The political reality of the California veto
Schwarzenegger runs no political risk by vetoing health care bill
By Dan Walters — Bee Columnist
The Sacramento Bee
September 6, 2006
The Public Policy Institute of California, in its most recent survey of the state’s voters, asked, “Which one issue would you most like to hear the gubernatorial candidates talk about before the Nov. 7 election?”
Immigration, especially illegal immigration, was the top response, but was mentioned by just 21 percent of the likely voters questioned, followed by public schools at 18 percent, jobs and the economy at 9 percent, the state budget deficit and taxes at 8 percent, and the environment at 6 percent.
Only 4 percent of voters contacted by the PPIC cited health insurance coverage — so few that they weren’t worth tabulating in the survey’s summary. And the same poll found that Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger holds a 13-percentage-point lead over Democratic challenger Phil Angelides.
The juxtaposition of those two poll results is this: Schwarzenegger runs almost no political risk by declaring, as he did Tuesday, that he’ll veto the latest version of universal health care enacted by a Democrat-controlled Legislature — which probably also explains why Angelides backed away from the measure even as he promised to pursue universal coverage if elected.
Schwarzenegger has not yet vetoed Senate Bill 840, but in an op-ed article published in the San Diego Union-Tribune, he declared that he would reject it, saying, “Socialized medicine is not the solution to our state’s health care problems,” and adding, “Such a program would cost the state billions and lead to significant new taxes on individuals and businesses, without solving the critical issue of affordability. I won’t jeopardize the economy of our state for such a purpose.”
SB 840, carried by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and backed by a broad coalition of health access and labor groups, would replace existing public and private health care programs with a single system operated by a new agency — and in the process more than double the financial size of state government.
The veto would not be unexpected, given the Schwarzenegger campaign’s unrelenting criticism of Angelides for supporting, in concept, universal health care, citing it as one example of the Democrat’s supposed eagerness to expand government and taxes.
Angelides’ circular positions, however, have been downright perplexing.
Earlier this year, while campaigning for the Democratic nomination, Angelides described universal health care as “my commitment.” While saying it should come from the federal government, he declared that “we’re not going to wait. We’re going to do it here in California, universal health care for every Californian, it’s my commitment to you.”
Angelides was even listed for a while as one of SB 840’s supporters, before formally declaring that he’s neither a supporter nor an opponent and refusing to say whether he would have signed SB 840 had he, rather than Schwarzenegger, been sitting at the governor’s desk. He recently described his position on SB 840 as “a moot point” because Schwarzenegger was likely to veto the bill, while still pledging to seek universal coverage if elected.
Why, one might wonder, is Angelides splitting semantic hairs? Health care is a shibboleth for liberal Democrats, so Angelides must endorse it, at least in concept, as he struggles to unify his party behind him. The PPIC poll found that just 58 percent of Democratic voters favored his election. But it’s not a burning issue, as the PPIC poll found, for the broader expanse of voters, perhaps because only a tiny percentage of those voters lack health coverage themselves. Therefore, the upside of endorsing the bill is not strong enough to offset the downside of giving Schwarzenegger’s campaign new ammunition to describe the Democrat as a tax-loving liberal who wants to double the size of state government.
That’s not to say, of course, that having about 6 million Californians — most of them from working poor families — without health care coverage is not a serious public policy issue. California, with its diffused, semi-seasonal economy and its multicultural, immigrant-heavy population, has an especially large proportion of medically uninsured. But as a political issue with the capacity to move voters, it doesn’t make the cut.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/14318557p-15240808c.html
Comment:
By Don McCanne, MD
Those of us in the health professions who have watched so many suffer and die merely because of the flaws in our dysfunctional system of financing health care are greatly offended when we see that there is enough money already being spent to provide the care needed to prevent these adverse outcomes. Dan Walters is an astute political observer. The voters, most of whom have health insurance, aren’t moved by the tragic consequences of our flawed system. The truth hurts.