Posted on 11/06/2007 6:48:40 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Schwarzenegger administration officials said Tuesday they were gratified by the compromise on health care reform that Democrats offered the previous day, but the two sides are still at odds over how much employers should pay.
"It's a very encouraging sign," said Daniel Zingale, a top policy adviser to the governor. "And we are definitely moving closer."
Democrats have gone their own way on health care since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger laid out a universal coverage plan in January. This fall, they passed a major health coverage expansion funded largely through taxes on employers, even after Schwarzenegger said he would veto it, which he did.
But on Monday, Democrats accepted key elements of Schwarzenegger's plan, including a requirement that everyone have a health insurance policy. They also lowered the amount employers would be required to pay.
But business groups said Tuesday they are still opposed.
The new Democratic plan imposes a sliding scale fee based on annual payroll. Firms at the low end - up to $100,000 - would have to spend 2 percent of their payroll on employee health care or pay that amount toward a state insurance pool. Firms between $100,000 and $250,000 would pay 4 percent of payroll. And those over $250,000 would pay 6.5 percent.
Although many large firms spend much more than that, employer groups said 6.5 percent was too high for small firms with low profit margins.
"It clearly affects small businesses," said Allan Zaremberg, head of the California Chamber of Commerce. "And small businesses are the ones who can't afford health care."
He also criticized the Democrats' reliance on a $2-a-pack tobacco tax to fund subsidies for people who cannot afford insurance. Zaremberg said it was unreliable, because it generates less revenue as people stop smoking. Meanwhile, he said, health costs will be going up.
Nunez said polling shows voters like the tobacco tax better than other taxes, such as a sales tax increase that some business groups have proposed to fund health care. But just last year, voters rejected a tobacco tax increase to fund emergency rooms.
Schwarzenegger also opposed the tobacco tax measure, and it was unclear whether he would agree to the Democrats' plan. He is pushing a scheme to lease the lottery to raise money for health care.
Democrats also carved out an exception to mandatory insurance for people whose health care costs exceed 6.5 percent of their annual income and for those facing financial hardships.
Unions and consumer groups have been attacking the mandatory insurance requirement in Schwarzenegger's plan for months. They say it is unfair to force everyone to buy insurance when premiums are rising so much faster than wages or inflation.
Those groups stayed mostly silent on Tuesday, as Democrats' officially rolled out their plan, although one union did offer support.
"We're behind it," said Danny Curtain of the carpenter's union. "I think that there's more and more unions looking at this as a real opportunity that may not come around for a long time, and that is definitely worth some compromise."
California has an estimated 4.9 million people who lack health insurance at any given time.
The proposal will get its first hearing on Nov. 14, and Nunez said he hoped the Assembly would vote on it either just before or just after Thanksgiving. The Senate would vote after that.
Democrats must strike a deal soon with Schwarzenegger if they are going to have time to qualify the measure for the November 2008 ballot.
The taxes needed to fund the $14 billion plan must be put to a popular vote because Republicans refuse to support it. Their votes would be necessary to achieve the two-thirds legislative majority required in California to raise taxes.
At least something still works in California government. Schwarzenegger was definitely taken by the body snatchers after his reform referendums failed to pass.
Surprise! It appears most of the bill’s requirements and reforms have been gutted, except for the taxes. A new 6.5% payroll tax is about to be created. I can hardly wait to hear the moaning from liberal employees who currently get their “free” healthcare from a spouse or a government program. They will now have to pay a large additional tax on their income regardless of if they are covered.
The government will also mandate some minimum amount of insurance, that will, without doubt, be too expensive for most. They will micro-manage everything, and when it blows up, they will throw up their hands and say “single payor is the answer!!”
Taxing to force employers to provide insurance will cause chaos unless it is accompanied by insurance market reforms and an individual mandate that people get covered when eligible.
I’ve seen Republicans give rope to the Dems before. This is an example of a Republican hanging himself together with the Dems.
I've been thinking that has been the endgame all along, including Schwarzenegger's. After all, "everything must be provided for the people."
I for one will relocate my business to nevada next year,and yes I pay for my own Insurance, Now If they agree to fund Healthcare with say a 10% on Movies,concerts,..... and lets not forget a 10% tax on All Qualified Performing Artists. Every Monday Morning on the news they tell us how much money each movie brings in, thats where we should get the money.
Don’t Blame Me. I voted for McClintock. Thank you RINO pubbies & pragmatic FReepers.
That had to be prtty discouraging. I can't remember why conservatives in California stayed home for that vote.
Because "fiscal consevative" RINOld decided to spend zillions on a "special edition" and try to drag millions of voters out to the polls on an ordinary work day -- instead of simply waiting around a few monthes for a REGULAR election when people will be voting anyway.
Guess which people have no life and are happy to report to the polls for a "special election"? Think "liberal activist"
Actually, conservatives didn’t stay home. That was the myth perpetuated by his supporters—to blame Arnold’s failure on those evil conservatives and give him cover to openly embrace the liberal agenda. In fact, the most conservative propositions did the best and many of Arnold’s so-called “conservative” initiatives weren’t conservative at all. I voted for half and opposed half.
As to the body snatching, that happened long before Arnold was elected. Remember, he made his political debut championing Prop 49 After School Programs, the government baby-sitting program that now eats up in excess of 1/2 Billion dollars a year. He then jumped in and doubled the size of the Gray Davis borrowing scheme, increased spending by leaps and bounds, opposed Proposition 54 (Ward Connerly’s racial privacy initiative) calling it’s supporters “Right Wing Crazies,” backed the embryonic stem cell research inititative, put 1/5 of the state’s land under a conservancy, etc. etc. etc. If there was a body snatching, it probably happened about the time he married Maria, not after any of the elections.
Calling a special election certainly did have an effect on turnout but that wasn’t just Republicans or conservatives. The non-stop campaigning gets tiresome for all voters. And being handed 100 page documents with the text of initiatives is very time consuming for the few who try to figure out what the initiatives will really do. Sometimes it is easier just to vote NO.
Thanks for the kind reply. You explained it very nicely.
FRegards,
LH
Arnold rushed a bunch of half-thought out proposals onto a ballot and poured zillions of dollars of wasted taxpayer money trying to drag voters out to the polls to vote for them. With the Republican base, he was ALREADY preaching to the choir that California needed reform. But Arnold got clobbered by the teachers unions and other special interest groups when he tried to get nonpartisan voters to show up and vote his way.
I also agree 100% that if Arnold EVER was a "Republican", he lost any Republican principles he had long ago when he was assimilated by the Kennedy family. Arnold had no intention of being a "fiscal conservative" in office, all that campaign rhetoric in 2003 was just generic platitudes about "Milton Friedman" in order to con voters into supporting him (would ANY candidate promise to be a "fiscal liberal" in office and spend money like crazy in office? I don't think so!)
The mere fact Arnold decided to waste money on a statewide "special election" (think about the extra costs of printing up special ballots, manning the polls, getting the equipment, and counting the votes in a state with 38 million people...) when he could have just as easily sought those referendums during a REGULAR election shows he was never a "fiscal conservative" to begin with.
The sad fact is that Arnold's "centrist" agenda is so far left that many "moderate Democrats" ARE more "fiscally conservative" than him.
I remember when socialist Arnie said that in 2003 and it left me with no doubt that he was lying about being a "fiscal conservative" who would "tear up the credit cards" Like most RINOs, Arnold promised the goverment would provided goodies for all but didn't say how he would pay for it.
We had a simular incident in 1998 when I realized RINO George Ryan was lying about his "traditional family values" to get elected as a Republican. Ryan had this canned response that he was "pro-life, except in necessary cases such as rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother". He didn't elaborate any further but IL GOP tried to bully all of us into supporting "pro-life" George Ryan. Then "pro-life" George Ryan picked an obscure first-term member of the assembly who was the LOUDEST pro-abortion advocate in the GOP at the time, to be his "running mate". He said he did it because she was female and he needed to get "female supporters" Yeah riiiiiiiiiight.
Low and behold, three years later, "pro-life" George Ryan got a bill on his desk that would have required the state to stop forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions for "poor women". It was meet with a big fat VETO. Ryan never stood up for life or for anything else conservative. He broke his "no new taxes" pledge within 4 monthes of taking office. He then "changed his mind" about "keeping a tight lid on spending". Basically, any conservative statement he made during the campaign was just to con voters into supporting him.
Never trust RINOs. By their fruits you shall know them.
Rudy Giuliani currently claims he appoint "strict constructionists" to the court like Scalia and Alito. But "strict construnctionist" Rudy has gone on record saying Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a fine judge and well qualified. Things that make you go hmmmm.
You're welcome!
The cost of the election was between $50 and $100 million, IIRC. In the big picture (with $100+ billion budget), it wasn't a lot of money. But I agree... it was a waste. I think it was placed intentionally on a ballot knowing there would be low turnout, as that often helps initiatives. But once Arnold backed the Union measure, the election motivated the union backlash and those voters turned out in spades. It makes you wonder if losing those propositions wasn't the endgame all along... a $50 million dollar throw-away to give Arnold cover for openly governing his last years as a liberal.
Sadly, this seems to be a common occurence.
Rudy Giuliani currently claims he appoint "strict constructionists" to the court like Scalia and Alito. But "strict construnctionist" Rudy has gone on record saying Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a fine judge and well qualified. Things that make you go hmmmm.
No "hmmmmm"ing here! I flat out don't believe he'll appoint good judges. His record of appointments as Mayor bring his judgment into serious question, on all fronts. (Kerik, Harding, etc.)
I'll say! He's increased spending by a massive 40%!!!
I strongly recommend we rename him "Ol 140% Snortsnaygur!!!"
LOL.
40% is staggering. Gray Davis is jealous.
“Schwarzenegger was definitely taken by the body snatchers after his reform referendums failed to pass.”
Even Arnie’s reform measures were rather milquetoast...he didn’t have the balls to go after pension reform. I think ArnieCare is going nowhere fast...it’s too damn expensive and unnecessary. Other than repealing the car tax, what has he done?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.