Al's Opinions

Ronald Brownstein writes today in the Los Angeles Times that California may upset the growing trend toward a national universal health care system. According to Mr. Brownstein, Organized Labor in California is trying to derail the system proposed by "centrist" Governor Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger's proposal, like the system enacted in Massachusetts and similar to proposals by Democratic candidates Clinton and Edwards, is essentially a bargain with the very powerful insurance industry. Schwarzenegger would require everyone to buy health insurance. In return, the insurance industry would sell insurance to everyone without regard to preexisting health conditions. A subsidy would be provided for people with low incomes to enable them to buy insurance. In other respects Schwarzenegger's proposal is similar to the system we now have in that employers would be required either to provide subsidized insurance for their employees or pay into a State fund that would provide the subsidies for low income residents.

Mr. Brownstein presents the idea that the Schwarzenegger plan is a centrist plan. I don't know what his idea of a conservative plan would be. It seems to me that the Schwarzenegger plaln is actually very conservative. It keeps all the elements of the present broken plan and applies both band-aids and force to make it work properly. The force is the requirement that everyone buy private insurance. The band-aid is the subsidy for people who can't afford insurance.

There is a liberal or progressive plan, advanced by State Senator Sheila Kuehl here in California and in the Congress by Representative John Conyers of Michigan. That plan gets rid of the private insurers by replacing them with a single-payer insurance pool that includes everyone. Everyone pays into the pool as part of their taxes. The profit-hungry insurers are deleted. Similar plans work well in Canada and in several European countries.

Mr. Brownstein presents a distorted account of reality. He implies that Schwarzenegger's plan is "liberal," and that the "liberal" labor unions are opposing it. Actually, the Schwarzenegger plan is a Republican plan. It was enacted in Massachusetts with the support of a Republican Governor and Republican (and Democratic) members of the legislature. Mr. Schwarzenegger's plan is like the plan proposed several years ago by a Republican member of the California Assembly. We liberals have little interest in it. We have our own "liberal" plan, a plan that has worked well in other parts of the world. To us, the Schwarzenegger-Massachusetts plan has not demonstrated that it is capable of providing good quality health care to all at a price that our society can afford.

Labels: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Conyers, Massachusetts plan for universal health care, Ronald Brownstein, single-payer

Looking at the front-runners in the present Presidential race, I predict the following nominees:

For the Republicans, Mitt Romney

For the Democrats, Hilary Clinton

Although at present Romney seems to be in trouble with the Religious Conservative wing of the Republican Party, he has a year to convince them that, as a Mormon, he follows the teachings of the Church with regard to same-sex marriage and abortion. The Latter Day Saints Church is very conservative with regard to such things. It's also conservative with regard to government programs of assistance to the poor, the aged, and oppressed minorities. These matters should be settled through non-governmental organizations, like the LDS Church. That Church provides generously for Mormons who are out of work by providing jobs and food for them and their families. These teachings are very appealing to other religious conservatives. Romney will have them eating out of his hand by the end of the year.

I predict the Democratic Nomination to go to Clinton. She has the best organization. She is the best known. Her principal opponent, Barack Obama, is a Negro. Many Americans have a secret reluctance to vote for a Negro as our nation's leader. Clinton has a similar problem because she is a woman.

Romney will be our next President.

Why am I pessimistic? If we Americans could elect a Democrat, there would be a chance for a worth-while reform of our broken medical care system. With Romney, or any Republican, the only thing that won't be vetoed is a scheme similar to the one in Massachusetts, in which the insurance companies are still running things and putting profit ahead of high quality health care, as they must, because their stockholders will demand it.

Romney will convince the majority of Americans who oppose our war in Iraq that he will bring it to an end, just as Richard Nixon ended the war in Viet Nam. Romney may even have a "secret plan" for ending the war. The Democrats will have been unable to end or even slow down the war by election day next year. In fact, we may even be at war with Iran by then. Romney will have a secret plan for ending that one, too. The Republicans will be respected again and Romney will have a cooperative Congress.

I hope I'm wrong.

Labels: Barack Obama, Ending the War, Health insurance crisis, Hilary Clinton, Massachusetts plan for universal health care, Mitt Romney