democrats Try to Sneak Ripoff Universal Health Care in Wisconsin
Cheese Headcases
Wisconsin reveals the cost of "universal" health care.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
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.
Copywrite 2007 - Barry G.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by MOS— 2007/08/01 @ 10:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/08/01 @ 10:43 PM — (Reply)
Thanks again, Dems!
Comment by Brooke— 2007/08/02 @ 03:32 PM — (Reply)
You are one wacked out right winger. BTW, two words, spell checker, get one.
Comment by Patriot1— 2007/08/03 @ 06:11 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/08/05 @ 01:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/08/05 @ 06:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/08/05 @ 06:54 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/08/06 @ 12:07 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/08/03 @ 09:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2007/08/05 @ 12:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/08/06 @ 08:49 AM — (Reply)
I think it's hilarious that you folks' best chance for a republican president is a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control former mayor of one of America's most liberal cities. The true conservatives running on the GOP ticket are polling at 0-3 percent. It speaks volumes about the direction of the country. THE BUSH DOCTRINE IS OVER!
Comment by patriot1— 2007/08/11 @ 06:50 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/08/11 @ 08:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/08/11 @ 07:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/08/11 @ 10:10 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/08/11 @ 10:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/08/12 @ 09:15 AM — (Reply)
So your pro-choice republican darling is Fred 'the really bad actor' Thompson.
Comment by patriot1— 2007/08/13 @ 12:10 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/08/13 @ 07:02 AM — (Reply)
Comment by riffran— 2007/08/15 @ 02:46 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/08/15 @ 11:46 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/08/15 @ 08:17 AM — (Reply)
Does anyone have any knowledge of polls that simply say "If you had the choice of voting for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama who would you vote for?" where to polling sample was of an equal number of Republicans, democrats and Independents?
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/08/15 @ 11:48 AM — (Reply)