perpetuity to the big beneficiary, insurance companies? If so, I didn't hear it and neither did your other listeners. The unfortunate citizens of another state are the guinea pigs for the inadequate Massachusetts model which no one thinks could work in a state as large and diverse as California. The Massachusetts model is a failure even in that small state, according to people who are trying to make it work, and it doesn't even aim to provide universal care.
Sheila Kuehl's bill, so quickly discounted by your reporter because it is not an "employer based program", is the only approach that provides any relief from runaway health care costs and at the same time provides universal health care for all Californians. It is not substantively different from MediCare in the way it operates. Patients choose their doctors and doctors bill the state agency for the services they provide. A board composed of appointed experts and citizens oversees performance, and a data collection component of the program establishes standard of care benchmarks. Fees are adjusted based on a cost of living index in the provider's area.
Funds are raised from employers with a small payroll tax, from taxpayers with a few percentage points increase in state taxes, and government, at current levels. Most employers with current health care plans will end up paying less, most taxpayers will pay less than they currently spend for co-pays, and the government contributions will not increase. No extra taxes for Docs and hospitals, either. Everyone will be better off if all in the state have health care. The only "losers" are those companies that are not currently providing any employee health care at all, and the smallest among them will pay less than they would have paid on their own if they could have found insurance for their employees. Low income people will pay a tax only on their income above an established cut-off.
Increased efficiency (e.g., use of doctors rather than emergency rooms for non-emergencies, reduced paperwork) and the removal of profits as a health care cost will provide universal coverage, including dental and vision, for all California residents, for less than most are paying now.
If your reporter needs an academic report for details, the universal health care model in Kuehl's SB 840 is described and evaluated in The Lewin Report, which is readily available from the Health Care for All website.
Why is a government-funded (not operated) health care system so difficult for reporters to understand and to explain? MediCare and SCHIP are the most efficient health care programs in the country, and they insure all comers in their respective age brackets. Another way to describe universal health care is "medicare for all."
You can be sure that KQED is not alone in missing the mark. I can only surmise that news organizations need to avoid offending potential funders. I certainly hope that KQED doesn't choose its news reports with an eye to its pocket book.
You would do your viewers a great service if you devoted an entire half hour program, if not a full hour, to an examination of all four programs, with knowledgeable speakers rather than reporters who are so obviously winging it. I urge you to do so ASAP, since the bills are being considered this term. You might start by talking with Spencer Michael who did an excellent program some years ago on the pitfalls of underinsurance and no insurance.
Oh, and here are three final benefits that deserve mention. Universal health care using Senator Kuehl's model will make California businesses competitive with those in more progressive countries like Canada and the EU, more competitive than those in states without a comparable program, and will, at the same time, relieve extreme budget pressures for public agencies that provide health care benefits.
I hope in the future that This Week in Northern California will do a more thorough and accurate treatment of the health care proposals currently before the California legislature. A big decision will be made soon, and the media have an important role to play in making sure Californians understand the choices before them.
Sincerely yours,
xxx
A KQED member