1
   

Free health care is expensive

 
 
Miller
 
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
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,405 • Replies: 37
No top replies

 
HokieBird
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 08:42 pm
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free". P.J.O'Rourke.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 09:45 pm
Yeah, well, so are war and contract agreements.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2007 10:36 pm
Interesting that we have so few replies.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 09:18 am
Not so interesting considering that most of us know nothing of the Wisconsin plan so couldn't argue either way.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 09:25 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 09:27 am
Quote:
As it happens, primary-care doctors, including internists, family physicians, and pediatricians, are in short supply across the country. Their numbers dropped 6% relative to the general population from 2001 to 2005, according to the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington. The proportion of third-year internal medicine residents choosing to practice primary care fell to 20% in 2005, from 54% in 1998.

A principal reason: too little money for too much work. Median income for primary-care doctors was $162,000 in 2004, the lowest of any physician type, according to a study by the Medical Group Management Association in Englewood, Colo. Specialists earned a median of $297,000, with cardiologists and radiologists exceeding $400,000.

At the same time, the workweek for primary-care doctors has lengthened, and they are seeing more patients. The advent of managed care in the mid-1990s added to the burden as insurance companies called on primary-care doctors to serve as gatekeepers for their patients' referrals to specialty medicine.
0 Replies
 
HokieBird
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 09:59 am
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?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 10:01 am
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?
0 Replies
 
HokieBird
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 10:02 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Interesting that we have so few replies.


Telling, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 10:04 am
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
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 10:48 am
Again, HookieBird, what do you know about the German health system - or the French, if you'r better with that?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 11:20 am
Also three topics on "Sicko." Cognitive therapy helps.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 05:32 pm
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? Shocked
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 05:34 pm
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. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 05:38 pm
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? Shocked


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
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 05:38 pm
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. Embarrassed



Whereas right now, we have post after post praising your current system...
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 05:40 pm
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. Embarrassed



Whereas right now, we have post after post praising your current system...


And...you have the right to ignore any post, don't you? Cool
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 05:41 pm
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? Shocked


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. Cool
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2007 05:50 pm
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. Embarrassed



Whereas right now, we have post after post praising your current system...


And...you have the right to ignore any post, don't you? Cool



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...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Free health care is expensive
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2025 at 12:58:37