Last week, Gov. Ed Rendell told civic-minded health-care advocates to stop "wasting" their energy by supporting single-payer health insurance.

Charlie Crystle is CEO of Mission Research Software in Lancaster, Pa. (charlie.crystle@missionresearch.com).

The diverse group had gathered to discuss the merits of two radically different approaches to solving the health-care crisis in Pennsylvania: Senate Bill 300 (The Family and Business Healthcare Security Act, a single-payer plan that would cover everyone), and Gov. Rendell's plan, which would require passage of 47 separate bills and is heavily backed by the health-insurance industry.

I support Senate Bill 300, and the energy I devote to getting all Pennsylvanians covered is not wasted. To the contrary: fighting for single-payer is fighting for the survival of our business community and economic stability.

My growing software company's health-insurance premiums have more than doubled over the past four years. This is not sustainable and the governor's bill would do nothing to change it; rather, it would preserve the status quo of the failed "market" system, which actually provides more of a monopoly than a competitive market. SB 300, in contrast, would ensure full coverage for all Pennsylvania residents, regardless of their employment or social status.

Businesses would pool their premiums into a trust fund, which would pay private providers of medical care, and employees would contribute 3 percent of their pay to the fund. This would amount to about $25 a week for someone earning $40,000 annually, or about a latte a day.

The business premium would be 10 percent of payroll; currently, my company pays 17 percent of payroll for health insurance, while manufacturers usually pay 25 to 30 percent because their wages tend to be less per person than those of software companies. Businesses also would benefit through a 50 percent cut in worker's compensation insurance, the medical part of which would be covered under this plan.

These significant cost savings to businesses would allow them to invest more in growth, jobs and salaries. Major manufacturers likely would begin to relocate plants from other states to enjoy the economic benefits of this kind of health-care system in Pennsylvania. The state's economy would boom, jobs would increase and both wages and tax revenues would rise.

SB 300 also would eliminate wasteful and redundant costs caused by inefficient insurance administration, costs that currently are shouldered by doctors, hospitals, businesses and individuals. The savings could be shifted to promote healthier lifestyles, health education and preventive care.

Finally, doctors no longer would have to practice defensive medicine, as malpractice lawsuits could be replaced by a no-fault system with a fair schedule of payments to victims of malpractice, paid out by the fund. Doctors could practice real medicine instead of cover-your-butt medicine.

While the bill would eliminate malpractice insurance, it would not ask for financial contributions from doctors. I believe the bill should be amended to have doctors pay 30 percent of current malpractice-insurance costs into the fund so they also have some skin in the game. Every doctor I speak with supports this approach.

Mr. Rendell's plan, on the other hand, requires the passage of a complicated set of 47 bills that would extend the current costly patchwork of government programs; do nothing to eliminate administrative, sales, marketing or executive costs and fail to address defensive medicine. Worse, it would not cover everyone.

When he announced his bill, Mr. Rendell was surrounded by the well-paid CEOs of health-insurance companies. The CEO of Highmark made close to $3 million last year, which would have paid for two MRI machines or covered about 1,000 people under SB300. Among the largest contributors to the governor's last campaign were insurance companies and the insurance lobby. Mr. Rendell's bill is an insurance-industry handout, and businesses outside the insurance industry should be livid.

When I met with Rosemary Greco, head of Mr. Rendell's Office of "Healthcare Reform," a day after the Harrisburg Patriot News endorsed the single-payer bill back in 2004, she said single-payer was not even on the table. More recently, Mr. Rendell's health-care advisory panel of 100 citizens reported that single-payer was never presented as an option; no one ever challenged the status quo of the costly health-insurance industry.

As a businessperson in the state's technology sector, I encourage other businesses to look seriously at SB 300 and to condemn the governor's costly, inadequate approach. You can either continue with ever-escalating health-care costs; inadequate insurance coverage; high insurance-company sales, marketing and executive spending; costly ER visits by the uninsured, and businesses relocating to states with better systems, or you can demand change.

Call your representatives and ask them to support the House bill or SB 300, under which everyone would be covered, businesses would pay less and doctors could get back to being doctors.