Opinion: For some, supporting single-payer healthcare is an act of selflessness

To the editor: I don’t stand to personally gain from the single-payer healthcare system, but I find myself strongly supporting the idea. (“What would California’s proposed single-payer healthcare system mean for me?” June 1)

I have health insurance provided by my employer, and I would stand to pay much more than I currently do for my family’s healthcare (via new taxes). I am also a fiscally conservative moderate who loves our country’s capitalist economy.

But as I contemplate how this affects my retired parents, my in-laws, my siblings and their families, and when I consider the time and resources it takes to navigate our present insurance system, I am struck by how burdensome healthcare is right now. Every healthcare choice we make has a financial consideration, and that does not reflect the spirit of medical care.

Adopting a single-payer system might negatively affect my taxes and income in the short term, but the long-term benefit of more equal, better care for all Californians overrides that.

One day, my family and I may not be in the same position with the same benefits and resources, and in that situation I would certainly appreciate the perspective of others who think about the benefit to everyone under a single-payer system.

Brian Kawasaki, Granada Hills

..

To the editor: As a Medicare recipient, I will be one of the first to participate in a class-action suit against California if it attempts to usurp my federal benefits. I did not pay into Medicare for so many years to let the state — which already cannot adequately manage its roads or retirement systems — take over my healthcare.

I enjoy my current Medicare benefits, and the use of a supplement policy offers me the ability to control my healthcare. What the state is aiming for is a giant HMO to take over our healthcare, to which I say no thanks.

Bill Anderson, Glendora

..

To the editor: Because of their single-payer system, Canadians have a higher per-capita tax burden than we have in the United States. This, of course, does not include our per-capita healthcare costs. The major difference is that every Canadian has health coverage.

The United Kingdom does not have a strict single-payer system. There are private doctors there who do not participate in the National Health Service, and there are private health insurance companies that will cover treatments by such doctors.

However, competition by the National Health Service results in costs being controlled. When private doctors increase their fees or insurance companies increase their premiums, patients can always switch to the National Health Service.

David E. Ross, Oak Park

..

To the editor: California’s annual budget is about $170 billion. The unfunded pension costs guaranteed by the taxpayers stands at around $240 billion. Now we are told the estimated cost of a single-payer healthcare system will be between $300 billion and $400 billion.

The prerequisites for getting this one-payer coverage are literally a blank check for anyone who can fog a mirror. Then there is the small matter on how it will be paid for. The information provided so far on how to pay for such a system appears to be smoke and mirrors. Clearly, a financing plan does not exist.

There is no reason to have a vote on whether California should secede from the United States, as Sacramento has taken or will take enough action to make the separation a fait accompli. The revenue base in California will diminish substantially if this foolishness ever comes to pass.

Don Black, Rancho Palos Verdes

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook