Single-Payer Health Reform

Re Prop. 186, single-payer health care commentary by Bank of America’s CEO Richard Rosenberg (Oct. 31):

Just another smoke-and-mirror performance to try and hide the fact that single-payer systems can and do provide better health care at less cost.

Leave it to a banker to ignore the incalculable costs of the human tragedy, the medically induced bankruptcies and the lives filled with fear. All items which are indigenous to the present system.

BETTY J. BRADFORD

San Juan Capistrano

Rosenberg’s arguments against Prop. 186 seem much more like arguments in favor to me. He tries to scare us with a 230% hike for his $32,000 employee. However, the actual $680 tax increase is a reasonable price for guaranteed health care, and is far less than that employee is going to pay for health insurance under our current system. Similarly, his feared payroll tax on the same employee comes to $1,408. While Bank of America may have the clout to bargain insurance rates below this number, most small businesses like mine would consider it reasonable. Remember, this tax replaces current health insurance premiums.

Of course, on his multimillion-dollar salary, Rosenberg will pay more, but in a fair society I think those with the most can spare a little to help provide medical care to the less fortunate.

LEE AYDELOTTE

Huntington Beach

Sherif Emil’s column (Oct. 31) regarding Prop. 186 was greatly appreciated in this environment of confusion and downright misleading statements. To add to the untruths is the statement that we would certainly not want the state government to be administering our health care insurance needs. Having worked for the state Department of Corporations (administrator of the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act) as a quality assurance consultant for many years, I can state that I have never worked with a group of more diligent, intelligent and hard-working people in my long career. I would feel eminently comfortable were my health care business in the hands of people of such high caliber.

JULIAN SINGER DDS

Los Angeles

I strongly oppose Prop. 186! Do not be deceived by those persons who want to control your thoughts, your pocketbooks and your lives. Erroneous information is being reported by several self-serving groups regarding this proposition. Your right to choose should be diligently guarded. This right is why people have been making desperate attempts to immigrate into our nation.

Health-care reform is necessary, but dear God, not this way.

JOYCE M. PARTISE

West Covina

Your editorial on Oct. 9 urged readers to vote no on Prop. 186. As a reason, you cited a concern for “lean economic years” anticipated in California. I disagree. Let me explain. I am a naturalized U.S. citizen and a family physician practicing in Los Angeles. I was raised in Tokyo after World War II, while Japan was undoubtedly one of the poorest countries in the world.

Winters were very cold for my starving family. My parents simultaneously suffered pneumonia in the winter of 1948. Their children were scared. However, my family was covered by a national health plan which had been implemented during Japan’s leanest economic years after the war. At least we were not financially scared. My parents recovered.

If California truly wants good recovery and economic growth, we need good health security through Prop. 186.

KENJI IRIE MD

Los Angeles