Why stop with a tax on doctors?

Re “Medi-Cal plan has doctors divided,” May 14

In addition to being a physician, I am a huge film buff. The cost of movies is becoming exorbitant. I propose that each member of the Screen Actors Guild contribute 2% of his or her gross income to help the moviegoing public attend films.

JEFFREY S. LEE

Los Angeles

*

While the governor wants more concessions from doctors, perhaps -- in the interest of fairness -- insurance companies should provide free or reduced-rate malpractice and liability insurance to doctors.

Then the governor could request a percentage from the lawyers who sue the doctors, and so on.

SUSAN MURPHY

La Jolla

*

Nearly all of these so-called reform plans increase healthcare spending, fail to be universal in coverage and continue to rely on the uncontrolled, profit-driven health insurance and drug industries to provide the coverage.

The only reform plan that makes sense is one that is little heard of. It is opposed by the governor because it would raise taxes and by the powerful California Medical Assn. because it might cut into what fee-for-service doctors charge their patients.

The plan referred to is SB 840, the California Universal Healthcare Act, now working its way through the state Senate. This bill, a single-payer, taxsupported plan, would provide affordable, comprehensive, Medicare-like health insurance for every Californian.

It would do this by taking the for-profit health insurance industry out of the equation and by using the power of the purse to rein in the cost of prescription drugs.

The California Universal Healthcare Act is a harbinger of the future and worthy of support by business, labor, healthcare providers and the public.

NORMAN EWERS

Irvine

*

I am a pediatrician in private practice. This article stated, “Many doctors say [the governor’s proposed assessment] would amount to at least 4% of their take-home pay.” This is a gross underestimation.

The true number would be more likely 8% to 10%. You might ask: How could this be? The proposal is for 2% of reimbursements. This is 2% of gross payment received by the physician’s office.

In pediatric practices, overhead runs 55% to 65% of gross revenues. In other specialties, this usually runs about 50%. This makes the tax 2 to 2.3 times the 2%. We are now up to a 4% to 4.6% tax.

But it doesn’t end there. State and federal tax on lastdollar income runs 50% to 60% for virtually all physicians.

We must now multiply by 2 to 2.2 again. We now have a tax of 8% to 10% of “take-home” pay. What sounds like a modest tax would, in fact, be a severe tax.

Also, as you may be aware, there is a general paucity of primary care physicians graduating from training programs across the country.

Will this kind of measure further discourage medical students from entering primary care, especially in California?

RICHARD H. FEUILLE JR. MD

Glendale