<\/p>\n
From left, former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter, former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier\u00a0Becerra, and entrepreneur and environmentalist Tom\u00a0Steyer attend the SEIU-United Service Workers West Gubernatorial Candidate Worker Forum in Los Angeles on Jan. 10. All are in favor of single-payer healthcare for Californians.\u00a0<\/p>\n
ETIENNE LAURENT\/AFP via Getty Images<\/p>\n
Regarding \u201cIn California governor race, single-payer is a litmus test. There\u2019s still no way to pay for it\u201d<\/a> (Politics, SFChronicle.com, May 11): How many times do we have to listen to liberal politicians lying to the public about the possibility of single-payer health care before someone presents the facts and kills this fallacy once and for all?\u00a0<\/p>\n For the 2026-2027 fiscal year, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a $349 billion budget<\/a> for California. A single-payer healthcare system in California is projected to cost roughly $730 billion<\/a> per year, double the state\u2019s budget.<\/p>\n Even if federal Medicare and Medicaid funds are completely repurposed (which is unlikely), some estimates say the state would need to come up with more than $300 billion<\/a> to fund state-run healthcare.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n California has repeatedly failed to enact single-payer for all of the right reasons. Even Sen. Bernie Sanders\u2019 deep-blue state of Vermont tried the idea and concluded it was lunacy.\u00a0<\/p>\n It is long past time for liberal politicians to speak honestly to the voters, rather than lie to them to try and buy votes.<\/p>\n San Francisco Chronicle Logo<\/p>\n Make us a Preferred Source to get more of our news when you search.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Add Preferred Source<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Go smoke-free\u00a0<\/p>\n Regarding \u201cOne of the last places people can smoke in S.F. may soon be gone\u201d<\/a> (San Francisco, SFChronicle.com, May 13): I study the health effects of secondhand smoke as a UCSF professor. Research shows that anytime someone is smoking outside, the concentrations of fine particles in the air near them are high enough to increase the risk of disease.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Many of the smoking patios in San Francisco are covered, which makes the pollution worse, or they are surrounded by apartment buildings, which exposes more people.<\/p>\n The cardiovascular effects (heart attacks and stroke) of smoke exposure happen within minutes and anyone who has risk factors like high blood pressure, cholesterol, weight or age is immediately endangered by secondhand smoke.\u00a0<\/p>\n Smoking patios expose hospitality workers to smoke if it blows indoors. Chemicals from smoke also stick to surfaces and people absorb them through their skin. Emptying ashtrays and wiping tables exposes employees to carcinogens.\u00a0<\/p>\n Businesses do not lose income after they go smoke-free. Research from the U.S. and around the world shows that more nonsmoking customers only go where the air is clean, and few smokers abandon their favorite places when they can no longer smoke there.\u00a0<\/p>\n Smoke-free laws make it easier for smokers to quit when they want and protect everyone else.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Suzaynn Schick, San Francisco<\/p>\n Ban paid signature gatherers<\/p>\n Regarding \u201cSignature gatherers are out in force across S.F. Here\u2019s why this year feels different\u201d<\/a> (San Francisco, SFChronicle.com, May 10): Citizens\u2019 initiatives were meant to counterbalance the influence of corporate interests in the legislative process. However, corporate interests now pay enormous sums to hire professional circulators to qualify their ballot initiatives.\u00a0<\/p>\n Paying signature gatherers effectively delegitimizes the initiative process, limiting it to only those who can afford to pay, effectively shutting out true grassroots efforts, such as one from our group, Crush ICE SF, which is attempting to qualify an initiative for the November ballot.<\/p>\n Significantly, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie is proposing to increase the number of signatures needed to qualify an initiative from roughly 10,500 to 40,000. Grassroots efforts would unlikely succeed.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n A more democratic approach would be to reduce the number of signatures needed and ban paid circulators of initiatives.<\/p>\n Cecilia London, San Francisco<\/p>\n Don\u2019t pay Trump<\/p>\n I am shocked that there is not more outrage about President Donald Trump\u2019s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS because someone outed him for not paying taxes.\u00a0<\/p>\n Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership.<\/p>\n Read more about our transparency and ethics policies<\/a><\/p>\n I should think there would be an enormous backlash from Republicans and Democrats, especially because Trump is expecting taxpayers to fund his vanity projects \u2014 such as the White House ballroom and a golden arch<\/a> for Washington, D.C.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n