Consumer Watchdog says Uber failed to make clear to legislators that it largely insures itself through a subsidiary, even as the company argued that insurance mandates were driving up fares for riders and costs for drivers. The law, Senate Bill 371, lowered Uber’s required uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage from $1 million to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident.

The issue matters to riders and drivers across Southern California, where Uber is widely used for commuting, airport trips, medical appointments and nightlife transportation. During legislative hearings, Uber told lawmakers that state-required insurance was a major factor in ride costs, particularly in Los Angeles County.

Ramona Prieto, Uber’s director of public policy, told the Assembly Insurance Committee last July that government-mandated insurance accounted for roughly 45% of ride-hailing fares in Los Angeles County and about one-third of fares elsewhere in California. She said those costs were being passed on to people who depend on rideshare service.

But Consumer Watchdog’s May report, based on Uber’s public financial filings, found that nearly 95% of the company’s risk is insured by Aleka Insurance, an Uber subsidiary. The group also said Uber’s insurance reserves doubled from 2023 to 2025, reaching $12.46 billion.

Uber spokesperson Zahid Arab denied that the company misled lawmakers, saying legislators understood that California’s rideshare insurance requirements were unusually costly and were increasing expenses for both riders and drivers.

Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Chula Vista Democrat, said he was not aware Uber largely self-insures because that information was not disclosed to the committee. In an emailed statement, Alvarez said the proper level of Uber’s reserves is an actuarial question, but whether lawmakers received a clear picture of where riders’ insurance dollars were going before voting on the bill is “a separate, and more troubling, question.”

The new law includes disclosure requirements and calls for a study of its effects. Alvarez said he hopes that review will examine how captive-insurance structures, such as Uber’s arrangement with Aleka, affect rate-setting for companies like Uber so future decisions are made with fuller information.

State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, the Napa Democrat who authored the law, declined to comment through a spokesperson.

CalMatters contacted several lawmakers involved in the bill’s consideration. Some did not respond, and none agreed to discuss whether they knew about Uber’s self-insurance structure or whether they planned to question the company about Consumer Watchdog’s findings. A spokesperson for Assemblymember Mia Bonta, a Bay Area Democrat, said her office had asked Uber about the report and that the company dismissed it as not credible while being “less than forthcoming.”

Campaign finance records in the CalMatters Digital Democracy database show Cabaldon has received a campaign contribution from Uber. Five of eight lawmakers contacted by CalMatters, including Alvarez, also have received Uber contributions. Bonta has not.

The insurance bill was linked to another major labor measure that allowed ride-hailing drivers to unionize. Consumer Watchdog also said Uber misrepresented the insurance issue to unions. The Service Employees International Union California did not provide a response. Lorena Gonzalez, head of the California Labor Federation and a former state lawmaker, said she was not surprised by the allegation, citing her long history of conflict with the company over labor issues.

Consumer Watchdog argued in its report that Uber’s nearly $12.5 billion in reserves is far more than necessary. The group estimated the company would need between $4.5 billion and $5.4 billion, based on the number of rides Uber provided last year and California commercial auto insurance costs. Unlike profits, insurance reserves are not taxed.

The group also said Uber has moved about $4 billion of its insurance reserves into cash over the past couple of years, citing the company’s financial filings.

Arab rejected the report’s conclusions, saying Consumer Watchdog was treating speculation about complex insurance accounting as fact. He said Uber’s reserves are actuarial estimates of potential unpaid losses and related expenses.

Ben Armstrong, an actuary who reviewed Uber’s filings for Consumer Watchdog, said Aleka functions as a captive insurer, meaning it is a wholly owned subsidiary that allows Uber to manage its own insurance risk, profits and investments with limited public transparency. Armstrong said he does not have access to the kind of financial detail typically available for other insurers, but the filings suggest Uber may be reserving far more than it needs.

Large companies often use captive insurance arrangements. Lyft and DoorDash also have insurance subsidiaries, according to public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of the end of last year, Lyft reported about $2.2 billion in insurance reserves and DoorDash about $1.1 billion.

Opponents of SB 371 warned during the legislative process that reducing coverage would weaken protections for passengers and drivers if an Uber vehicle is struck by an uninsured or underinsured motorist. Robert Herrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California and a former deputy commissioner at the state Department of Insurance, opposed the bill and said Uber has long sought to lower its costs by reducing insurance obligations.

The state law is not Uber’s only effort to reduce liability. The company also qualified a proposed initiative for the November ballot that would limit attorney contingency fees and recovery of medical costs in California car crash cases. Consumer Watchdog, attorney groups and some medical providers opposed the measure. Uber has agreed to withdraw it if lawmakers approve a compromise bill.

In Congress, California lawmakers are divided over another proposal involving ride-hailing liability. Rep. Vince Fong, a Bakersfield Republican, introduced language in May that would override state laws holding companies such as Uber responsible for harm to people or property connected to rideshare trips. Fong described the proposal as an affordability measure, saying companies are facing frivolous lawsuits that drive up insurance costs.

Rep. Derek Tran, a Democrat from Cypress in Orange County, sent a letter this month with 33 other California Democratic members of Congress urging House leaders to remove the provision from a major transportation and infrastructure bill. The lawmakers warned that the language could sharply limit legal recourse for victims in injury, sexual assault and fatality cases involving rideshare companies.

Fong’s office did not respond to questions about the opposition from other California lawmakers.

Uber says California riders are already saving millions of dollars under the new insurance law, though the company has not provided documentation. It is required to submit a formal report on savings to the governor and Legislature by Feb. 1, 2027.

Third-party data does not yet show a broad drop in fares. Gridwise, a company that provides an app used by rideshare drivers to track earnings and expenses, reported that average California customer fares so far this year were slightly higher or roughly the same as last year in most months. The exception was May, when the average fare per mile was $4.67, down from $4.70 the previous May. Gridwise says its data is based on hundreds of millions of trips.

The law also directs the state Department of Insurance to work with the California Public Utilities Commission on a study of the effects of lowering the required insurance coverage. That report is due by Dec. 31, 2030.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Lawmaker Says Uber Withheld Key Details in California Insurance Law Push appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Former San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim and state Sen. Ben Allen finished first and second in the June primary, receiving about 27% and 20% of the vote, respectively. The winner will replace Ricardo Lara, the Democratic former lawmaker who has served two terms as insurance commissioner. Lara has led the state Department of Insurance for the past eight years, a period marked by some of the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in California history.

Either Kim or Allen will inherit a complex set of problems with direct consequences for communities across the state, including Southern California and the Inland Empire, where wildfire risk, housing costs and insurance availability have become increasingly urgent concerns.

In recent years, insurers have stopped writing new policies or declined to renew existing ones, particularly in areas considered at high risk for wildfire. The companies have pointed to growing fire danger tied to climate change, as well as inflationary pressures that followed the COVID-19 pandemic. As private coverage has become harder to find, more homeowners have turned to the FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which is required by law to provide fire coverage.

The FAIR Plan, run by an association of insurers, had more than 684,000 policies in force as of March, a 152% increase since September 2022. It has warned about its ability to continue paying claims after major disasters.

Under Proposition 103, approved by voters in 1988, California’s elected insurance commissioner has the power to approve rate increases, among other responsibilities. The measure has helped keep California homeowners insurance premiums near the national average over the years, but that could change. Last year, the commissioner put new regulations in place allowing insurers to use additional factors in setting premiums, including catastrophe models and reinsurance costs. Some companies have requested and received approval for rate increases and have begun writing policies again.

The next commissioner’s most pressing challenge will be making sure insurance remains available while still being affordable. The office also regulates auto, pet and certain health insurance matters, along with workers’ compensation.

Another major issue will be ensuring that insurers pay claims promptly so communities can recover after disasters. Fires in the Los Angeles area brought new attention to complaints that insurers delayed or denied claims, as well as concerns about underinsurance and the lack of clear standards for smoke damage. Those problems have slowed recovery in some communities. Pending legislation, including bills backed by Allen, whose district was affected by fires last year, and ongoing lawsuits are expected to address some of those issues. Organized fire survivors who previously called for Lara’s resignation over his department’s response are likely to keep pressure on the next commissioner.

Kim has drawn attention for proposing a “universal natural disaster insurance” system inspired by a program in New Zealand. Under her plan, part of policyholders’ premiums would be collected by insurance companies and transferred to the state. California would then guarantee coverage for fires and floods, while insurers would continue covering other risks.

Critics, including consumer advocates, have questioned why Kim has not provided more detail about how much money such a fund would require. Kim told CalMatters the idea would need further study, but said the program would generate revenue.

Opponents also argue that shifting catastrophe risk to the state is a mistake. They point to what they view as the failure of separating earthquake insurance from homeowners coverage, noting that most California homeowners now lack earthquake insurance.

“We taxpayers are already footing the bill,” Kim said. “When insurers and utility companies refuse to pay, they simply pass it on to us. Sharing risk is important.”

Kim also told CalMatters that an idea advanced by Merritt Farren, a Republican candidate for insurance commissioner, could be “a more efficient model.” Farren proposed creating a state reinsurance authority to encourage insurers to write policies in California.

If elected, Kim’s short-term priorities would include creating public dashboards showing how insurers spend policyholder premiums and documenting their claims records. She also wants to expand eligibility for a low-cost auto insurance program for drivers earning less than $38,000 a year, link an insurer’s ability to sell auto policies in California to its willingness to write homeowners policies, make the FAIR Plan more transparent by requiring its board membership and meetings to be public, and freeze rates when policyholders file claims.

Kim, an attorney and former San Francisco elected official, points to several accomplishments from her time in local government, including free community college tuition for city residents, the state’s first local ordinance establishing a $15 minimum wage, and tenant protections intended to prevent unjust evictions. She served as California director for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign and more recently as California director for the Working Families Party.

Her supporters include a long list of unions, including SEIU California. Sanders has endorsed her, as has U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna of Silicon Valley.

Allen, a state senator nearing the end of his time in the Legislature, says he wants to bring together the state, insurers, builders, local governments and firefighters to focus on reducing risk.

“I think that ultimately that is going to be the way we get out of this mess,” he told CalMatters.

Allen has described his approach as comprehensive, including a closer look at where Californians live and build. “We should not be building new, irresponsible buildings in high-risk areas,” he said. “We should find ways to carefully and sensitively encourage people to move away from those areas.”

If elected, Allen’s plans include creating a consumer advocate position within the Department of Insurance and increasing staffing to help customers. He also wants to require insurers to explain claim denials and provide real-time reports on delays and pending claims after disasters, increase oversight of the FAIR Plan and ensure it follows commissioner orders, and prohibit the insurance commissioner and department staff from going to work for the industry immediately after leaving the department.

Allen has emphasized his record as a state lawmaker, including bills aimed at holding insurance companies accountable. One law he wrote now requires insurers to pay 60% of a policyholder’s contents coverage without requiring a detailed inventory, while giving consumers more time to provide that inventory. He also highlights his work drafting Proposition 4, the bond measure approved by California voters in 2024 for safe drinking water access, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and natural lands from climate risks.

Among Allen’s pending bills is a proposal that would require insurers to provide homeowners with 90 days’ notice and a clear explanation if they do not intend to renew a policy. Another bill would penalize insurance companies that fail to correct their practices after the Department of Insurance determines they have violated laws or regulations.

Allen also has significant support, including endorsements from the Legislature’s two leaders, Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla of California, several unions and the Consumer Federation of California have also endorsed him.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Insurance Commissioner Race Set as Kim Faces Allen appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Former San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim and state Sen. Ben Allen advanced from the June primary as the top two finishers. With 88% of ballots counted, Kim had about 27% of the vote and Allen had about 20%. The winner will replace Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, a Democrat and former state lawmaker who is completing his second term.

It is the first time since California made the insurance commissioner an elected office that two Democrats will face each other in the November runoff.

The next commissioner will inherit a system under intense strain. In recent years, major insurers have stopped writing new policies or declined to renew existing ones in parts of California, particularly in areas considered at high risk for wildfire. Companies have pointed to climate-driven fire danger and post-pandemic inflation as reasons for pulling back.

That shift has forced more homeowners into the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort for fire coverage. The plan, which is operated by an association of insurers, had more than 684,000 policies in force as of March — a 152% increase since September 2022. The FAIR Plan has also warned about its ability to continue covering claims after major disasters.

For residents in fire-prone areas of Riverside, San Bernardino and other Southern California counties, the debate is not abstract. Insurance availability and cost can affect whether families can keep their homes, whether buyers can obtain mortgages, and whether businesses can afford to operate.

Under Proposition 103, the 1988 voter-approved law that reshaped insurance regulation in California, the elected insurance commissioner has authority over rate increases, among other powers. The law has helped keep California homeowners insurance premiums in the middle range compared with other states, but that may be changing.

Last year, the state adopted new rules allowing insurers to use additional factors when setting premiums, including catastrophe modeling and reinsurance costs. Some companies have already sought and received approval for rate hikes, and some have begun writing policies again.

Balancing affordability with availability is expected to be the central challenge for the next commissioner. The office also regulates auto insurance, pet insurance, parts of the health insurance market and workers’ compensation.

Another major issue will be claims handling after disasters. The 2025 Los Angeles-area fires intensified scrutiny of insurer practices, including delayed or denied claims, underinsurance and disputes over smoke damage. Those problems have slowed rebuilding for some residents and small businesses. Pending legislation, lawsuits and pressure from organized fire survivors are expected to keep the issue at the forefront after Lara leaves office.

Kim has drawn attention for proposing what she calls “natural disaster insurance for all,” a state-backed system inspired by a New Zealand model. Under her concept, insurers would collect a portion of policyholder premiums and direct that money to the state, which would guarantee fire and flood coverage. Private insurers would continue covering other risks.

Critics, including some consumer advocates, have questioned how much funding such a system would require and whether shifting catastrophic risk to the state would create new fiscal problems. Some have compared the idea to the separation of earthquake coverage from homeowners insurance, noting that many California homeowners now do not carry earthquake insurance.

Kim has argued that taxpayers are already left paying when insurers and utilities do not cover losses.

“We already are on the hook,” Kim told CalMatters. “When insurers and utilities refuse to pay, they just pass it on to us anyway. Sharing the risk is important.”

She has also said that a proposal raised by Republican commissioner candidate Merritt Farren — creating a state reinsurance authority to encourage insurers to keep writing policies in California — could prove to be “a more efficient model.”

Kim’s shorter-term proposals include creating public dashboards showing how insurers spend premiums and how they handle claims; expanding eligibility for a low-cost auto insurance program for drivers earning less than $38,000 a year; connecting an insurer’s ability to sell auto coverage in California to its willingness to write homeowners policies; increasing transparency at the FAIR Plan by making its board membership and meetings public; and freezing rates when policyholders file claims.

An attorney and former San Francisco elected official, Kim points to her work on free community college for city residents, a $15 minimum wage ordinance and tenant protections against unjust evictions. She later served as California director for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign and as California director for the Working Families Party.

Her endorsements include Sanders, Rep. Ro Khanna of Silicon Valley and several labor groups, including SEIU California.

Allen, who represents a Los Angeles-area district in the state Senate and will be termed out of the Legislature, has emphasized a broader risk-reduction strategy. He has said the state needs to bring together insurers, builders, local governments, firefighters and state officials to reduce fire danger and stabilize the market.

“I think that’s ultimately going to be the way that we get ourselves out of this mess,” Allen told CalMatters.

Allen has also called for a more careful approach to development in high-risk areas.

“We shouldn’t be building new construction that is irresponsible in high-risk areas,” he said. “We should be looking for ways to carefully and sensitively encourage people to pull back from high-risk areas.”

If elected, Allen says he would create a consumer advocate position within the Department of Insurance and increase staffing for customer service. He also wants insurers to provide clearer explanations when they deny claims and to give real-time information about delays and unresolved claims after disasters.

Other parts of his platform include stronger oversight of the FAIR Plan, ensuring the plan follows commissioner orders, and prohibiting the insurance commissioner and department staff from immediately taking jobs in the insurance industry after leaving state service.

Allen has highlighted his legislative record on insurance issues. One law he authored requires insurers to pay 60% of a policyholder’s contents coverage without first requiring a detailed inventory and gives consumers more time to provide that inventory. He also authored Proposition 4, the climate bond voters approved in 2024 for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention and protection of communities and natural lands from climate risks.

Allen is also carrying pending bills that would require insurers to give homeowners 90 days’ notice before nonrenewal, along with a clear explanation, and impose penalties on companies that fail to correct unlawful practices identified by the Department of Insurance.

His endorsers include Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, labor unions and the Consumer Federation of California.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Insurance Commissioner Race Set as Kim and Allen Face Off appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The insurance commissioner oversees the nation’s largest property insurance market, including homeowners and auto coverage, as well as health, life, pet, rideshare and workers’ compensation insurance. But in recent years, the office has been defined largely by the struggle to keep home and fire insurance available and affordable as wildfire risk grows.

The next commissioner will inherit a volatile market. Several insurers that had stopped writing new policies or declined to renew existing ones are now operating under new state regulations that allow them to use additional tools when setting rates. Those changes are expected to help companies account for wildfire risk, but they also are likely to mean higher premiums for many policyholders as the Department of Insurance continues weighing and approving requests for residential rate increases.

The issue is especially pressing in Southern California, where the aftermath of last year’s Los Angeles County wildfires continues to affect residents trying to rebuild. Delays and denials in insurance claims have been cited as major obstacles to recovery. State Farm, California’s largest individual insurer, and the FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort for fire coverage, are facing lawsuits from homeowners and legal action from the Department of Insurance over their handling of claims tied to those fires.

The leading Democratic candidates include state Sen. Ben Allen, who is termed out of the Legislature; Jane Kim, a California Working Families Party leader and former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors; Patrick Wolff, a financial analyst who has not held elected office; and Steven Bradford, a former state senator and assemblymember. The top Republican candidates also have not held statewide office: Stacy Korsgaden, a longtime insurance agent, and Merritt Farren, an attorney who lost his home in last year’s Palisades fire.

Candidates interviewed by CalMatters largely agreed on the scale of the insurance problems facing California but differed on how best to respond. Some have called for a larger state role in the market. Kim has proposed creating a state wildfire and flood authority funded by a portion of policyholders’ premiums. Farren supports forming a state reinsurance authority funded through a fee insurers charge policyholders, an idea that Kim and Allen also have expressed interest in exploring. Bradford has said he would examine a public-private partnership aimed at keeping insurers active in California.

Consumer advocates and former insurance commissioners say the job requires a difficult balancing act: protecting homeowners, business owners, landlords and renters while ensuring insurers can charge rates that reflect California’s increasing wildfire exposure.

U.S. Rep. John Garamendi, a Democrat whose district includes much of Contra Costa and Solano counties, was California’s first insurance commissioner and served in the position twice. He told CalMatters the role is complex, demanding and detail-heavy — a description that reflects the challenges awaiting the next person to hold the office.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California to Choose Next Insurance Commissioner Amid Wildfire Crisis appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The next insurance commissioner will oversee the largest insurance market in the country, with authority over property, auto, health, life, pet, ride-hailing and workers’ compensation insurance. But in recent years, the office has been defined largely by one urgent issue: the growing difficulty of securing affordable home and fire insurance as wildfire risk intensifies.

For many residents in fire-prone parts of Southern California and the Inland Empire, the question is not abstract. Homeowners have faced nonrenewals, limited options and steep premium increases, while others have been pushed toward the FAIR Plan, California’s insurer of last resort for fire coverage.

The next commissioner will inherit a difficult balancing act: keeping insurers in the California market while protecting consumers from unaffordable rates. Several insurance companies that previously stopped writing new policies or renewing existing ones have begun using new state regulations that allow different tools in setting rates. Those changes are expected to contribute to higher premiums as the Department of Insurance continues reviewing and approving rate increases.

The office also will have to address the fallout from last year’s Los Angeles County fires, where delays and denials in insurance claims have slowed recovery and rebuilding for many property owners. State Farm, California’s largest individual insurer, and the FAIR Plan are both facing lawsuits from homeowners and legal action by the Department of Insurance over their handling of claims connected to those fires.

The leading Democratic candidates include state Sen. Ben Allen, who is leaving the Legislature because of term limits; Jane Kim, chair of the California Working Families Party and a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors; Patrick Wolff, a financial analyst who has not held public office; and Steven Bradford, a former state senator and assemblymember.

On the Republican side, the leading candidates are Stacy Korsgaden, a longtime insurance agent, and Merritt Farren, an attorney who lost his home in last year’s Palisades fire. Neither has held statewide public office.

The candidates have generally identified similar problems in California’s insurance system, but their proposed solutions differ. Kim has called for creating a state authority for wildfires and floods funded by a portion of policyholders’ premiums. Farren has proposed a state reinsurance authority funded through a fee charged by insurers to policyholders, an idea that both Kim and Allen have also shown interest in. Bradford has said he would examine a public-private partnership aimed at keeping insurance companies active in California.

Consumer advocates and former insurance commissioners have described the job as a demanding role that requires weighing the needs of homeowners, landlords, renters and businesses while also ensuring insurers believe they can charge rates that reflect the state’s wildfire risk.

U.S. Rep. John Garamendi, a Democrat whose district includes much of Contra Costa and Solano counties, served as California’s first insurance commissioner and later returned to the office for a second stint. He has described the position as complex and difficult work requiring close attention to detail.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Selects New Insurance Watchdog as Wildfire Crisis Roils Market appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In recent days, several tweets shared ominous news about the state of health insurance in the country. One tweeter said she bought an Affordable Care Act policy for a $1,200 monthly premium and a $7,500 deductible. By May, she said, she could no longer afford that premium. 

Another tweeter said her 59-year-old friend would be paying $900 a month in premiums with an out-of-pocket maximum of $8,150. The friend has assets, but the insurance restricts where she can get care, a common policy feature.

A third tweeter was disgusted with his job-based coverage, which he told the world was his fifth insurance plan in four years. That’s not an uncommon complaint among workers with employer-based coverage. The man’s daughter has Type 1 diabetes, and the constant switching of doctors and plans was disruptive and hardly optimum for her health. It’s time to disconnect health insurance from the job, he tweeted.

The tweeters were fed up with the price of coverage and were having trouble either paying for it or accessing care. Millions are in the same pickle. At the crux of their dilemma is the relentless rise in medical prices along with America’s inability or unwillingness to provide health care to all its citizens and to establish a mechanism that can finally put the brakes on relentless price increases.

As Americans grow more dissatisfied with their insurance arrangements, public discussion about the wisdom of switching to a system sometimes referred to as Medicare for All has grown. There’s more press attention to this topic than I have ever seen. What’s not been discussed, however, is how providing health care for everyone and controlling prices are interrelated.

New U.S. spending data show that the U.S. spent $1 trillion more on personal health services in 2018 than in 2008. Hospital care accounted for 44 percent of the increase, physician services 23 percent and retail prescription drugs only 9 percent. With increases like those, dissatisfaction is bound to increase.

But in the current discussion of Medicare for All, which a few columnists are beginning to say should be put aside – one New York Times columnist argued that the moral and political case is now stronger for focusing on issues other than health care – the discussion has focused on why such a change won’t work: how it will harm the big stakeholders; how much it would cost; and that Americans are satisfied with their current arrangements.

It is the fear of controls on prices, which other advanced countries have, that has kept the U.S. from changing its system for decades. If every American were in the system, including the 30 million who have no health insurance, it might make it easier for federal regulators to control prices, which is what big stakeholders fear. It is the primary reason the idea of Medicare for All, or an equivalent plan, has never advanced very far.

(Making Health Care Accessible)

There’s another question that must be tackled before we can reach the point of providing coverage for everyone: Should America provide health insurance for every citizen?

The concept of solidarity – which loosely means a unity based on a community of interests, objectives, or standards – is the basis for the health systems in most European countries. It also undergirds our own Social Security retirement and disability programs, workers’ compensation, and, of course, Medicare. 

When it comes to health care, there is still no universal embrace of the concept of solidarity. But unless Americans agree that every citizen is entitled to medical care and a way to pay for it, this round of discussion about Medicare for All is as likely to fail as all the previous proposals.

But what about Obamacare, you might be thinking? Remember when the former president told us his health plan would bring “affordable, quality care for all”? The Affordable Care Act established the principle that everyone should be able to buy health insurance regardless of preexisting health conditions, but it did not take the further step of guaranteeing everyone the right to medical care and a way to pay for it.

“Winning the argument about universal coverage first is really important,” says Joel Kutzin who heads the health care financing team at the World Health Organization.

It’s the prerequisite to solving the insurance cost and service problems the three unhappy tweeters shared with the twitterverse. 

Should every American have the right to affordable health care? Write to Trudy at trudy.lieberman@gmail.com.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

Search: Making Health Care Accessible

The post Big Questions Underlie Debate About Making Health Care Accessible to All appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.