The following ramble is an essay I did for a political science course evaluating Peter Miguel Camejo's policy on Health and Welfare. Enjoy!Peter Camejo was the Green Party candidate running for Governor of California in the election of 2002. Despite the fact that he realistically only had a small chance of winning, he still outlined ideas for change in policies regarding health and welfare. So how might have Camejo's ideas have changed the policies of health and welfare in California?First of all, what are Camejo's major ideas for policy changes? Regarding welfare, Camejo would do the following: provide child care for welfare recipients for work; increase the use of TANF funds to include the "working poor"; increase the availability of public transportation for welfare recipients; and enact a "living wage" to try and alleviate poverty all together. Camejo's major health policy issue would be to enact a single payer universal public health care system for all Californians. In addition to that, he would ensure that all citizens had access to health care, and support a patients' rights to sue their HMO as well as the right to appeal administrative decisions made in the case of a denial of services, and stricter controls of air and water to promote general public health. So with a few of the policy issues laid out, how would they affect California? One of the welfare issues, the distribution of TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funds to include the "working poor", seems to be an ambiguous one at best. As described in the text by Dye, TANF funds are block grants given out by the federal government to the states for needy families with dependant children. However, due to welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996, there are strict regulations regarding who and how you distribute the money. The regulations say nothing regarding a "working poor", or even what someone who is classified as "working poor" might be. Not to mention, the issue of TANF funds is a federal one, and Camejo could not directly affect the rules regarding the distribution of such funds, because he is not a federal legislator or executive. Regarding his other issue, the enacting of a "living wage", that would mostly like be little more than an increase of the already existing minimum wage in place. This would be an incremental policy change, as Camejo would only be changing an already existing program. The same applies to expanding public transportation to welfare recipients; in all likelihood, the existing public transportation system would only be expanded, not overhauled. However, Camejo does not list a policy plan on how he would expand public transportation, so it's hard to say. Regarding Camejo's health policy, his is a more radical policy issue. Instead of trying to reform and reshape a current system as he is doing with Welfare, he would instead propose a totally different system of health care in California. He proposes that instead of the current, he would enact a single payer system, which would give all Californians universal health care. The biggest problem with this plan is that it is a completely rational policy decision, a wholesale change in the system. Many people argue that no such changes are needed in the health care system. Also, there is argument and disagreement as to what "good health care" is exactly. California voters already decided in 1994 to defeat the idea of a similar system to the one that Camejo has proposed in the form of Proposition 186. Camejo, however, argues that despite the fact that such a plan was defeated, significant portions of minority populations were in favor of the plan and the time might be right to institute it. Also, according to the text by Dye, instituting a single payer plan would require significant new taxes, which is another policy issue onto itself. His other major issues, patients' rights against HMOs seem only to be extensions of existing policy issues, and policies of incrementalism. However, he doesn't give much thought to those issues, because obviously if he enacted his major policy issue, universal health care, few people would need to deal with HMOs. His issues regarding the cleaning of air and water to protect public health are also issues of incrementalism; he would toughen up and enforce existing laws regarding environmental issues. Enacting widespread policy change is difficult at best; as evidenced by the issues brought up. Camejo brings up valid points, but he oversteps his bounds in some cases, and asks for potentially unrealistic goals in others. An important thing to decide in policy decisions is also to consider if they are feasible. Health and Welfare are imprint issues in society, but if one tries to correct them unfeasible goals, it does as little good as doing nothing at all. Sources: Understanding Public Policy, Thomas Dye, pgs.
104, 114, 117 |