Reply
Tue 24 Jul, 2007 05:50 pm
Cheese Headcases
Wisconsin reveals the cost of "universal" health care.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:01 a.m.
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.
WSJOnline
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free". P.J.O'Rourke.
Yeah, well, so are war and contract agreements.
Interesting that we have so few replies.
Not so interesting considering that most of us know nothing of the Wisconsin plan so couldn't argue either way.
Quote: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
$510/month amounts to an increase of $6120/year in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.
ossobuco wrote:Yeah, well, so are war and contract agreements.
Sure. Just look at Germany and France (I assume you know their armies would have trouble fighting off a group of angry girl scouts). Double-digit unemployment, high taxes, low growth. *Free* health care, though.
But, after you've cut the entire war and all of the military, where do you make cuts after that?
HokieBird wrote:Sure. Just look at Germany and France (I assume you know their armies would have trouble fighting off a group of angry girl scouts). Double-digit unemployment, high taxes, low growth. *Free* health care, though.
But, after you've cut the entire war and all of the military, where do you make cuts after that?
Let me venture a guess: you know zilch about the German health care system. Right?
HokieBird wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Interesting that we have so few replies.
Telling, isn't it?
Telling about what?
Miller has posted, I don't know, about a hundred different threads with the same topic over the last week. It's boring to respond to all of them.
Cycloptichorn
Again, HookieBird, what do you know about the German health system - or the French, if you'r better with that?
Also three topics on "Sicko." Cognitive therapy helps.
HokieBird wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Interesting that we have so few replies.
Telling, isn't it?
It won't hit home, until we have the misfortune of having socialized medicine and then there'll be post after post of complaints.
Live and learn.
Miller wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:HokieBird wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Interesting that we have so few replies.
Telling, isn't it?
Telling about what?
Miller has posted, I don't know, about a hundred different threads with the same topic over the last week. It's boring to respond to all of them.
Cycloptichorn
Why?

Because they are asinine. Look, you are against a universal health care system. We get it. You don't need to make any other new topics to drive this point home. You could have put each and every one of those posts in a single thread, instead of cluttering up the place.
Cycloptichorn
Miller wrote:HokieBird wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Interesting that we have so few replies.
Telling, isn't it?
It won't hit home, until we have the misfortune of having socialized medicine and then there'll be post after post of complaints.
Live and learn.

Whereas right now, we have post after post praising your current system...
old europe wrote:Miller wrote:HokieBird wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Interesting that we have so few replies.
Telling, isn't it?
It won't hit home, until we have the misfortune of having socialized medicine and then there'll be post after post of complaints.
Live and learn.

Whereas right now, we have post after post praising your current system...
And...you have the right to ignore any post, don't you?
Cycloptichorn wrote:Miller wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:HokieBird wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Interesting that we have so few replies.
Telling, isn't it?
Telling about what?
Miller has posted, I don't know, about a hundred different threads with the same topic over the last week. It's boring to respond to all of them.
Cycloptichorn
Why?

Because they are asinine. Look, you are against a universal health care system. We get it. You don't need to make any other new topics to drive this point home. You could have put each and every one of those posts in a single thread, instead of cluttering up the place.
Cycloptichorn
Please feel free to ignore my posts if you're not interested.
Miller wrote:old europe wrote:Miller wrote:HokieBird wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Interesting that we have so few replies.
Telling, isn't it?
It won't hit home, until we have the misfortune of having socialized medicine and then there'll be post after post of complaints.
Live and learn.

Whereas right now, we have post after post praising your current system...
And...you have the right to ignore any post, don't you?

Oh, of course. But I could also post so other people reading these threads won't mistakenly assume that universal health care and socialized medicine are necessarily the same thing...