The Bulletin’s editorial, “Single-payer plan in the works for Oregon,” identifies major challenges confronting the SB 770 Task Force. As a task force member, I can confirm that changing Oregon’s health care industry is a heavy lift. Health care is the largest industry in Bend. It’s the largest industry in the US. It’s the largest industry in the world.

So in the face of this challenge, why is our task force investing so much effort to create a single -payer health care plan?

Because single payer provides better care to more people for less money.

Every single-payer plan in the U.S. and the world confirms this. Single payer examples like TriCare for the U.S. military, Medicare for seniors, the Oregon Health Plan for those unable to afford private insurance and the national plans of many European and Pacific Rim countries achieve more with their health care dollars than our American multi-payer private plans.

Single payer is so effective that most large U.S. businesses offer private -single payer plans. We usually call them “self-funded plans,” but they use key principles of single payer: Everyone participates in a single comprehensive plan with a single provider network. In Oregon, 60% of employer-sponsored health care plans reject private insurance policies in favor of single payer.

Oregonians are no stranger to single-payer health care. In Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District, 80% of residents already receive health care through a private or public single-payer plan. This includes everyone who participates in Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Plan, and an employer single-payer plan.

Our SB 770 Task Force wants everyone in Oregon already enrolled in these many single-payer plans to join one statewide plan, and then bring in everyone else. The economies of scale, especially the dramatic reduction of administrative costs to patients and providers, save enough money to expand care to everyone in Oregon for less money than we spend now.

But The Bulletin editorial identifies our challenges, which are significant. First, multiple federal laws (especially ERISA) prevent any state from marshaling all public and private healthcare spending into a common fund. Remedying this requires Congress to pass a states’ rights health care superwaiver, much like HR 5010, the “State-Based Universal Health Care Act.” (Four of Oregon’s U.S. representatives co-sponsor this bill.)

Working around federal law without such enabling legislation will leave Oregon with multiple health care payers, sacrificing the efficiency of a single -payer system.

Second, the editorial asks “How would Oregon pay for it?” Oregonians already pay more than enough for universal health care. We don’t get it because our multi-payer system is the most inefficient in the world. Single payer in Oregon requires less money, not more.

Third, the editorial implies that radical improvement requires radical change. This is correct. Our dysfunctional health care system is as efficient as it can be. Small tweaks will not bring big results. We need big change.

Lastly, the editorial asks a key question: When many Oregonians have lost trust in all institutions, both private and government, how can we ask them to accept publicly-administered, tax-funded health care?

This question is absolutely critical to our task force. The answer lies with everyone in Oregon who wants sustainable, affordable, quality health care for themselves, their families, their employees and their community. I ask the editors of The Bulletin, the readers of The Bulletin and Oregonians everywhere to be advocates for single -payer health care: better care to more people for less money.

Do you have a point you’d like to make or an issue you feel strongly about? Submit a letter to the editor or a guest column.