Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 24, 2007

A June 16 Sentinel letter offered strong endorsement for Senate Bill 840, which would institute a state-controlled health system. SB840 is authored by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and co-sponsored by local Assemblyman John Laird. Both apparently believe that the best way to provide for human needs is with increased taxes, bureaucracies and government intrusion into our private choices.

The letter writer cited a rosy report on SB840 and its proposed single-payer system by the Lewin Group to reinforce her argument. Left unmentioned was the same Lewin Group's year 2000 report on Canada's single-payer health care, which warned against U.S. adoption of such a system due to its resulting limitations on patient access to advanced pharmaceuticals and medical technology. Lewin also decried Canadian patient waiting times for treatment, which can exceed four months. That might explain the large number of Canadians traveling to the U.S. to access our "broken" health care system. Is it possible that Lewin's findings are influenced by who is paying for the study?

Additionally, since the Canadian system is often used as a model for government plans, it should be noted the Canadian Supreme Court ruled the Quebec health care system unconstitutional in 2005 for increasing waiting times while eliminating private health plan alternatives, resulting in harm to patients. Since SB 840 contains a similar goal of eliminating private health insurance, it could also face such legal challenges. By then, however, much damage could already be done.

Readers desiring to read an alternative study by a group not funded by SB840 supporters are invited to read the 2006 report by Pacific Research Institute. Their opinion of Senator Kuehl's proposal is made clear by the report's title — "Deadly Solution: SB840 and the Government Takeover of California Health Care"

Like most legislation, SB840 would result in winners and losers. State employee unions would prosper under it, since the measure's resulting bureaucracy would swell their numbers with jobs transferred from the private sector. The letter writer might benefit, since a Google search revealed her to be an adviser with the global holistic health network Capacitar International. Who knows? Perhaps SB840 would bring a health care system more willing to pay for treatments assisting people in centering their chakras.

Ironically, I would probably also benefit greatly from SB840. At age 60 and self-employed, I'm paying $488 per month for a $2,400 deductible Blue Shield plan. So even at the letter writer's stated 12 percent combined employee/employer taxes to fund SB840's health system, my decreasing earned income would result in me receiving more complete coverage at a fraction of the cost.

Now look at a 20-year-old worker, who could obtain my current coverage for only $97 per month. Their employer's contribution to SB840's health system would likely be factored into employee raises and other benefits, if not result in elimination of their job altogether. So anyone earning merely the Santa Cruz living wage would contribute about $229 per month for more coverage than they might want or need, robbing them of their consumer choice. And since the county annual median income hovers around $50,000, any young worker earning that might suffer a total income loss of $500 per month for SB840's "affordable" health care coverage.

The dangling question for supporters of SB840 is this: How much more can older voters in good conscience elect to drain from young workers who are already scheduled to struggle under the crushing burden of our social security benefits? And for those who assume government can do a better job in providing medical care than the private industry, I offer two cautionary words: Walter Reed.

Steve Bankhead lives in Watsonville.