Empower Working Californians with Health Saving Accounts, not Bureaucratic Social Medicine Schemes
Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian
January 28, 2006
As the lead Republican on the Assembly Health Committee, I have had the opportunity to work closely with my colleagues on many proposals to improve California’s health care system.
I follow a simple principle: California has the best doctors and scientists in the world, and there’s no reason we shouldn’t have the best medical care. We must focus on keeping up with the changing times in California while ensuring quality health services are delivered to hard-working families.
One proposal that would do this is Assembly Bill 661, by Republican Assemblyman George Plescia, of La Jolla. This common-sense bill (and its counterpart, Senate Bill 173 by Republican Senator Abel Maldonado, of San Luis Obispo) would make health care more affordable to workers by creating Health Savings Accounts. Such plans would encourage California’s workers to save money for medical expenses on a tax-free basis. This bill would conform to existing Federal Health Savings Account laws and would make it easier for people to prepare their income taxes.
Not only would workers have the option to save for health care expenses, but employers would have the ability to contribute to Health Savings Accounts on behalf of their employees – a low-cost benefit that many employers would embrace. It’s a win-win situation for all Californians.
The way I see it, any vehicle that encourages savings for health care is a step in the right direction, and a reminder that each of us is responsible for our basic needs and those of our family.
John C. Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote in his “Health Savings Accounts Will Revolutionize American Health Care,” that the concept of HSAs “is not conservative or liberal. It’s an empowerment idea.” Goodman also said that Health Savings Accounts should “appeal to everyone who suspects that impersonal bureaucracies care less about us than we care about ourselves.”
An impersonal bureaucracy is exactly what we would have to deal with if socialized medicine were to become the law of the land in California, as one lawmaker has proposed.
Senate Bill 840, by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, would create a single-payer health care plan, in other words government-run health care coverage for everybody. The money to run such a plan would come from the already-drained pockets of taxpayers.
Proponents say this plan is necessary to correct California’s fragmented health care system and deliver health care to all citizens.
I agree our system is not the well-oiled machine we want it to be, nor is it in the state of ruin depicted by Kuehl and her allies. Changes are necessary to keep up with the state’s ever-changing population, but a single-payer health care plan would not serve as a magic cure-all for our health care problems.
In fact, such a drastic transformation of one of California’s biggest economic forces would actually create a health care disaster.
First, socialized medicine would do nothing more than create a monopoly by the government. Without the incentives created by competition, a single-payer system would likely give us a system with all the innovation, compassion and efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Look at the state of health care in Canada, England, New Zealand and much of Europe – all countries that offer single-payer health care – where waiting for months on end is part of the “health care for all” deal.
In fact, 25 percent of patients undergoing elective surgery in those countries are forced to wait more than four months before they see the lights of the operating room according to the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver think tank. The average Canadian patient waits more than eight weeks to see a specialist and another nine weeks before getting treated.
In Quebec, the waiting game is so excessive that 10,000 breast cancer patients sued 12 hospitals for causing them to wait eight weeks for radiation therapy.
You would think after being put on hold for weeks and months on end, the patients in these countries would at least receive top-notch care. Think again. The average U.S. doctor sees about 2,000 patients a year, while the average Canadian doctor squeezes in close to 3,100 patients. Quality care is not what overworked, exhausted doctors deliver to ailing patients.
I am confident my colleagues will see SB 840 as an unwarranted measure that would have ruinous effects on the state’s health care system. I am hopeful they will vote in favor of responsible legislation such as AB 661 that will arm California families with tools to make medical plans more attainable and affordable.
I follow a simple principle: California has the best doctors and scientists in the world, and there’s no reason we shouldn’t have the best medical care. We must focus on keeping up with the changing times in California while ensuring quality health services are delivered to hard-working families.
One proposal that would do this is Assembly Bill 661, by Republican Assemblyman George Plescia, of La Jolla. This common-sense bill (and its counterpart, Senate Bill 173 by Republican Senator Abel Maldonado, of San Luis Obispo) would make health care more affordable to workers by creating Health Savings Accounts. Such plans would encourage California’s workers to save money for medical expenses on a tax-free basis. This bill would conform to existing Federal Health Savings Account laws and would make it easier for people to prepare their income taxes.
Not only would workers have the option to save for health care expenses, but employers would have the ability to contribute to Health Savings Accounts on behalf of their employees – a low-cost benefit that many employers would embrace. It’s a win-win situation for all Californians.
The way I see it, any vehicle that encourages savings for health care is a step in the right direction, and a reminder that each of us is responsible for our basic needs and those of our family.
John C. Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote in his “Health Savings Accounts Will Revolutionize American Health Care,” that the concept of HSAs “is not conservative or liberal. It’s an empowerment idea.” Goodman also said that Health Savings Accounts should “appeal to everyone who suspects that impersonal bureaucracies care less about us than we care about ourselves.”
An impersonal bureaucracy is exactly what we would have to deal with if socialized medicine were to become the law of the land in California, as one lawmaker has proposed.
Senate Bill 840, by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, would create a single-payer health care plan, in other words government-run health care coverage for everybody. The money to run such a plan would come from the already-drained pockets of taxpayers.
Proponents say this plan is necessary to correct California’s fragmented health care system and deliver health care to all citizens.
I agree our system is not the well-oiled machine we want it to be, nor is it in the state of ruin depicted by Kuehl and her allies. Changes are necessary to keep up with the state’s ever-changing population, but a single-payer health care plan would not serve as a magic cure-all for our health care problems.
In fact, such a drastic transformation of one of California’s biggest economic forces would actually create a health care disaster.
First, socialized medicine would do nothing more than create a monopoly by the government. Without the incentives created by competition, a single-payer system would likely give us a system with all the innovation, compassion and efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Look at the state of health care in Canada, England, New Zealand and much of Europe – all countries that offer single-payer health care – where waiting for months on end is part of the “health care for all” deal.
In fact, 25 percent of patients undergoing elective surgery in those countries are forced to wait more than four months before they see the lights of the operating room according to the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver think tank. The average Canadian patient waits more than eight weeks to see a specialist and another nine weeks before getting treated.
In Quebec, the waiting game is so excessive that 10,000 breast cancer patients sued 12 hospitals for causing them to wait eight weeks for radiation therapy.
You would think after being put on hold for weeks and months on end, the patients in these countries would at least receive top-notch care. Think again. The average U.S. doctor sees about 2,000 patients a year, while the average Canadian doctor squeezes in close to 3,100 patients. Quality care is not what overworked, exhausted doctors deliver to ailing patients.
I am confident my colleagues will see SB 840 as an unwarranted measure that would have ruinous effects on the state’s health care system. I am hopeful they will vote in favor of responsible legislation such as AB 661 that will arm California families with tools to make medical plans more attainable and affordable.
Print
Email
