Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom looks like that rarest of politicians in the summer of 2009 — a candidate who could actually benefit from the volatile national brawl euphemistically known as the healthcare reform debate.
As the airwaves have filled with images of angry confrontations at town hall meetings from California to Connecticut, the popularity of President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats and Republicans alike has plummeted amid the cacophony. But Newsom, who’s been lagging in his bid to capture the Democratic nomination for governor, has just won favorable reviews for a universal healthcare program in San Francisco that he has made the centerpiece of his statewide effort.
Capitol Letters
“The San Francisco experiment is working, and it’s working well,” said Ken Jacobs of the UC Berkeley Labor Center, which has just concluded a study of the program. Jacobs, who co-authored a New York Times op-ed praising Newsom and the universal insurance program, added, “The public option has proved popular with individuals and employers alike, while not displacing the private market.”
As a public policy matter, the Berkeley study is significant, coming at a time when the central issues in the country’s debate about healthcare is whether the government should sponsor such a “public option” alternative for affordable medical insurance in competition with private insurers. As a political matter, it gives weight to Newsom’s campaign trail claims that his city’s program represents a model for the U.S.
Paul Wellman
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
The program, called Healthy San Francisco, was created in 2007 and aimed at providing insurance to 60,000 city residents who didn’t have it, whether or not they were employed, had a pre-existing condition, or were in the country illegally. Since 2007, it has extended coverage to about 45,000 of them, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, which said the program costs about $120 million a year, financed through a combination of city funds, employer contributions, grants, and modest fees charged to participants.
Perhaps the most controversial feature of the project requires all companies operating in the city with at least 20 employees to provide private insurance or contribute to the public plan. Although a legal challenge to the program by businesses is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Berkeley study found that “the employer requirement has not led to the job losses that many feared.” (One major shortcoming of the plan, however, is that those enrolled are only covered within the city — woe to someone who gets hit by a bus in Oakland, across San Francisco Bay.)
Newsom staged a press conference last week with the author of the study, where he was also joined by John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO. And while the San Francisco mayor was doubtless pleased by the encomiums of the academic types, the smiles and praise he received from labor leaders carry far more value in a Democratic primary.
The mayor has struggled to gain traction for his campaign, in which he is expected to face Attorney General Jerry Brown, who has not yet officially announced he’s running for governor but has made his intention to do so very clear. Newsom not only trails Brown statewide, by 49-20 percent, according to a just-released survey by Sacramento pollster James Moore, but also runs behind in his own city: A second new poll, conducted by San Francisco-based David Binder & Associates, shows him losing to Brown, 51-34 percent, among his own constituents.
Amid the dreary horserace news, however, the high marks given his healthcare plan at least offered Newsom some vindication on the signature issue of his time in office. Said Jacobs of UC Berkeley: “These are important lessons for the national debate.”
WHO’S ON HEALTHCARE? With the apparent assent of the White House, the crucial effort to produce “compromise” healthcare reform legislation has been vested with six members of the Senate Finance Committee, three from each party. The Democrats are Max Baucus of Montana, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and Kent Conrad of North Dakota and the Republicans are Charles Grassley of Iowa, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Mike Enzi of Wyoming.
Collectively, they represent only 2.7 percent of the nation’s population. For a sense of scale, consider, for example, that Conrad in his last reelection won 150,416 votes — less than the 151,218 tallied by the first-place finisher in the race for the L.A. Community College Board! Who put these guys in charge?
Rep. Lois Capps will be holding healthcare meetings throughout the district, including a September 2 meeting in Santa Barbara.
Related Links
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
"The program, called Healthy San Francisco, was created in 2007 and aimed at providing insurance to 60,000 city residents who ... were in the country illegally."
We should all renounce our US citizenship and declare ourselves illegal aliens. That's the only way we'll get respect from people like Newsom and Roberts.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
revisionist (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2009 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way Jerry, it was just announced in the SF Chronicle that the NUMMI auto plant in Fremont is closing, resulting in the loss of 3000 relatively high paid jobs with benefits. When Newsom and his ilk have chased the last manufacturing jobs out of California, who will be left to pay for the illegal aliens' health care? Your cheerleading for Newsom, who has expressed sheer contempt for any regulated immigration and who genuinely seems to dislike US Citizens who are not "of color" is disgusting.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
revisionist (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2009 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To the poster "Revisionist" -- your creative use of ellipses in quoting the article takes you well beyond "Revisionist". Perhaps you should upgrade your moniker to something more accurate, like "Shameless Liar."
Nowhere does the story say 60,000 illegal immigrants are covered.
The study goes on to find that it has NOT caused the feared job losses.
You seem to assume that screening and excluding illegal immigrants would reduce the cost. But it is also possible that the cost to build processes and bureaucracies to do so, and a DA squad and court and jail costs to prosecute the inevitable attempts to foil that bureaucracy, plus the public health cost to others who get diseases spread by untreated immigrants, would in fact be far higher than just covering everyone without asking. In fact, I'd wager they ran the numbers and determined as much before they made the decision not to ask.
Newsom is a mayor trying to protect public health and spend city money efficiently; immigration is a federal responsibility beyond his pay grade.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
treedom (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2009 at 1:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Newsom's callous treatment of what's left of the Bologna family tells us what he thinks of US citizens and the concept of citizenship. It took widespread outrage and a series of Chronicle articles before he issued even the mild apology in the article below.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
I'm going to keep giving Stanley Crouch's "flip test". Would everyone be as sympathetic to illegal aliens, and the 5 to 9 billion dollars they cost California a year if the majority were white Scandanvians? Even Schwarzenegger admits illegal aliens cost 5 billion per year, FAIR estimates 9 billion
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/articl...
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
revisionist (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2009 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jerry, I thought when you started this "column" you said you'd be writing in a fair and unbiased fashion. You have absolutely BLOWN it with me. Newsom? We want our country run (in any way) like he runs San Francisco??! No wonder businesses (and natives like me) are leaving California. Thanks for nothing, Jerry, except blatant propaganda. As a journalist you should know better...
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
maximum (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Nowhere does the story say 60,000 illegal immigrants are covered."
Therefore illegal aliens in a sanctuary city won't be covered? I think they will. After all, like the writer inferred; they brought disease with them, so we are responsible that it doesn't spread to citizens. That translates to taxpayer money paying for illegal's health care.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
azuresees (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And as far as "immigration is a federal responsibility beyond his pay grade," I refer to his STAUNCH activism regarding something beyond his "pay grade":
"I will not allow any of my department heads or anyone associated with this city to cooperate in any way shape or form with these raids," Newsom declared. "We are a sanctuary city, make no mistake about it."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
azuresees (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
From •HR 3200, Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51 - “…all health care and related services ... covered by this act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.”
Do you see “American citizenship” as a requirement?
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
maximum (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As "maximum," our belligerent talking points troll, is again spreading his selective and misleading quotes, I shall post again the actual text of HR 3200 which clearly deals with illegal immigrants receiving benefit from the bill:
HR 3200, section 246:
:::: "SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. :::::
"17. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. "
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h32...
As to "azuresees" correctly pointing out that illegals receive medical within US borders, please note HR 3200 does not improve or change what they may already now receive (usually in the form of Emergency Room care). The wide range of ideas within the Comments to Jerry Roberts's article might lead one to believe Newson's city healthcare plan & the national proposal within HR 3200 are linked somehow.
Newsom's plan is different, and would seem to be a different argument.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
binky (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Re illegals, aliens, monsters, angels, et al...
HR 3200, Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51 - “…all health care and related services ... covered by this act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.”
SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHOUT REGARD TO PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS... (are you going to make the call who that excludes?) 'cause docs I know aren't seeing the distinction...
The bill's language is vague on purpose and that's exactly the way the writers want it.
As for the analogy between national universal healthcare and Newsom's I leave it to Roberts' own words:
"But Newsom, who’s been lagging in his bid to capture the Democratic nomination for governor, has just won favorable reviews for a universal healthcare program in San Francisco that he has made the centerpiece of his statewide effort."
I SEE THE WORD UNIVERSAL there... as in see, universal is groovy... just sayin' binky winky...
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
maximum (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2009 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Between Medicare, Medicaid and the VA, not to mention our prison population (highest per capita incarceration rate in the world), we're already providing socialized medical care for over 40 million people, or more than almost any other nation on Earth. And we're still arguing over whether the TAXPAYER, the people paying for all this, should ALSO enjoy the benefits of a taxation-subsidized, single payer health care system? What am I missing here?
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
emptynewsroom (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2009 at 1:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment