This Usually Sleepy Race Could Become a Showdown Over Single-Payer Health Care

One of the biggest foes of private coverage wants to be California’s next insurance watchdog.

DNY59/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Last year, as Republicans in Congress were working to dismantle Obamacare, the California state Senate was headed in the opposite direction. Last June, Democratic lawmakers passed a bill that would have ended private health insurance in the state, replacing it with a publicly funded single-payer system that would cover medical costs for all residents.

The Healthy California Act, drafted by Democratic state Sens. Ricardo Lara and Toni Atkins, was an early skirmish in a growing fight for publicly funded health care. After the bill made headlines, “Health Care for All” emerged as a central progressive rallying cry. Presidential potentials like Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker have signaled their support for single-payer health care, as have gubernatorial candidates Gavin Newsom in California, Cynthia Nixon in New York, and Ben Jealous in Maryland. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Michigan Rep. John Conyers introduced single-payer bills in Congress.

Back in California, Lara is now running to be the state’s next insurance commissioner, raising the possibility that single-payer health care could become the central issue in this often sleepy down-ballot race. His opponent is former insurance commissioner and Republican-turned-independent Steve Poizner, who has said that any candidate for insurance commissioner who supports single-payer “probably should be running for a different post.” 

“The election will likely be a referendum on single-payer more than on either man,” says Jamie Court, the president and chair of the nonprofit consumer protection group Consumer Watchdog. “If Poizner is standing against [single-payer] and Lara is standing for it, that is the core discrepancy between the two. It will be a moment to figure out what the California public really believes about single-payer.” Court thinks that while race could turn into a “real slugfest,” it will present an opportunity for a meaningful discussion of single-payer health care.  

Dave Jacobson, Lara’s spokesperson, says the state senator is running largely because he believes that access to health care is a human right. Lara has said his perspective on health care is informed largely by his experience growing up as a poor kid who had to cross the border to Mexico to see an affordable doctor. He has pushed to extend the state’s Medi-Cal program for low-income residents to include undocumented immigrants. Had it become law, his Healthy California Act bill would have created a state panel charged with taking the legislative and financial steps to ween California off private health insurance.

Poizner argues that establishing a single-payer health care system in California would be prohibitively expensive and would disrupt the state’s tax balance. He also points out that reappropriating federal funds from Medicare and Medicaid would require a waiver from the White House. Instead of pursuing a single-payer agenda, he says he will launch a study of the existing $400 billion state health care system and will crack down on medical fraud. (His campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

In California’s June primary, Poizner bested Lara by about 66,000 votes. Lara has received endorsements from most of California’s Democratic and labor establishment, including Gov. Brown and Sen. Harris. Poizner won endorsements from the editorial boards of the San Jose Mercury News and the Sacramento Bee, which cited his previous experience as state insurance commissioner in the late 2000s.

Poizner raised about $860,000 in the six months leading up to the June vote. Lara brought in around $810,000 but also benefited from roughly $200,000 of independent spending, mostly on behalf of the California Democratic Party and the state’s LGBT legislative caucus

Court says the insurance commissioner’s office has “pragmatically very little power, but it’s a bully pulpit.” While auto and life insurance fall under the office’s purview, regulatory oversight for health insurance in the state is divided among a patchwork of state agencies and commissions. But what the position lacks in regulatory teeth it makes up for in its broad mission to protect consumers and its visibility as a state executive position.

Lara’s single-payer bill was ultimately put on hold after Democratic leaders in Sacramento concluded it wasn’t economically feasible; State Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon called it “woefully incomplete.” Gov. Jerry Brown agreed. Yet momentum for government-funded health care is growing in California. Newsom, the Democratic gubernatorial front-runner, is a vocal supporter of public health care and regularly points out that he helped implement a public system in San Francisco when he was mayor. Though she doesn’t share Sen. Harris’ enthusiasm for single-payer, Sen. Dianne Feinstein has embraced a “Medicare at 55” plan. In Republican-held congressional districts Democrats hope to flip in November, almost all the party’s candidates are running on progressive platforms revolving around public health care for all.

Stephanie Roberson, a legislative advocate for the staunchly pro-single-payer California Nurses Association, says the biggest impediment to single-payer in California is getting a critical mass of elected officials to push for it. “It’s not going to be a flip-of-the-switch and suddenly we have everybody covered,” she says. “We have to bring all partiesā€”hospitals and providers and politiciansā€”together to design the single-payer program. To get there, state leaders must have political will.”

“The national discussion will no doubt have a ripple effect down-ballot when it comes to state policy,” says Jacobson, Lara’s spokesperson. “The conversation isn’t going anywhere. It’s only going to accelerate and intensify.” 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate