18. Sonya Zhu & Jonathan Palisoc Public Health 220D | Tony Iton & Harry Snyder
Throughout the post-bill process, it should be emphasized within the coalition there are two
“swimlanes” of advocacy: internal and external. Any problems with messaging or the bill should not be
made public; instead, coalition members should communicate their concerns internally and put the
item up for discussion within the group. A united front, alongside internal collaboration with
California Legislature, will make the strongest coalition possible.
IV. Campaign Timeline
Fall 2017 - Spring 2018: Conduct research, recommend best single-payer plan.
Winter 2017 - Fall 2018: Build coalitions, secure funding from foundations, and acquire
endorsements from Senators and Assemblymembers.
Summer 2018: CA Legislature reconvenes after Spring Recess, introduce single-payer bill.
Increase coalition building efforts through grassroots and media campaign.
Fall 2018: Push bill through process and have signed by Governor by end of session.
Winter 2018 - Onward: Program implementation.
V. Personal Issues
As with any graduate-level report, this advocacy plan was very difficult to compose. From an
egotistical standpoint, we feel that we must have some amount of hubris to even consider making an
impact on an issue as large as single-payer.
Looking at struggles, the items we most had problems with were forming a plan that took all
advice into account. Among the advocates we spoke to, they often had strikingly contrasting
viewpoints. This made it difficult for us, as we felt compelled to choose between viewpoints. Even
further, we sometimes disagreed with some advice – this had us wondering if we were truly correct, or
if we were turning our nose in the face of advice from others who had been working on this issue for a
very long time. For example, we are more open to other ideas of universal care, while those we spoke to
were entrenched in single-payer. If any other method of universal coverage was suggested, they
indicated that they thought it would still fall short (like the ACA) and opposed the idea.
We have collaborated on previous projects, so working as a team was quite successful. While
our mindsets are quite contrasting, they actually make a successful combination – one of us is
polychromatic and flowing to give the paper feeling, while the other is more methodical and critical to
make sure the plan is pragmatic. For both of us, it is extremely exciting to work on an issue that we care
about deeply. We have no ethical concerns and are hopeful that this project may inform our
educational and professional career. Most important, we present this advocacy plan with a hope that it
can support a worthwhile cause, and an openness to continually learning how to be better advocates
for public health.