Pennsylvania is sick. At least that’s what Governor Ed Rendell thinks.

That’s why he… Pennsylvania is sick. At least that’s what Governor Ed Rendell thinks.

That’s why he recently introduced the “Prescription for Pennsylvania,” a program designed to provide access to health insurance for the 800,000 Pennsylvanians who are currently uninsured. While there is widespread consensus that healthcare coverage should be expanded and made more affordable, there is just as much debate about how it should be done.

Rendell’s “Prescription” includes a provision known as Covering All Pennsylvanians, which aims to provide low-cost health insurance to employees of small businesses who do not receive insurance through their employer.

Workers would pay between $10 and $70 per month for their coverage, and their employer would pay what Rendell describes as a “fair share tax,” which would be 3 percent of the total wages paid by the business to its employees.

The notion of a new tax on businesses has drawn an immediate firestorm of controversy from lawmakers, and legislators on both sides of the aisle have been quick to draw battle lines.

“I credit Governor Rendell for addressing this important issue,” Sen. Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills, said.

“I think CAP is a worthy investment because preventive and timely care would significantly reduce the long-term costs of health care that all Pennsylvanians end up paying through cost shifting,” Rep. Mike Sturla, D-Lancaster, said.

But others disagree.

Hailing from the same region as Sturla, Rep. Scott Boyd, R-Lancaster, said, “Gov. Rendell’s tax-and-spend plan puts your family’s health care in the hands of the lowest bidder.

“His government-driven health care system would result in a one-size-fits-all model, ignoring individual patient needs. Rendell’s plan does little to lower healthcare costs and even less to insure vulnerable working Pennsylvanians who fear losing their healthcare.”

In the hopes of bridging the divide in the state legislature, both Costa and Sturla introduced legislation similar to Governor Rendell’s without the 3 percent Fair Share Tax. They believe their bills will be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans.

“I recognize the controversial nature of this provision and believe it could hamper serious discussion on this crucial issue in the Senate,” Costa said, in reference to Rendell’s proposed Fair Share Tax.

Costa’s proposed basic coverage would include “preliminary and annual health assessments, emergency care, inpatient and outpatient care; prescription drugs, medical supplies and equipment; emergency dental care; maternity care; skilled nursing, home health and hospice care; chronic disease management; preventive and wellness care; and behavioral health services.”

However, some critics have rejected the notion of any government interference in the healthcare process.

“We understand the rising costs of healthcare premiums, but the governor’s solution to simply raise taxes will only give the appearance of solving the problem,” rep. Kathy Watson, R-Bucks, said.

“We need real, workable solutions to what is a multi-faceted problem. Employers struggle now to provide health insurance to their employees. How can the solution be punishing them with a tax if they cannot afford to provide insurance?”

But Senator Costa sees it differently.

“We need to work…and find a way to address the issue to help us get this legislation moving forward,” he said. “To do nothing is not an option.”