This is from the California Labor Federation:

Statement of Art Pulaski, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, California Labor Federation
 
“California’s unions have worked tirelessly for years to create affordable health care options for all Californians, and today’s Senate vote will not deter us from that goal. There have been several good elements of AB 1x 1 that have led us to believe that our legislators can make real health care reform possible in California. For example, the bill included language to increase transparency and prevent denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
 
“But there remain several concerns with AB 1x 1. In December, we requested critical amendments be made to AB 1x 1 to make health care coverage more affordable and create a fairer employer fee structure. While those amendments were not taken, we remain hopeful that these conversations will serve as the building blocks for health care reform legislation in California.
 
“We will redouble our efforts to make health care more affordable for working and middle-class families. This year, we are also sponsoring legislation that will provide more rate oversight on health insurance companies. And we continue to work with our allies to expand affordable coverage options.
 
“Momentum is also building for a federal health care solution to our health care crisis.  We look forward to engaging our members in winning meaningful reform with a new Democratic president.” 
 

From the California Hospital Association:

"The California Hospital Association (CHA) is disappointed that AB X 1 1 (Núñez, D-Los Angeles) will not reach the Senate Floor.  CHA remains committed to comprehensive health care reform and we look forward to continuing to work with Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature to achieve that goal.

"California’s health care system is irretrievably broken.  More than 6.5 million Californians are uninsured.  California’s Medi-Cal program is the worst paying Medicaid program in the nation. These Achilles heels must be fixed.  Comprehensive health care reform will require the best efforts of elected officials and stakeholders.  This will continue to be a top priority for CHA."

— C. Duane Dauner, president of the California Hospital Association

“California’s unions have worked tirelessly for years to create affordable health care options for all Californians, and today’s Senate vote will not deter us from that goal."

What a giant, steaming load of manure that statement is. Ah yes, unions; pure as the driven snow...

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee is happy the proposal didn't pass. Read their press release.

Here are their top-10 problems with the bill (their bolding, not mine):

1. Employers would have had strong incentives to drop or sharply reduce union-negotiated benefits. Large employers like Wal-Mart would have received corporate welfare for dumping employees into the public pool.
2. Forced individuals to purchase insurance policies without knowing the real cost or what coverage they would have received and let employers off the hook from providing benefits.
3. No restrictions on increases in premiums, co-pays, or deductibles. No meaningful cost controls on rising costs, making the supposed affordability protections meaningless.
4. Workers would not have known what benefits they were getting — the insurance industry would have been in charge. Failed to identify covered benefits for the minimum plans which were likely to be bare-bones HMO plans without dental, vision, mental health, long-term care, and other essentials — all of which would have cost extra.
5. Managers could have gotten better benefits than workers. As long as employers paid a minimum amount to a state pool for bargain-basement healthcare, employers could have gotten rid of all benefits for unionized employees.
6. Instead of providing real benefits, employers could have met their coverage obligation by spending money on "wellness programs," gym memberships, or health savings accounts. Employees who declined that "offer" of coverage would then have been ineligible for the public subsidized pool and have had to buy private insurance policies on their own.
7. Part-time employees did not have to be offered benefits, and employers could have misclassified workers as "independent contractors" and not offered them even the minimal coverage offered full-time employees. Union trust funds would have been undercut by the low employer mandate because the cheap plan become the new ceiling — no employer would want to pay for better benefits.
8. Workers who did not get benefits faced harsh penalties if they did not buy insurance, including garnishment of wages or mortgage liens, but there were no penalties for employers who did not comply.
9. Once employers eliminated their union benefits and workers were forced into a poorly financed state HMO, the funding source for that HMO was not sustainable. The funding in part was tied to a tobacco tax, so if fewer people smoked, there was less money for the plan. Other sources were equally shaky — like a fee on hospitals that ended in five years. The state legislative analyst projected a $3.9 billion dollar shortfall.
10. The levels of care that people received would have been different. Hospitals where wealthier people get care would have received more money while public hospitals would have been undercut because they would have lost patients, while counties would have paid up to $1 billion in new unfunded costs for the uninsured.
     

Thank God there is still a little bit of sanity in Sacramento.