Riding a wave of enthusiasm from progressive Democrats, supporters of single-payer have effectively made it a front-and-center issue in California’s 2018 elections. It’s been discussed in virtually every forum with the candidates running for governor, emerged as a point of contention in some legislative races, and will likely be a rallying cry at the upcoming California Democratic Party convention. Advocates of the single-payer system know that it’s not going to happen now, it’s not going to happen tomorrow, but long-term, they hope to make single-payer a reality.
. . .

As California health care officials brace themselves for changes to the Affordable Care Act by President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress, state lawmakers today and Tuesday will hold a hearing examining the gaps in coverage and financing of California’s current system.

Among the topics expected to be front and center is single-payer health care and Senate Bill 562, introduced earlier this year by Senators Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego. That controversial proposal would replace California’s private health insurance market with a single, government-run plan with no premiums or deductibles for nearly 40 million Californians.
. . .

This year, premiums were up an average of 8 percent. In many states, double-digit premium hikes were the norm.

 Next year, they’re likely to be even bigger, according to Marilyn Tavenner, the former chief of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Barack Obama and current head of the insurers’ main trade group — America’s Health Insurance Plans.
There are less costly ways to make sure that all Americans have access to coverage — and that they can afford it. They’re called “high-risk pools” and they can protect those with pre-existing conditions without jacking up premiums for everyone else.
Obamacare was supposed to ensure affordable health coverage through two related provisions — “guaranteed issue” and “community rating.” The first forbids insurers from denying anyone a policy, and the second prevents them from charging anyone any more than three times what they charge anyone else.
. . .