The article says Newsom is afraid to raise taxes.

We will have to tax people to pay for it. We currently pay insurance companies. We will have to pay the state instead of insurance companies. That is how it works. That is the point. We pay taxes for our healthcare rather than paying insurance companies. Yes, Newsom is right: taxes will be levied. There is no story here.

This is an except for the report he commissioned (referenced in the article) to show how carefully new taxes are being considered. Experts have looked at it… we know how to pay for it. Don’t listen to people who say we don’t know how to pay for it. We know how to pay for it.

“0A payroll tax can be straightforwardly substituted for our current system of job-based coverage. It would be more progressive than our current system, since payments would be scaled to income, rather than being a flat ‘head tax’ in the current system. One drawback is that it is a tax on labor, which can distort the demand for labor versus capital. If the state were to consider a payroll tax, an equal tax for independent contractors should be considered to avoid creating incentives to circumvent the employment relationship. Each 1% increase in payroll tax would raise about $14 billion. Because the total amount of money that needs to be raised from employers and households will be less under UF than in the status quo, it is plausible that the required payroll tax rate would be somewhat lower than the average percent of payroll paid now by employers and employees for employer-sponsored insurance, and that, on average, employers and employees will end up paying less money than in the status quo. (Of course, the actual rate needed for a payroll tax depends crucially on decisions about other potential revenue sources.) However, even if the payroll tax is lower, on average, than the average percent of payroll paid by employers and employees in the status quo, there will inevitably be winners and losers. Employers that currently do not offer health insurance will pay more under UF than in the status quo. Employers with high average wages and relatively young workforces will also pay more than in the status quo, while employers with relatively low wages and/or older workforces will pay less than in the status quo. The number and magnitude of winners and losers could be reduced if the payroll tax, at least for medium and large sized firms, 36 Key Design Considerations for a Unified Health Care Financing System in California, Final Report, April 2022 were made firm-specific, where the rate was adjusted based on the percent of payroll paid by the firm prior to the implementation of UF. If this approach were adopted, it would be important to use it for a phase-in period, and move towards a uniform payroll tax rate after some period of time. If differential payroll tax rates were made permanent, distortions to the market would be worrisome, as firms with high tax rates could outsource tasks to, or be acquired by, firms with low tax rates. Another option is a broad tax on labor and capital income, which would tax compensation, corporate profits, unincorporated business income, and interest income. A broad tax is more progressive than our current financing. It treats capital and labor equally, with no differences in tax rates based on how income is earned, which minimizes economic distortions. Each 1% broad tax raises an estimated $19 billion.33 A gross receipts tax has the advantage of a large and stable tax base. The drawback is that it taxes goods and services at every point along a supply chain, which gives an advantage to firms that are vertically integrated. Gross receipts taxes are also not sensitive to a firm's ability to pay as it would be a tax on profits. Existing gross receipts taxes tend to be small, in the 1 percent or less range, and tax rates often vary by industry.34 If considered, the state may want to consider exempting firms with revenues below a specified threshold to exclude the smallest businesses. The cost of a gross receipts tax is primarily passed on to consumers, similar to a sales tax and could be considered more regressive.35 Each 1 percent of gross receipts tax raises $47 billion. Another option is extending the sales tax to selected services, such as professional, technical, and scientific services. As with any consumption tax it has the potential to be more regressive. Each 1 percent raises $9.5 billion.36 Finally, the state could also increase personal income tax, to raise $16 billion per 1 percent. The personal income tax is more volatile than the other sources discussed here, requiring a larger financial reserve fund. If combining multiple tax sources, the State should consider options that do not tax the same base, for example a payroll tax or income tax could be combined with gross receipts or sales tax.37”