L.A. Times-Bizarre Alliances Form Prop. 72 Opposition
Feisty
http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept
(subscription)
Bizarre Alliances Form Prop. 72 Opposition
... a Los Angeles "human rights" organization among its campaign
partners without disclosing that the group was in reality an affiliate
of the Church of Scientology ...
Feisty
A little info on Proposition 72 -
http://www.recordnet.com/articlelink/081504/business/articles/081504-b-1.php
Prop. 72deserves a healthy look
By Eric Grunder
Business Columnist
Published Sunday, August 15, 2004
California voters face a confusing ballot proposition this fall, one
seeking to repeal a leads-the-nation requirement that medium and large
businesses make health insurance available to their workers.
Proposition 72 hasn't gotten on the radar screen of most voters.
That's not surprising given the growing intensity of the presidential
campaign, the war news from Iraq, an economy that we're told is
healthy but just can't produce jobs, battered equities markets and
gasoline prices that are like a wasp sting every time you pull up to
the pump.
Two Field Poll surveys in four months indicate most voters haven't
even heard of Proposition 72. The referendum seeks the repeal of
Senate Bill 2, hurry-up legislation signed by Gray Davis just days
before voters allowed him to seek other career opportunities.
Businesses and chamber types, as might be expected and as well they
should, stomped their feet and held their breath, about SB2, a
phase-in law that mandates companies to provided health insurance for
workers. They call it a "job killer" that will send companies
scurrying for the Nevada boarder, where they can do business without
the cost of inconvenience of providing workers health-care benefits.
It could happen, although the opponents' arguments are long on
anecdotal analysis and maddeningly short on verifiable numbers. Still,
there is reason to be cautious of a state-by-state approach to what is
developing into a national health-care crisis.
And it's not getting better. Last week, the policy journal Health
Affairs reported a study that some of the health-
insurance industry's unpopular money-saving measures of the 1990s --
measures such as referrals and pre-authorizations for some services --
are quietly re-emerging. Such provisions are routinely faced by those
of us in California, where managed health care -- patchwork that it
may be -- has been endemic for more than a decade. Nationally, angst
and backlash are emerging in inverse proportion to soaring premiums
and medical service restrictions. That sets the stage for
do-something, do-anything legislation. The specter of Hilary Rodham
Clinton's ill-fated
universal-health-care proposal of the early '90s -- a plan longer and
more complex than the California Education Code -- still haunts
Washington, though both presidential candidates pretend to care and
claim they have a plan. (The Bush fix includes a prescription-drug
gimmick that outright bans price negotiations with pharmaceutical
companies. Don't most of us compare prices when we buy socks?)
In California, SB2 has been followed by SB921, a proposal that cleared
the state Senate in June 2003 by a 23-14 vote and now sits in
committee in the Assembly. It would set up a set up a universal,
single-payer health-care system.
How might that help? Consider the case of UCSF Children's Hospital.
There, they deal with nearly 80 different health-insurance policies
and public programs, each with its own benefits package, formulary
schedule, and rate of co-pays and deductibles. That's but one example;
one hospital. Is it any wonder costs are so high and that billing
mistakes are rampant with such a numbingly complex system?
By early June, SB921 had support from more than 300 groups statewide,
including the expected collection of greenies, support groups for the
aged and disabled and consumer advocates. It was apposed by 16 groups
including five chambers of commerce and two huge health-insurance
companies. The state chamber dismisses it as another "job killer"
bill.
The point is this issue is not going away. Costs are increasing far
faster than the gross domestic product. Millions and millions of
Americans, most of them fully employed, are
without health insurance. That's a moral outrage. It is also a
shortcoming that was dealt with decades ago by virtually every other
Western nation. It's time we deal with it in the United States.
---
http://www.recordnet.com/articlelink/081204/business/articles/081204-b-1.php
Voters unsure on Prop. 72
Initiative challenges insurance requirement for companies
By Joe Goldeen
Record Staff Writer
Published Thursday, August 12, 2004
More than one in five voters are undecided about Proposition 72, but
they hold the key to deciding in November whether the hotly debated
health-care-coverage referendum passes or fails, according to the
latest statewide Field Poll released today.
In its most recent survey, completed between July 31 and Sunday, the
Field Poll found that if the election were held today, 48 percent of
likely voters would vote "yes" to reaffirm Senate Bill 2 and 31
percent would vote "no" to repeal it, while 21 percent are undecided.
Proposition 72 on the November ballot is a referendum that seeks to
repeal the Health Insurance Act 2003, passed by the state Legislature
and signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis two days before the special
election last year that resulted in his recall.
The poll results are virtually the same as those compiled during a
similar survey in May, according to Field Poll director Mark
DiCamillo.
"I wouldn't even call it statistically significant. It's pretty much
the same measure. Only 30 percent of voters had heard of this
referendum before we discussed it with them," DiCamillo said
Wednesday.
If approved, the provisions in the law would stand, requiring
companies with 200 or more employees to buy health insurance for
workers and their families by 2006. Employers with 50 to 199 employees
are required to buy coverage starting in 2007.
Proponents of the Health Insurance Act say the law is an essential
first step toward addressing the health-care needs of millions of
uninsured Californians, according to the Institute of Governmental
Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Supporters include
the California Labor Federation, California Medical Association,
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, California Partnership
and Health Access, as well as a coalition of doctors, nurses,
consumers, teachers and labor unions under the banner of Save Your
Healthcare.
John Rasmussen, 62, of Stockton said government definitely has a role
in requiring employers to provide health insurance.
"If they don't, who will?" the disabled, unemployed laborer said
Wednesday. ::: Advertisement :::
Those fighting to repeal the Health Insurance Act include the
California Chamber of Commerce, Employment Policies Institute and
Californians Against Government Run Healthcare, a coalition of
numerous groups, according to the Institute of Governmental Studies.
Opponents object to the new law because they believe it will lead to
lost jobs, lower wages and reduced benefits as businesses attempt to
comply with the mandate.
Stockton's Nancy Buono agrees. She's against more government intrusion
in workplace issues, saying it will just cost her more money out of
pocket.
"I don't want the state involved any more than it has to be. My costs
(for health insurance) are high enough. I don't want to pay any more,"
said the office worker, who will begin a new job next week.
DiCamillo said that while more people favor Proposition 72 at this
point, most voters have not been exposed to the anticipated
"heavyweight campaign" that the organized lobbies on both sides of the
issue are expected to wage in the fall.
"It's not just the undecideds who are in play. Supporters and
opponents are fairly soft in their positions as well," he said.
The July/August poll of 534 randomly selected Californians expected to
vote in November asked two questions.
The first question probed voter awareness of the referendum by asking:
"Have you seen, read, or heard anything about Proposition 72, a
referendum requiring health-care coverage for employees working for
large and medium-sized employers?"
The replies indicated that just 30 percent of the likely voters
reported having heard of the measure prior to being read its main
provisions. This was up slightly from a 23 percent awareness-level
report in a May Field Poll on the referendum.
The second question included a summary of the official ballot
description that voters will see when they go to the polls to vote.
In the current survey, Democrats supported the referendum 60 percent
to 21 percent, while a plurality of Republicans intended to vote "no"
by a 45 percent to 34 percent margin. Nonpartisans and others lined up
47 percent "yes" and 28 percent "no."
Women favored the referendum more than 2-to-1 -- 51 percent "yes" and
24 percent "no". A plurality of men supported it but by a narrower, 45
percent to 38 percent margin.
While a plurality of white non-Latinos favored Proposition 72 -- 42
percent to 33 percent -- Latinos and other racial and ethnic voter
groups favored it by greater than 2-1 ratios.
Voter concerns about the possibility of being without health-insurance
coverage either now or in the future also appeared to be tied to
support or opposition of the referendum, according to the Field Poll
Those voters currently without health insurance favored Proposition 72
by a 2-1 ratio. In addition, insured voters who reported being very
concerned about the possibility of going without insurance in the
future were nearly 3-to-1 in favor.
The July/August poll was based on interviews conducted by telephone in
English and Spanish. Sampling was carried out using random digit-dial
methodology that gives all voters, including those whose phone number
is listed or unlisted, an equal chance of being contacted. Up to five
attempts were made to reach a randomly selected voter at each number
dialed.
According to statistical theory, the overall results in this Field
Poll survey had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage
points at the 95 percent confidence level.
IDA J 007
>From: "Feisty" su...@skytoday.com
>Date: 08/16/2004 8:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <zk4Uc.1127$Tj6...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-golden16aug16,1,5310676.column?coll=
la-headlines-business
MICHAEL HILTZIK / GOLDEN STATE
Bizarre Alliances Form Prop. 72 Opposition
August 16, 2004
The California Chamber of Commerce seems determined to uphold several honored
principles in trying to overturn the new state law requiring more employers to
offer health insurance.
Among the principles exemplified thus far in its $4.5-million campaign to
defeat November's Proposition 72, a referendum to uphold the law, are these:
"Politics makes strange bedfellows" and "Money talks."
The ballot initiative involves SB 2, which was signed last year by Gov. Gray
Davis. It would require businesses with 200 or more employees to provide health
coverage for workers and their dependents and pay at least 80% of the premiums.
Firms with 50 to 199 workers would have to cover only the employees, a mandate
those with 20 to 49 workers would face only if the state enacted a tax credit
against their costs. Firms smaller than that would be exempt. Businesses that
chose not to buy the coverage themselves would have to pay into a state pool
that would buy it for them.
To fight this measure, the chamber has evidently abandoned all scruples about
whom it will snuggle with. As this column reported earlier, it listed a Los
Angeles "human rights" organization among its campaign partners without
disclosing that the group was in reality an affiliate of the Church of
Scientology.
One wonders if such sleight of hand is now at work in the chamber's proposed
"no on 72" statement for the state's official voter information guide. Included
is a quotation from Thomas LaGrelius, M.D., a South Bay doctor identified as
president of the "California Chapter, Association of American Physicians and
Surgeons," who says Proposition 72 "will mandate the worst kind of managed care
we have. This means we will have more and more patients with terrible
insurance."
The chamber presents this as though it were a mainstream viewpoint in the
medical profession. The very name of LaGrelius' group might even give voters
the impression that it's a big-deal professional fraternity like, say, the
American Medical Assn.
In fact, it's a Tucson-based libertarian group devoted to the privatization of
medicine, and specifically to the end of government health programs such as
Medicare and Medicaid, which serve the elderly and the indigent, respectively.
It believes Medicare is a step on the path to socialized medicine and counsels
its members to refuse participation. The effect of the Medicaid law, it says on
its website, is "evil," and "participation in carrying out its provisions is,
in our opinion, immoral." The organization claims 4,000 members nationwide,
including a California chapter that LaGrelius says is largely inactive.
I don't mean to question LaGrelius' medical bona fides or point of view, or to
suggest that the AAPS conceals its goals. LaGrelius believes Medicaid and HMOs
impose unethical constraints on a doctor's judgment, and that patients are
better off paying for routine care with cash out of their own pockets or from a
tax-advantaged health savings account. When we spoke this week, we didn't delve
deeply into the political or procedural complexities of establishing such a
system, or of providing care for people whose ready cash might not be
sufficient to pay their bills.
But when I asked Allan Zaremberg, president of the Chamber of Commerce and
co-chair of the campaign against SB 2, if his group was comfortable with the
view of Medicare as an "evil" program, he demurred.
"We didn't make those arguments," he told me. "We don't represent his platform.
We're not raising those issues with the public."
And yet the chamber raises other issues in a highly misleading way. It
continues to portray SB 2 as a threat to almost all businesses in the state,
although by its own estimate more than 99% of the state's big companies and 94%
of mid-size firms already provide workers with health coverage.
Contributions to the chamber's campaign are still skewed heavily toward
fast-food joints and department stores. The Golden Arches dominate the roll of
donors as surely as they dominate neighborhood street corners: Of the 951
contributions listed as of Aug. 2, I counted more than 500 from McDonald's
franchisees. McDonald's Corp. itself kicked in about $150,000, and the
California Restaurant Assn. $1.2 million more.
Although there's nothing wrong with these businesses protecting their
interests, the lineup undermines Zaremberg's assertion that the chamber has
assembled "a very broad and diverse coalition of opponents" to Proposition 72.
In truth, the large and mid-size employers that offer health coverage now would
love for skinflint competitors to be prevented from freeloading on the public
health system by denying their workers insurance. For one thing, the practice
drives up premiums and taxes for those acting responsibly.
The chamber contends that one of its reasons for fighting the new law is a
desire to protect workers from a healthcare "tax," but that's equally
laughable. After failing to utter a peep this year when three big supermarket
chains tried to impose a labor contract that would render grocery jobs unfit
for almost anyone but teenagers living with their parents, the organization now
sheds crocodile tears over the prospect that McDonald's franchisees will have
to shutter their California drive-ins, depriving us of thousands of entry-level
positions. (As unlikely an event as that might be, it would be more than
compensated for by the instantaneous improvement in California's cholesterol
count.)
A Field Poll last week showed Proposition 72 heavily favored by likely voters,
48% to 31%, with 21% undecided. But with the chamber's transparent arguments
backed up by millions of fast-food dollars, how long can that margin survive?
Working people without health coverage should consider that the next time they
feel a Big Mac attack coming on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden State appears every Monday and Thursday. You can reach Michael Hiltzik
at golden...@latimes.com and read his previous columns at
latimes.com/hiltzik.
Feisty
"IDA J 007" <ida...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040817011652...@mb-m07.aol.com...
CCHR of course:
http://www.stopthehealthtax.org/who_members.html
Community/Civic
Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Los Angeles
>
> One wonders if such sleight of hand is now at work in the chamber's
proposed
> "no on 72" statement for the state's official voter information
guide.
and that is a terrible misrepresentation of the facts to the public
in the entire state.
> Included is a quotation from Thomas LaGrelius, M.D., a South Bay
doctor identified as
> president of the "California Chapter, Association of American
Physicians and
> Surgeons," who says Proposition 72 "will mandate the worst kind of
managed care
> we have. This means we will have more and more patients with
terrible
> insurance."
>
> The chamber presents this as though it were a mainstream viewpoint
in the
> medical profession.
very, very good interpretation of the facts!
>The very name of LaGrelius' group might even give voters
> the impression that it's a big-deal professional fraternity like,
say, the
> American Medical Assn.
that's exactly what they hoped to look like - how Scientology like!
"the spokesparty of one"
The chamber is now a government agency dictating with it's own medical
officials in the states information- a mini government!
>
> In fact, it's a Tucson-based libertarian group devoted to the
privatization of
> medicine, and specifically to the end of government health programs
such as
> Medicare and Medicaid, which serve the elderly and the indigent,
respectively.
> It believes Medicare is a step on the path to socialized medicine
and counsels
> its members to refuse participation.
That's interesting.
>The effect of the Medicaid law, it says on
> its website, is "evil," and "participation in carrying out its
provisions is,
> in our opinion, immoral." The organization claims 4,000 members
nationwide,
> including a California chapter that LaGrelius says is largely
inactive.
One in the same or birds of a feather?
>
> I don't mean to question LaGrelius' medical bona fides or point of
view, or to
> suggest that the AAPS conceals its goals. LaGrelius believes
Medicaid and HMOs
> impose unethical constraints on a doctor's judgment, and that
patients are
> better off paying for routine care with cash out of their own
pockets or from a
> tax-advantaged health savings account. When we spoke this week, we
didn't delve
> deeply into the political or procedural complexities of establishing
such a
> system, or of providing care for people whose ready cash might not
be
> sufficient to pay their bills.
>
> But when I asked Allan Zaremberg, president of the Chamber of
Commerce and
> co-chair of the campaign against SB 2, if his group was comfortable
with the
> view of Medicare as an "evil" program, he demurred.
>
> "We didn't make those arguments," he told me. "We don't represent
his platform.
> We're not raising those issues with the public."
Never raise an issue in public. People may gain a choice, and be able
to read the truth in public records!
(not)
>
> And yet the chamber raises other issues in a highly misleading way.
It
> continues to portray SB 2 as a threat to almost all businesses in
the state,
> although by its own estimate more than 99% of the state's big
companies and 94%
> of mid-size firms already provide workers with health coverage.
So not only is $cientology hiding, the information is misleading. Just
what is at stake here
for $cientology? Paint that picture so people will just float along.
Is this legal to mislead the state this way?
(bottom line is non-profits will have to contribute! - WISE?)
>
> Contributions to the chamber's campaign are still skewed heavily
toward
> fast-food joints and department stores. The Golden Arches dominate
the roll of
> donors as surely as they dominate neighborhood street corners: Of
the 951
> contributions listed as of Aug. 2, I counted more than 500 from
McDonald's
> franchisees. McDonald's Corp. itself kicked in about $150,000, and
the
> California Restaurant Assn. $1.2 million more.
$cientology run companies with Hubbard technology and McDonald's
workers - now there's an interesting parallel for a model workplace
comparison
Good article, thanks Ida
I hope more is written to correct the misleading information that has
been given to the public, as they should know that the facts have been
misrepresented.
Feisty
>
>
Heffer
So Scientology is the ONLY religion opposed to Prop.72, it seems.
There's two reasons - one is that they don't want any money to
go into a health system that supports legitimate mental health
treatments, and the other is that they don't want to pay any
more for their slave labor.
---
Heffer, OSA Lackey, H-Group
#315905 on the Dorian List
Regurgitating Propagandist
Dave Bird
<hef...@scientologylies.com> writes:
>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:24:15 GMT, "Feisty" <su...@skytoday.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept
>>
>>(subscription)
>>
>>Bizarre Alliances Form Prop. 72 Opposition
>>
>>... a Los Angeles "human rights" organization among its campaign
>>partners without disclosing that the group was in reality an affiliate
>>of the Church of Scientology ...
>
>So Scientology is the ONLY religion opposed to Prop.72, it seems.
>
>There's two reasons - one is that they don't want any money to
>go into a health system that supports legitimate mental health
>treatments, and the other is that they don't want to pay any
>more for their slave labor.
And what's this about..............?
In article<Nz4Uc.1130$Di6...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, Feisty
<su...@skytoday.com> writes:
>Two Field Poll surveys in four months indicate most voters haven't
>even heard of Proposition 72. The referendum seeks the repeal of
>Senate Bill 2, hurry-up legislation signed by Gray Davis just days
>before voters allowed him to seek other career opportunities.
>
>Businesses and chamber types, as might be expected and as well they
>should, stomped their feet and held their breath, about SB2, a
>phase-in law that mandates companies to provided health insurance for
>workers. They call it a "job killer"
Scientology is a "member killer". Who would insure them after
the Lisa MacPherson business?
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
A society without a religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.
Feisty
Earlier article written on March 29, 2004 re: $cientology Citizen's
Commission on Human Rights involved in Proposition 72 in California:
From the Los Angeles Times
MICHAEL HILTZIK GOLDEN STATE
Michael Hiltzik
Golden State
Healthcare Law's Foes Doctor the Facts
March 29, 2004
One of the drawbacks of California's system of ballot-box legislating
is that special interests keep trying to swing elections by
misrepresentation, backed up with stupefying wads of cash.
Today's exhibit: the so-called Coalition of Californians Against
Government Run Healthcare, a front for the California Chamber of
Commerce and a couple of other employer lobbies. In announcing last
week that its referendum to repeal the state's new healthcare law -
requiring medium-sized and large firms to offer workers medical
insurance at least partially paid by the company - had qualified for
the November ballot, the coalition prominently listed among its
backers a Los Angeles human rights organization.
It might strike some observers as odd that any human rights group
would oppose the expansion of medical insurance in the workplace.
Because the coalition failed to identify fully the Citizens Commission
on Human Rights in its press release, it falls to me to do so: This is
a group associated with the Church of Scientology.
Of course, Scientologists, controversial though they may be, have as
much right as anybody to take a position on matters of public policy.
And the commission is candid about its beef with the health bill: It
considers psychiatry a fraud and resents forcing employers to pay for
it through mandated insurance.
But is the business coalition being so honest?
Frank Schubert, the Sacramento public relations man who is running the
referendum campaign for the chamber and its partners, says he wasn't
aware of the commission's affiliation and doesn't know why it was
singled out for mention in the release. Only a cynic, I suppose, would
conjecture that the coalition listed a "human rights" agency among its
supporters so it could pretend that opposition to the new law arises
from bighearted, humanitarian concerns rather than narrow commercial
interests.
On the other hand, this wouldn't be the first time that the coalition
has shaded facts about the healthcare law.
Known by the legislative shorthand SB 2, the law requires businesses
with 200 or more employees to provide health coverage for workers -
including some part-timers - and their dependents and to pay at least
80% of the premiums, starting in 2006. Firms with 50 to 199 employees
will be required to cover the workers only, starting in 2007. Those
with 20 to 49 workers will come under the latter mandate only if the
state enacts a tax credit for 20% of the employers' share, a subsidy
that doesn't seem in the cards right now. Companies with fewer than 20
employees are exempt.
Employers who choose not to meet the requirements through their own
health plans must pay into a state pool that would buy the coverage.
The law's goal is to reduce California's medically uninsured
population, currently 6.5 million. The hope is that by transferring
about 1 million of these individuals from public programs to employer
plans, the law will ease the enormous strain placed by the uninsured
on public emergency rooms, Medi-Cal and the workers' compensation
system. (Healthcare experts say uninsured workers sometimes claim that
their injuries are work-related to get free treatment.)
That means that some costs imposed on employers by SB 2 may be
compensated for by savings in taxpayer-financed medical programs.
Supporters also contend that the mandate will level the playing field
between employers that offer workers reasonable health coverage and
those that weasel out of the obligation. (This means you, Wal-Mart.)
Estimates of SB 2's cost and economic effect have been all over the
map. The coalition's own estimate that SB 2 would saddle Californians
with $7 billion in additional costs - $5.7 billion on employers and
the rest on workers - is based on a shell game. Its figures come from
a September 2003 study it commissioned from the Los Angeles County
Economic Development Corp.
But one author of the LAEDC study says those were rough calculations,
and the LAEDC now estimates net new expenses, counting tax deductions
the employers would receive, at much less - $4.7 billion, of which the
employers' share would be $2.2 billion, or less than half the original
figure.
The coalition hasn't released the new LAEDC study, contending that
it's not ready for public dissemination. But it's had it in hand for
weeks, which raises the question of why it's still posting outdated,
inflated figures on its website. Could it be because the old numbers
are so much scarier?
The Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, relied on the old figures to label
the bill a "job-killer." Never mind that firms smaller than 50 workers
won't be affected for years, if ever. As is typical for a Sacramento
business lobby, the chamber hasn't proposed an alternative plan for
reducing the ranks of the medically uninsured; it's just determined to
kill this one.
The chamber and the referendum campaign are also trying to stack the
electoral deck against the law with some familiar rhetorical tricks,
such as misrepresenting SB 2 as a "tax," a word that always gets a
rise out of California voters. The coalition's very name, by alluding
to "government-run healthcare," is a distortion.
"I don't understand how anyone can call it government-run healthcare,"
says E. Richard Brown, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy
Research.
Brown notes that the insurance available through the shared pool would
be purchased by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, but the
government panel wouldn't dictate the terms of coverage or act as SB
2's enforcement agency.
Another key question is how widespread the opposition to SB 2 really
is. The coalition claims to represent a large group of "diverse
business interests." But just how diverse?
All but about $15,000 of the $2.5 million the coalition raised before
its last full financial disclosure report in January came exclusively
from two business sectors with lots of part-time workers who might
qualify for coverage under the law: chain restaurants and department
stores. McDonald's Corp. franchisees alone accounted for roughly 200
of the 384 reported individual donations, which suggests that some
sort of directive from the home office arrived one day, perhaps packed
in with everyone's shipments of all-beef patties and special sauce.
Schubert told me that the donor list was initially skewed toward the
restaurants and retailers (Federated Department Stores Inc.'s Macy's
unit, Target Corp. and Sears, Roebuck & Co. are big contributors)
because they were willing to prime the campaign money pump early on.
He says the support will eventually broaden because SB 2 was so
sloppily drafted that no sane business owner could condone its
survival.
But the truth is that employers potentially most affected by SB 2's
mandates tend to resemble those financing the campaign thus far -
"businesses that provide healthcare to a small share of their workers
and whose benefits are stingy," as UCLA's Brown puts it.
Not even all of SB 2's supporters believe the law is perfect. Many
concede it needs patching to fix flaws and resolve ambiguities. The
Chamber of Commerce could have performed a real public service - a
true human rights initiative - by helping to craft a better solution
to the problems of California's uninsured. Maybe the chamber will
apply itself to that task, once it has repealed this law through its
misinformation campaign. But I wouldn't count on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Golden State appears every Monday and Thursday. You can reach Michael
Hiltzik at golden...@latimes.com and read his previous columns at
latimes.com/hiltzik.
===
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-golden16aug16,1,5310676.column?coll=
la-headlines-business
MICHAEL HILTZIK / GOLDEN STATE
Bizarre Alliances Form Prop. 72 Opposition
Michael Hiltzik
August 16, 2004
a Los
Angeles "human rights" organization among its campaign partners
without
disclosing that the group was in reality an affiliate of the Church of
Scientology.
One wonders if such sleight of hand is now at work in the chamber's
proposed
"no on 72" statement for the state's official voter information guide.
Included
is a quotation from Thomas LaGrelius, M.D., a South Bay doctor
identified as
president of the "California Chapter, Association of American
Physicians and
Surgeons," who says Proposition 72 "will mandate the worst kind of
managed care
we have. This means we will have more and more patients with terrible
insurance."
The chamber presents this as though it were a mainstream viewpoint in
the
medical profession. The very name of LaGrelius' group might even give
voters
the impression that it's a big-deal professional fraternity like, say,
the
American Medical Assn.
In fact, it's a Tucson-based libertarian group devoted to the
privatization of
medicine, and specifically to the end of government health programs
such as
Medicare and Medicaid, which serve the elderly and the indigent,
respectively.
It believes Medicare is a step on the path to socialized medicine and
counsels
its members to refuse participation. The effect of the Medicaid law,
it says on
its website, is "evil," and "participation in carrying out its
provisions is,
in our opinion, immoral." The organization claims 4,000 members
nationwide,
including a California chapter that LaGrelius says is largely
inactive.
I don't mean to question LaGrelius' medical bona fides or point of
view, or to
suggest that the AAPS conceals its goals. LaGrelius believes Medicaid
and HMOs
impose unethical constraints on a doctor's judgment, and that patients
are
better off paying for routine care with cash out of their own pockets
or from a
tax-advantaged health savings account. When we spoke this week, we
didn't delve
deeply into the political or procedural complexities of establishing
such a
system, or of providing care for people whose ready cash might not be
sufficient to pay their bills.
But when I asked Allan Zaremberg, president of the Chamber of Commerce
and
co-chair of the campaign against SB 2, if his group was comfortable
with the
view of Medicare as an "evil" program, he demurred.
"We didn't make those arguments," he told me. "We don't represent his
platform.
We're not raising those issues with the public."
And yet the chamber raises other issues in a highly misleading way. It
continues to portray SB 2 as a threat to almost all businesses in the
state,
although by its own estimate more than 99% of the state's big
companies and 94%
of mid-size firms already provide workers with health coverage.
Contributions to the chamber's campaign are still skewed heavily
toward
fast-food joints and department stores. The Golden Arches dominate the
roll of
donors as surely as they dominate neighborhood street corners: Of the
951
contributions listed as of Aug. 2, I counted more than 500 from
McDonald's
franchisees. McDonald's Corp. itself kicked in about $150,000, and the
California Restaurant Assn. $1.2 million more.
Although there's nothing wrong with these businesses protecting their