I offered an "icebreaker diary" last night to open up what will hopefully be the last week of legislative wrangling over AB 52, this bill that will give the California Insurance Commissioner the ability to stop excessive/unreasonable hikes in health insurance premiums. (Reasonable and justifiable hikes are still OK.)
That diary conveys a message from Dave Jones about where things stand. I won't repeat it here, but I hope that you'll go there and read it yourself. (I can even keep track! When I published this diary, it was at 106 views.)
We have a lot else going on today. You (yes, you, the one reading this, not some generalized "you") have to make 25 calls -- 26 if you live in a district with a Republican State Senator. (Or, 40 if you just enjoy threatening Republican Senators.) They don't have to all be today, but they should be soon -- my partner-in-online-activism jpmassar's contact in Assemblyman Mike Feuer's office says that a vote could come later this week or early next week.
Yes, we're nearing the end. We're not going to let things fall over now.
This diary includes more information courtesy of jpmassar on state of play, then some other information on who to call and where they seem to stand, and finally one argument from me that gets at the heart of the objection we keep hearing to AB52. (It is, of course, brilliant -- well, worth reading, at least -- so read all the way to the end. Then sharpen up your dialing finger and start making calls!)
STATE OF PLAY
I'm told by jpmassar that Feuer's office sees it coming to a vote either late this week or early next week. Amendments to make it more acceptable are still possible; Feuer and other Dem leaders can be trusted to figure out what (if any) changes are necessary to get 25 votes. We want no changes if we can get it, but we will also have to trust our leaders on this one -- they know things that we don't. Any amendment would delay the vote, since a bill has to be in print for 24 hours.
Feuer's office does not identify any particular Senators to concentrate on (although I give you my picks below.) Don't count on any Republican votes. Any Republican voting against maximizing health insurer profits faces the prospect of being eaten. You should call your own, though, to express anguished incredulity at their low regard for consumers -- and if you enjoy that, you can call as many of the other 14 as makes you happy. Dutton, Huff, and La Malfa are their leaders.
Governor Brown's support is not a given -- but he's a smart guy so we have a good shot with him. We'll lobby him when the time comes. The larger the record of activism we can document, the stronger the argument to him that he cannot afford to disappoint us. (Get it?)
CALL TODAY
If you don't know your State Senator, find who it is here, then call. (h/t jpmassar.) Remember, calls from constituents count more than any other "average citizen" calls.) Call all Democrats, though, who are listed in bold
California's State Senators, Their District, Party, and Phone
Alquist, Elaine 13 (Dem) (916) 651-4013
Anderson, Joel 36 (Rep) (916) 651-4036
Berryhill, Tom 14 (Rep) (916) 651-4014
Blakeslee, Sam 15 (Rep) (916) 651-4015
Calderon, Ron 30 (Dem) (916) 651-4030
Cannella, Anthony 12 (Rep) (916) 651-4012
Corbett, Ellen 10 (Dem) (916) 651-4010
Correa, Lou 34 (Dem) (916) 651-4034
De León, Kevin 22 (Dem) (916) 651-4022
DeSaulnier, Mark 07 (Dem) (916) 651-4007 * Co-author
Dutton, Bob 31 (Rep) (916) 651-4031
Emmerson, Bill 37 (Rep) (916) 651-4037
Evans, Noreen 02 (Dem) (916) 651-4002
Fuller, Jean 18 (Rep) (916) 651-4018
Gaines, Ted 01 (Rep) (916) 783-8232
Hancock, Loni 09 (Dem) (916) 651-4009
Harman, Tom 35 (Rep) (916) 651-4035
Hernandez, Ed 24 (Dem) (916) 651-4024
Huff, Bob 29 (Rep) (916) 651-4029
Kehoe, Christine 39 (Dem) (916) 651-4039
La Malfa , Doug (Rep) (916) 435-0744
Leno, Mark 03 (Dem) (916) 651-4003 * Principal Co-author
Lieu, W . Ted (Dem) (916) 651-4028
Liu, Carol 21 (Dem) (916) 651-4021
Lowenthal, Alan 27 (Dem) (916) 651-4027
Negrete-McLeod, Gloria 32 (Dem) (916) 651-4032
Padilla, Alex 20 (Dem) (916) 651-4020
Pavley, Fran 23 (Dem) (916) 651-4023
Price, Curren D (Dem) (916) 651-4026
Rubio, Michael 16 (Dem) (916) 651-4016
Runner, Sharon 17 (Rep) (916) 651-4017
Simitian, S . Joseph 11 (Dem) (916) 651-4011
Steinberg, Darrell 06 (Dem) (916) 651-1529
Strickland, Tony 19 (Rep) (916) 651-4019
Vargas, Juan 40 (Dem) (916) 651-4040
Walters, Mimi 33 (Rep) (916) 651-4033
Wolk, Lois 05 (Dem) (916) 651-1511
Wright, Rod 25 (Dem) (916) 651-4025
Wyland, Mark 38 (Rep) (916) 651-4038
Yee, Leland 08 (Dem) (916) 651-4008
Some notes on the above Democrats:
Alquist has voted for the bill in two committees. Thank her!
Calderon is running for Congress. His Assemblyman brother Charles spoke against the bill, then ended up voting for it. Remind him that his brother voted for it in its present form.
Corbett is a party leader and presumably an "aye."
Correa is from Orange County and tends to be conservative, but some people here think that he'll be OK because his wife is a nurse. My reply: Assemblyman Pan, a doctor, voted "no." Important call, lean on him hard.
De León voted "aye" in committee.
DeSaulnier is a co-author. Thank him.
Evans is usually a good vote.
Hancock -- is, per jpmassar's call to her office, for it!
Hernandez expressed reservations as Chair of Senate Health Committee, but voted yes. He'll probably be quite influential on the vote. Many expect him to run for Congress; you might want to let him know how important this vote is to activists. Very important call.
Kehoe supported us as Chair of Appropriations. Thank her.
Leno is the principal co-author. Thank him profusely.
Lieu is a very important call. Last week, someone in his office was giving out the "oh, but this is so expensive!" line of argument, which I criticize down at the bottom. We "targeted him" (that's the nice way of putting it.) Because or despite or unrelated to that -- and one can say the same about what may be a tough re-election campaign in a very different district (including Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and North Hollywood -- he supported the bill in Appropriations, but we don't know whether he's one of those holding out for changes. Especially if you live in his district, let him know that you want the bill as it is. I'd love to get that as a public commitment from him.
Liu (Carol, not Ted Lieu) seems fine.
Lowenthal should be fine. If you are from southwest Orange County, Cypress to the shore then in through Little Saigon, you will be in the new district where he is running for Congress. This is a great time to call the office and get to know him. He's an influential guy; other Senators might want to know that he's already getting calls from his new constituents-to-be (we hope!)
Negrete-McCloud is also expected to try to move up. Let her know we're taking notes.
Padilla should, I think, be fine.
Pavley supported us on Appropriations and will be facing a tough race in a swing district. Thank her! If you're in the new SD-27, where she'll be running against Ted Strickland, this is a great time get to know her!
Price supported us in committee. Thank him!
Rubio did not vote on the bill in the Health Committee! I don't know why; his vote wasn't necessary, but still! VERY IMPORTANT CALL!
Simitian should be OK.
Steinberg supported us on Appropriations -- thank him! He is the influential President Pro-Tem and is VERY IMPORTANT! Tell him we care deeply about this vote and want to see people whipped into supporting consumers!
Vargas is a bit on the conservative side and it running for Congress from San Diego. To be safe, everyone in the new CD 51 (much like Bob Filner's current district) should call him. Get to know him! Express your views!
Wolk supported us in committee. Thank her!
Wright should be fine.
Yee is running for Mayor of San Francisco. Need I say more? Give him a howdy!
WHAT TO SAY
You can read this previous diary of mine for the state of play after last week's vote; the linked article talks about some of the proponents and opponents (including, sadly, CALPERS!) and what they're saying.
One thing to note is that we've been watching this process very closely and care deeply about the result. We know who has been bad or good so be good, for goodness' sake! (They can connect the rest of the dots. )
Second: about the argument that this is a budget buster, a la:
Brown's finance department told senators this month that the additional rate review would require more than 180 additional employees and could boost costs in 2012-13 by $57.7 million.
we need to stress that, if the bill works as well as we hope, there should be few if any appeals to handle because the major value of this sort of regulation is DETERRENCE.
Remember: it costs companies money (lawyers, etc.) to go through this appeals process too! It could also give them bad publicity if they are continually being called onto the carpet by the Insurance Commissioner for excessive rate increases. They can avoid the process if they are reasonable in their premium increases from year to year. If they are reasonable, the Insurance Commissioner has little incentive to go after them. In that case, the expense of hearings is largely averted.
In other words, what this government regulation does is to get insurers to do what they ought to do on their own if health insurance was a normal market commodity -- which it isn't. In other words, they should self-regulate. They should raise the price of premiums when it's reasonable, to the amount reasonable, but not go beyond what and where and when it is reasonable!
Does this seem like an impossible burden on them? It isn't. The auto insurers and the property & casualty (homeowners and renters) insurers have been living with this for years, and making a handsome return.
That's all we want here -- reasonable approximation of a working market. Ideally, the threat of Dave Jones coming after them for being un/reasonable will be enough to prevent excessive premiums /without all of the feared expenses.
(UPDATE: jpmassar reminds me of a reason that I carelessly left out: voters will save far more in reduced premiums, through deterrence alone and through any hearings that are required, then the cost of the hearing process. If any Democrat votes against this, I look for their Democratic opponent to say -- "my opponent voted to save the state $50 million in expenditures -- even though the lack of a regulation cost consumers over 10, 20, 100 (?) times that much in excessive health insurance premiums!" The person who votes "no" is going to lose that argument.)
The final argument, of course, is that it's also expensive to prosecute criminals, but we do so because the anarchy of living without a working criminal justice system is worse than its cost. The same applies to a working economic justice system -- of which AB 52 is a part.
CONCLUSION
Let us know who you talk to and what they say! Some version of this diary will also appear tomorrow. Let's run this ball across the goal line -- no more excessive health insurance rate hikes! We can do it -- if we call today, tomorrow, and every weekday until we have a vote. We can do this -- and it's easiest if we do it together!