A new plan for a system of government health care in California is being touted by its author as a grand idea. That is a strange description for a measure that would be costly, counterproductive, and a danger to the well being of all Californians.

The Health Care for All Californians Act, introduced February 24 by State Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), would eliminate private health insurance. A Commissioner of Health would head a State Health Agency and government boards would make key health-care decisions.

The package comes billed as free medical care, covering all state residents, even retirees with vested benefits. In the first two years there would be no deductibles or co-pay. Under the plan, Californians would receive any procedure or treatment that a doctor or hospital says is medically appropriate, including dental and vision care, skilled nursing care after hospitalization, “self-help programs,” and “translation services.”

Under the Health Care for Californians Act, the state would pay all the bills, though Sen. Kuehl says the plan involves “no new spending.” But since no service, particularly medical care, can be free, the government would have to get the money from new payroll taxes on “all employers, employees the self-employed and recipients of unearned income.”

The act also levies new taxes on tobacco and alcohol products. No actual tax rates are mentioned and residency requirements are not outlined.

To those steeped in the ethos of an ever-expanding government, this will all come as good news. For most Californians, however, this measure would be a disaster.

It appears to have escaped the notice of Sen. Kuehl that the state is more than $35 billion in debt and cannot afford any new spending programs. California is already one of the highest taxed states, and new levies would cause more workers and businesses to flee.

Fraud, already rampant in Medi-Cal, would thrive under a massive state system based on residency, and which hands every resident blank-check entitlement for health care. The plan provides no incentive for people to take care of themselves and state control would encourage irresponsibility.

Under this system, cash-strapped younger workers would be subsidizing the affluent. Since government medical bureaucrats would be under pressure to reduce costs, this system would also stifle innovation, reduce quality, and further limit people’s choices.

I can testify from direct experience that this is precisely what happened in Canada where waiting lists are common and costs high. Since private alternatives are banned, the only recourse for many is to seek care in the United States.

Given the dismal record of government health care, I find it amazing that a plan like that of Sen. Kuehl could be conceived at all, let alone taken seriously. Countries such as Sweden, where state medical care has long been the status quo, are moving to private alternatives.

Sen. Kuehl is right that far too many people lack health coverage but wrong to seek a solution in the elimination of HMOs, PPOs, and private insurance, expanded bureaucracy, and higher taxes. Many people also lack car insurance but the answer is not a government takeover of the insurance industry.

If legislators want to improve quality of care, restore the doctor-patient relationship, and increase the number of insured, health care must be made portable and not tied to a place of work. Individuals must have more, not fewer, choices in the health-care marketplace.

The tax system must not punish workers but reward them for making responsible decisions. Medical savings accounts and tax credits are good ways to accomplish that goal.

Experience shows that massive government programs, once launched, tend to grow. However inefficient, counterproductive, or corrupt, they are practically impossible to eliminate. It would be a costly mistake to embark upon a massive government medical plan that the state cannot afford and which is guaranteed to fail.

In 1994, Californians were faced with Proposition 186, a single-payer health-care initiative that was more intrusive than the Clinton plan. It was resoundingly defeated by the voters. While escalating problems within the current system may make single-payer proposals even more seductive today, it is useful to recall the words of 19th century French political scientist Benjamin Constant: “Every time the government attempts to handle our affairs, it costs more and [the] results are worse than if we had handled them ourselves.”

Sally Pipes is the President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based think tank. She can be reached via email at spipes@pacificresearch.org.