SACRAMENTO At some point over the past couple of weeks, the notion of 2007 being "the year of healthcare reform" crossed the threshold from being an abstract political slogan to becoming a real possibility with concrete consequences for all Californians.

The signs of a hardening sense of reality are emerging almost daily around the capital:

- The majority Democratic leaders in the Legislature amended their healthcare plans to include hard data about costs, and those bills are headed toward votes in the Senate and Assembly in the next two weeks.

- A big business coalition headed by Safeway was formed to promote the concept of comprehensive reform and provide political cover for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and others who have embraced the idea.

- The California Chamber of Commerce, a tenacious critic of mandates that would require employers to provide health benefits to workers or else pay a fee to the state, placed the legislative reform proposals on its annual "job-killer" list. The list targets the proposals that the chamber believes would be most damaging to its members.

- Blue Cross, the state's largest health insurer, launched a public relations and advertising campaign designed to generate public opposition to a key component of Schwarzenegger's proposal to require insurance companies to sell coverage to everyone, regardless of age, occupation or health condition.

- Blue Shield and the Service Employees International Union joined forces in a coalition that plans to air television ads supporting reform plans.

The battle for the hearts and minds of Californians has begun, and polling shows at the outset that the public is in the mood for some action.

A March survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 71 percent of California adults believe the state's healthcare system is in need of "major changes" and an even stronger majority 75 percent think that it's "a good idea" that employers be required to provide healthcare benefits to workers.

Strikingly, the survey found that people with insurance are almost as likely (70 percent) as those without insurance (73 percent) to believe the system is in need of major change.

"The people who have insurance tell us they're satisfied with what they have," pollster Mark Baldassare said.

"So you might wonder, 'What's the problem?' It's because of the insecurity people have about their own healthcare."

There are four active reform proposals in Sacramento. Three are encompassed in bills soon to be voted on, but Schwarzenegger has chosen not to put his proposal into legal language.

Instead, his aides are negotiating with legislative leaders in the hope of incorporating the governor's ideas into a bill that will be acceptable both to the Democratic-controlled Legislature and the governor.

As those negotiations proceed, here's an overview of what the plans propose and their differences:

Q: Will any of the proposals change the status quo for the majority of working Californians who are insured through job-based coverage?

A: The three leading plans those proposed by Schwarzenegger, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Alameda would not directly affect people who already have insurance.

The fourth plan, a single-payer system proposed by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and backed by the California Nurses Association, would eliminate private insurance. All Californians, including those who are now insured, would be covered by a single government insurance.

Schwarzenegger and others argue that those who now have job-based insurance would indirectly benefit by reforms that would provide universal or near-universal coverage. They argue that hospitals and doctors now pass along their costs for treating uninsured patients by raising rates for those who do have insurance. The governor calls this "a hidden tax," which he estimates at about $1,200 for the average insured California family.

Lowering or at least containing costs for the currently insured is a priority because the premiums that employers pay have doubled since 2001 and the amount paid for by workers has climbed by 128 percent.

Q: How many additional people would be covered?

A: The Schwarzenegger and Kuehl plans envision universal coverage, although the administration acknowledges that there would always be a sizable number of people, perhaps 1 million, who would be without coverage at any given time.

The Nuñez and Perata plans would extend coverage to about 3.4 million Californians, or roughly 70 percent of those now without insurance.

Q: Who will benefit by expanding insurance coverage?

A: Working people, often in low-wage occupations, whose employers do not now provide health benefits. They make too much to qualify for government-subsidized healthcare, but not enough to afford expensive individual insurance policies. Estimates are that about 85 percent of the 4.9 million uninsured in California either work or are dependents of a working adult. Slightly more than half are between the ages of 21 and 44.

Q: Would everyone be required to have insurance?

A: Schwarzenegger proposes that anyone who doesn't have job-based coverage and doesn't qualify for government-subsidized insurance would have to pay for an individual policy on his or her own.

That would mean any individual making more than $25,525 a year would have to buy a policy.

The Perata plan would place such a mandate on any individual with an annual income greater than $40,840.

The Nuñez plan does not include an individual mandate.

Q: How much would these proposals cost?

A: The governor's plan would cost an estimated $12.1 billion a year, the Nuñez plan $8.3 billion and the Perata plan $10.9 billion.

Q: Who would pay?

A: Under all plans, most of the added costs would be paid by employers that do not currently offer health benefits to workers.

Schwarzenegger proposes a 4 percent payroll tax on such firms, and the Nuñez and Perata plans envision a 7.5 percent payroll tax.

The Kuehl plan would require an 8 percent payroll tax.

In addition, workers would pay a portion of insurance premiums, based on a sliding scale depending on their incomes.

The Nuñez and Perata plans would require employers to structure worker contributions so they would pay in pretax dollars, meaning that the federal government would subsidize a portion of their costs.

Q: Any other fees?

A: The Schwarzenegger plan calls for a 4 percent fee on gross receipts of hospitals and a 2 percent fee on doctors' revenues.

The other plans do not propose fees on providers.

The administration's rationale is that its plan alone calls for a substantial increase in reimbursement fees paid to those who provide treatment to Medi-Cal patients, and the net effect is that hospitals and doctors would see an increase in revenues.