SENATOR KUEHL IS HIDING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LAO REPORT ON CALIFORNIA SINGLE PAYER HEALTH INSURANCE

ACCORDING TO JOHN GRAHAM OF PRI

The most important news from the LAO’s report is that the single-payer camp grossly underestimated how much taxes it would need to fund fully the government takeover. Indeed, all four new and increased taxes proposed in SB 840, plus existing federal health transfers and currently funded state programs (Medi-Cal, etc.), would only pay for three quarters of 2010-2011 single-payer budget, and four-fifths in 2015-2016 (p. 8).

Senator Kuehl’s solution, confided to the LAO, is that SB 840’s originally proposed taxes should be increased by about one-third: from 12 percent to 16 percent on the new payroll taxes, and from 11.5 percent to 15.5 percent on the new investment income taxes (p.12).

With such a surge in taxes, no wonder Senator Kuehl wanted to keep the LAO’s report confidential. The revelations, however, should launch a new dialogue on health care. When Californians ask about single-payer health care, they should inquire what it costs. A truthful answer would concede: “An awful lot more than we thought.”

Both can be statist when it suits them.

Liberals know no bounds and use it to protect government monopolies while conservatives use it to justify government protections of private monopolies.

Neither has a healthy role for government and its core competency and task within the context of civil society. Both poles of classic liberalism tend toward all or nothing approach instead of structural pluralism.

If it’s really such a good idea, why not apply the single-payer model to the other necessities of life, such as shelter. Instead of myriads of landlords and homeowners making individual decisions and paying differing amounts, would it not be less expensive for all housing to be under government control? Think of the savings that could be gained when the government makes bulk purchases of appliances and construction materials! Think of the savings when profit-driven supplies of materials, such as Home Depot, are put out of business!

Indeed, the model could also be applied to food. Instead of the relatively laissez-faire system of food distribution in this state a single-payer system would apparently reduce costs and ensure that everyone is adequately fed.

Perhaps it sounds ridiculous to suggest that food and shelter ought to be included in the single-payer model. After all, food and shelter are relatively plentiful and unencumbered by a heavy regulatory framework. Perhaps we should consider lifiting the burdensome regulations on healthcare as well.