http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118523871060575674.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks Cheese Headcases July 24, 2007; Page A14 When Louis Brandeis praised the 50 states as "laboratories of democracy," he didn't claim that every policy experiment would work. So we hope the eyes of America will turn to Wisconsin, and the effort by Madison Democrats to make that "progressive" state a petri dish for government-run health care. This exercise is especially instructive, because it reveals where the "single-payer," universal coverage folks end up. Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate have dropped the Washington pretense of incremental health-care reform and moved directly to passing a plan to insure every resident under the age of 65 in the state. And, wow, is "free" health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker. Employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages. Wisconsin businesses would have to compete with out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined. This employment tax is on top of the $1 billion grab bag of other levies that Democratic Governor Jim Doyle proposed and the tax-happy Senate has also approved, including a $1.25 a pack increase in the cigarette tax, a 10% hike in the corporate tax, and new fees on cars, trucks, hospitals, real estate transactions, oil companies and dry cleaners. In all, the tax burden in the Badger state could rise to 20% of family income, which is slightly more than the average federal tax burden. "At least federal taxes pay for an Army and Navy," quips R.J. Pirlot of the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce business lobby. As if that's not enough, the health plan includes a tax escalator clause allowing an additional 1.5 percentage point payroll tax to finance higher outlays in the future. This could bring the payroll tax to 16%. One reason to expect costs to soar is that the state may become a mecca for the unemployed, uninsured and sick from all over North America. The legislation doesn't require that you have a job in Wisconsin to qualify, merely that you live in the state for at least 12 months. Cheesehead nation could expect to attract health-care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes. Proponents use the familiar argument for national health care that this will save money (about $1.8 billion a year) through efficiency gains by eliminating the administrative costs of private insurance. And unions and some big businesses with rich union health plans are only too happy to dump these liabilities onto the government. But those costs won't vanish; they'll merely shift to all taxpayers and businesses. Small employers that can't afford to provide insurance would see their employment costs rise by thousands of dollars per worker, while those that now provide a basic health insurance plan would have to pay $400 to $500 a year more per employee. The plan is also openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs. Private companies are making modest progress in sweating out health-care inflation by making patients more cost-conscious through increased copayments, health savings accounts, and incentives for wellness. The Wisconsin program moves in the opposite direction: It reduces out-of-pocket copayments, bars money-saving HSA plans, and increases the number of mandated medical services covered under the plan. So where will savings come from? Where they always do in any government plan: Rationing via price controls and, as costs rise, waiting periods and coverage restrictions. This is Michael Moore's medical dream state. The last line of defense against this plan are the Republicans who run the Wisconsin House. So far they've been unified and they recently voted the Senate plan down. Democrats are now planning to take their ideas to the voters in legislative races next year, and that's a debate Wisconsinites should look forward to. At least Wisconsin Democrats are admitting how much it will cost Americans to pay for government-run health care. Would that Washington Democrats were as forthright.
In a related story about the Democrats' thirst to control every aspect of our existence, apparently there needs to be incentives against eating the foods, healthy foods even, you all enjoy. God Bless the Democrats! They will surely save us from ourselves yet! Remember all that hysterically shrieking coming from the left about data mining phone records? Fun comments at the end ... Enjoy! http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/No_tangerines_for_you.html July 24, 2007 No tangerines for you? The politics of global warming got very concrete, and oddly difficult, in a meeting with local environmentalists in the coastal town of McClellanville today, where Elizabeth Edwards raised in passing the importance of relying on locally-grown fruit. "We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit. "I live in North Carolina. I'll probably never eat a tangerine again," she said, speaking of a time when the fruit is reaches the price that it "needs" to be. Edwards had talked about "sacrifice," at the meeting, but Elizabeth's suggestion illustrated just how difficult it is to sell the specifics of sacrifice. Asked about her comment immediately after the event, John Edwards avoided the question twice, then said he isn't sure. "Would I add to the price of food?" he asked. "I'd have to think about that." UPDATE: Just to be clear, he's not talking about a food tax. The basic point is that any plan that imposes new costs on carbon emissions is going to make anything that's transported long distances with fossil fuels cost more. It is, in a way, a moment of clarity in this debate.
OK Martin, but what would be cheaper than your idea of saving govt. health care money (which should be allocated to AMERICANS) by providing preventative care to illegal aliens, would be to prevent them from entering into the US illegally thereby reducing if not eliminating the need for health care for illegal aliens. Talk about a win-win situation. If you want to take an honest humanitarian approach, which I will, is it really humane to allow a nation like Mexico to effectively deport its poorest, most desperate people, to tear their families apart and make their men leave, so they can come to the US to make a living? Before Bush Clinton's NAFTA we didn't have the illegal alien invasion that we have now. Mexicans seemed more content to stay employed in Mexico. I don't doubt at all that you are correct in your ideas that preventative health care is less costly that emergency room care, but its no solution at all, and to call it one, is something I would expect from a politician and / or the federal govt.
"Before Bush Clinton's NAFTA we didn't have the illegal alien invasion that we have now. Mexicans seemed more content to stay employed in Mexico. " and that's exactly what Perot said would happen
There are options other than a taxpayer-funded system of universal health care. One option would be to require employers to provide it. That would create one problem but solve two others. It would be an additional expense for some, but it would also level the playing field and prevent free riding. You really would also need a mandate on the unemployed to have insurance, but that is trickier. You could require it to get a driver's license I guess, just like you have to have liability insurance to get plates. Some of it would have to be paid for by the state. You'd also have to deal with illegals. Could they get state-funded insurance? What would you do about the ones who didn't get it? Clearly the logical answer is to deport them, but that doesn't seem likely. Suddenly the current system doesn't seem so terrible.
no, he said the opposite of what you say, because what you say is the opposite of what i said, which is the same as what he (Perot) said he said that NAFTA would increase illegal immigration from Mexico and it did
Good, so you agree that we have to provide emergency life saving care to everyone. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page there. Then all I'm saying is that ALSO providing very basic, free public health services is likely to actually SAVE money overall. The net cost of very basic free public healthcare could very well be NEGATIVE due to the savings in emergency care. This is not such a hard concept, why do I feel like I'm pulling teeth here? If you can show that I am wrong, great. I'm not a healthcare economist, I was clear from the very start that I don't have all the answers. Although I have seen many years ago scientific studies from (IIRC) Ireland and Scandinavia which showed that free preventative care paid for itself in those societies. This was in the scientific journal Nature by the way. I'm afraid I can't give you a cite, it was a long time ago. But so far all you can do is hoot & holler & rant & rave about not giving an inch to the INVASION. Look, all I'm talking about is SAVING MONEY. If you're happy with a system that treats illegal immigrants in the most expensive possible way just because of your blind stubbornness about the INVASION, well that's not so smart is it? Martin
Many illegal immigrants and other uninsured people go to emergency rooms for routine care, or for routine conditions that have gotten to an acute stage. Many of these problems are far less expensive to treat proactively, with appointments, normal business hours, staff physicians or physician assistants, etc. Emergency rooms are for emergencies and they are a very expensive way to provide basic care. Substituting free emergency care with free preventative and routine care can occur at a net cost savings. Genuine acute care, like when someone gets run over by a car or has a heart attack, obviously still has to get treated in the emergency room, and is still very expensive, whether the victim is a citizen or an illegal immigrant. There's nothing we can do about that. As for my "plan," I didn't propose a plan, I am just pointing out some basic facts about health care in the United States. Martin