Our View: Price tag soars for free state health care

You can expect to wait to be served if government provides health care. And you can expect ultimately a bureaucrat will decide what health care you receive. But the state's independent Legislative Analyst now says the latest proposal to impose universal health care on Californians would cost far more than even the astronomical prices its advocates originally claimed, and much more than even steep new taxes would raise.

How much more? The state budget is about $17 billion in the red. That's a lot of money. But proposed universal, government-run health care is estimated by Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill to run $26 billion in the red in its first year, 2010-11. That's a substantially greater deficit for the state to provide health care than the already enormous deficit for the state to provide everything it does.

It doesn't stop there. In 2011-2012, the first full year of the government-run system, the deficit would balloon to $42 billion. After five full years of operation, the deficit would increase to a mind-boggling $46 billion. By comparison, a 2005 private study of an almost identical previous bill projected a $29 billion savingsover current health care spending, and no deficit.

But it doesn't stop there, either. This gargantuan deficit results from the Legislative Analyst penciling out the "financing mechanism" submitted by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the Democrat author of Senate Bill 840, the legislation to impose universal health care. ("Financing mechanism" is bureaucratese for "taxes.") The Legislative Analyst said substantial new taxes on payrolls, on the self-employed and on wages would raise $138 billion dollars by 2015-16. It should be pointed out that raising revenuemeans reducing wealthof people the money belongs to.

Even after soaking taxpayers for an additional $138 billion, the universal health care scheme still would fall $46 billion short of paying its bills. Guess what government will do when costs exceed income? If you guess it will restrict medical services, you guess right. Either that, or seek to increase taxes even more.

And if you guess it doesn't stop there, you guess right again. There are other unintended consequences of Sen. Kuehl's plan. The Legislative Analyst says these new taxes will have adverse effects, resulting in small families and higher-income earners paying more than they do now for health care, and perhaps spurring an exodus of doctors out of state, aggravating what already may be a California physician shortage.

That's not even all the bad news. Private insurance companies would be prohibited from selling coverage for anything the state covers. The question of what ultimately is to be covered by the government plan ostensibly would be made by health care providers with "certain limitations." In effect, private health insurance coverage would be abolished, and insurers would likely close as all Californians are forced into government coverage. Budgets for hospitals and doctors would be dictated by a new state oligarchy of bureaucrats.

"Is thatall?" you might ask. No, there's more. The Legislative Analyst forecasts the economic drain would further reduce tax revenue for the state budget, which you may recall already is $17 billion in the hole.

One more thing. The Legislative Analyst suggests it's likely universal health care will lure out-of-staters into California to take advantage of the "free" medical services. More folks to line up for "free" handouts.

Universal, government-run, government-dictated health care makes about as much sense as do-it-yourself brain surgery. Rather than heaping more government controls and taxes on the health care industry, Sacramento should get out of the way and allow the market to meet demand. We can't afford any more "free" government services.