Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Let Wisconsin Experiment with Socialized Medicine
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"On, Wisconsin ... run the ball clear down the field!"

It's time to amend the Wisconsin football song so we can cheer on the Badger State's politicians as they move toward health-care socialism.

The Wall Street Journal editorial-page editors are upset that Wisconsin's state Senate passed "Healthy Wisconsin", which will give health insurance to every person in the state. Of course, the Journal editors are right in saying that the plan is "openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs" and that the "Cheesehead nation could expect to attract health-care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes."

In addition, as the Journal put it, "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."

And, of course, down the road it will cost much more than that. Even the $15 billion is based on the usual Pollyannaish assumptions such as millions in savings "from putting more emphasis on primary care."

As usual, most of the new taxes will be imposed on employers. Progressives believe money taken from them doesn't cost anything. Rich corporations will simply waste less on lavish perks and excess profits. But taxes on business are often paid by workers, stockholders and consumers. Businesses that can't pass the taxes on to someone else will close or move out of state.

But progressives are oblivious to this fact. They see Wisconsin becoming a fairyland of health happiness supervised by the 16-person "authority" that will oversee the plan. Socialism will work this time because the "right" people will be in charge.

Does it never occur to the progressives that the legislature's intrusion into private contracts is one reason health care and health insurance are expensive now? The average annual health-insurance premium for a family in Wisconsin is $4,462 partly because Wisconsin imposes 29 mandates on health insurers: Every policy must cover chiropractors, dentists, genetic testing, etc. Think chiropractors are quacks? Too bad. You still must pay them to treat people in your state.

Want to buy insurance from another state, like nearby Michigan, where an average policy costs less? Too bad. It's against the law to buy across state lines. Your state's Big Brother knows best.

The WSJ writes about a "last line of defense against" Healthy Wisconsin, but I say, let Wisconsin try it! Their suffering will be for the greater good.

As I interview people for my health-care TV special scheduled to run on ABC this September, I'm struck by how many hate the current semi-free-market system America has now. I say "semi" because it's not a free market when about half the health-care bill is funded by government. But it's still better than socialism. It allows for innovation like the creation of better drugs, pain-relieving joint replacements, artificial hearts, LASIK eye surgery, and who-knows-what-else that may reduce pain and extend my life.

Socialism will kill that, but people seem to like socialism, at least when it's sold as free stuff from politicians. Wisconsin's Capital Times reports that "two-thirds of Wisconsin residents support the Democratic plan -- even when presented with opponents' arguments that it would be a 'job killer' that could lead to higher taxes. Said Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, one of the plan's sponsors, 'Everything we have heard [against the plan], we put in the poll. And it still comes back at 67 percent approval.'"

That's why America needs "Healthy Wisconsin." The fall of the Soviet Union deprived us of the biggest example of how socialism works. We need laboratories of failure to demonstrate what socialism is like. All we have now is Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the U.S. Post Office, and state motor-vehicle departments.

It's not enough. Wisconsin can show the other 49 states what "universal" coverage is like.

I feel bad for the people in Wisconsin. They already suffer from little job creation, and the Packers aren't winning, but it's better to experiment with one state than all of America.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
When Will We Learn?
Didn't Tennessee already try this? With ABSOLUTELY DISASTROUS results?

It has been said that a Wise Man learns from other's mistakes. Apparently, the voters of Wisconsin are not wise enough.

re: When Will We Learn?
Unca Alby, comparing socialists to wise men won't get you very far.

I have advocated this approach to socialized pipe-dreams for quite some time. If certain states want to commit suicide, that's fine by me. God bless Federalism.

Does anybody know
As a person looking for grad schools I wonder does this include out of state students? If so the only place that will benefit will be the collages, as students will flock to the schools. Well that is until tuition prices go thru the roof. If anyone knows please let me know.

On a different note I know a couple of farming families from Wisconsin and pray that this does not go thru it will kill them.

Descent into decay...
Speaking as an Oregonian, I can already tell Wisconsinites what will happen. Stossel is right, free-loaders will descend to Wisconsin for the "free" health care, paid for by both employers and workers of the state, apparently. The Oregon Health Plan, which is a semi-socialized medicine scheme, has led to a rapid influx of people from throughout the continent, many of which are illegal aliens.

I've been asking a question around about universal health care, that if I didn't want it could I personally opt out, and keep the money that would be otherwise taken from me to pay for a service I didn't want or need. Evidently, the socialists in Wisconsin have found an answer to this: Not unless I don't want to work, or own a business.

Is this freedom? Why is it fair that I have to pay for the health care of other citizens if I don't want to? Why does my health give me the right to have government take money out of your wallet and give it to me?


Mencken said it best
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -H. L. Mencken

If you want to know how well UHC works
don't listen to Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, or Daily Kos. Listen to someone who actually lives under such a system. Check out the post by "skiddles," an Australian commenting on his country's "wonderful" UHC system, over on this thread:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2007/08/06/laptop_liberals_plan_takeover_at_yearlykos?page=full&comments=true

Living in Canada for 7 years under a socialized health care system, I can attest that it is a disaster of titanic proportions. All appears well initially and the band plays on. It may take 20+ years for the thing to sink, but sink it will given enough time. Look no further than the U.K. and where they are after 40+ years of universal health care. Consider also that today the average physician in the UK earns precisely ONE FOURTH what his/her US counterpart earns. Then, ask youself what kind of impact this is going to have on quality and timeliness. Further, ask yourself who is going to foot the bill and whether the beneficiaries will be limited to our own citizenry or not.

It isn't rocket science.

Even if Wiconsin does try it,
the other socialists in the rest of the country will learn nothing. Each one will be absolutly convinced that if they were running it, it would be a utopia.

They haven't learned
Wisconsin has already had the experience with this with their welfare system that brought numerous mooches across from Illinois to the towns just across the border. I believe that welfare scheme was eventually dismantled, or at least cut back when Thompson was governor.

The socialist schemes can be made to sound real good in theory because in theory, you get to ignore reality and pick your neighbor's pockets without consequences.


On The Subject of UHC
If the citizens of either Wisconsin, or the rest of this country want a better health care system, then they will need to confront a stark reality: It is THEY that must change. Be ye doctor, patient, nurse, hospital administrator, politician, or whatever, you have to change first. Otherwise, your dreaming.

""Sicko Socialized Medicine
Let Wisconsin experiment with Sicko Socialized Medicine for its "greater good."

Coolnout
Do you really think that universal healthcare won't be available to illegals? Of course it will! That's because healthcare will become another "right" available to all. Only instead of just covering emergency care, we will be paying for everything they want and then some. Does little Pedro need braces on his teeth? Just make it across the border and he can have them. Gauranteed, compliments of you and me the American taxpayer!

2 cents
Many people say they want socialized medicine so they can fix healthcare- I say you have to fix healthcare if you want socialized medicine.
I think doctors contributed a lot to the problem (of course, years before I was one myself). In the spring of 1980 I sat in my first basic economics class where we discussed the "crisis" of escalating health insurance and medical care costs (we had no idea!). Groups from industry and insurance went to the various medical organizations and asked for help in forging solutions. The medical community's answer: we're going to keep robbing the system by charging as much as we can as often as we can (since no one is paying for it themselves anyway).
A lot of what proponents of socialized medicine say I could buy into, except that I know that government has a sort of "Midas touch"- everything it touches turns into s**t.

coolnout
Do you really believe consumption patterns won't change when healthcare becomes a "right"?
Hey, want to go away for the weekend? Don't feed baby or grandma for a while. Then hospitalize them for dehydration for a few days.
Trust me, I've seen it happen.

Mr. Stossel--fact-checking, please!
"Every policy must cover chiropractors, dentists, genetic testing, etc. Think chiropractors are quacks? Too bad. You still must pay them to treat people in your state."

I've lived in Wisconsin for almost 40 years. While it's true I had dental and chiropractic coverage as part of my insurance while teaching public school, my insurance now does not cover either. I buy a separate policy that covers some dental and, if I need a chiropractor, I pay out of pocket. I can't believe I'm the only Wisconsinite who isn't covered in those areas.

I agree with your main thesis, but please make sure all your data is correct.

Progressives are never participants
in their own programs, that it why they are so insistant on their implementation. Further, the liberal policy makers of any party do not deal with the results of failed programs, which tend to attract parasites/voters. What attracts more than promising the results of those who play by the rules to those who don't?

Private health care for them- rationed health care for you.

Private school for their kids- public edutainment for yours.

Hybrids and migraine inducing flourescent bulbs for you- business as usual for them.

Exclusive gated neighborhoods for them- illegal invaded crime scenes for you.

This should tell the citizenry all we need to know, butr it doesn't, because the supporters of socialism are either protected from it or support it because it is better than what they've created in their lives.

Wisconsin Education System
mathactor thinking of going to a Wisconsin grad school -----. Thinking of getting your share of stupidity? Its really hard to believe that Wisconsin's legislators are more dumb than the Washington, D.C. group.

Olddoc, yes!
We already HAVE healthcare as a right in the form of emergency rooms! Ours are innundated with charity care cases, often for matters that most people who pay wouldn't seek medical attention over. Our Planned Parenthood clinics offer health care regardless of ability to pay, and they are struggling and are swamped with peoplde who can pay but don't.

In my line of work, I can say that most of the parents of the teens I work with afford exactly what they want to afford. Almost all of them have nicer cars and cell phones than I do, and certainly shop more than I do. Its especially galling to see elborate tattoos and professionally manicured nails on people complaining about healthcare costs. This is a common observation in my office.

Coolnout
Think its bad now? WAIT until its "organized".

From a personal standpoint, I have Lyme disease and will not be able to continue get the necessary treatment under socialized medicine- that's a promise ,not conjecture. If you or anyone you know has chronic Lyme, you know we are better off dead than untreated.

Coolnut
Tell me this...Do you think with National Health Care people will me more or less responsible with their health? Also, how much do you understand economics and the free market system?

Usage patterns will change..
I work with people who go to the doctor all the time for minors things. They take their kids for every cough and always have them on antibiotics, all because it only cost them a $10.00 co-pay. If it cost them more than $10 bucks, maybe they would let a common cold just run it course instead of wasting money and the doctors time. People will use something more if there is no upfront cost to them. What they don't understand that those of who actually get and go to work each day will being paying thru nose for that free health care.

SWARM!
I can't wait for the onslaught of the uninsured and unemployed. The leeches of society will crawl to any location that will give them something for free,(ask San Francisco). They may have to avoid the vacuum left from the working tax payers who will be running in the opposite direction.

I am concerned ..
that under the covers, the people in charge are so desperately seeking the New World Order that they are very well prepared to accept failure and acknolwledge it upfront and will confess that things won't operate as they are supposed to for several generation; until the New Man is created.
In the meantime, they will require federal bailouts. As the farmers in these states lose their land, the mega food corps will just have to purchase the land. Mega-Corps and Big Government are friends. For all the posturing otherwise, the two groups of people have more to bond them than to seperate them.

Slowly the screw is being turned. But as always, why wouldn't you screw over a mass of people who have nothing to bring to the table but a childish and contemptible requirement that their every need, real and imagined, be met by someone else.

If you aren't part of the problem, more likely than not, your neighbor is. The sheer weight of numbers is the problem. Who says it can't happen here?

When will we learn? "Sowell vs. Krugman"
- the debate of the century.

There hasn't been anything like this since 1925, when Jennings and Darrow clashed in Dayton, TN - in the trial that came to be called the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Now, coming soon to a television screen near you - brought to you by the Fox(N) and CSPAN(Z) faux networks - a debate that will provide definitive answers to a divided nation on crucial economic questions of the century such as "What is the correct role of Government in American Economics".

A clash of Titans - panel leader Krugman (for the Left) and panel leader Sowell (for the Right).

....excerpt.....

Folks, in this series of debates, you will see policy experts frame important issues for the whole country, with facts and unequivocal analysis on subjects such as "Entitlements in general, and Universal Health Care in particular". With this background, none of our presidential candidates can posture and pander their way to electoral success at the expense of the country.

Read the article at http://voice.townhall.com

Coolnout
What does the economy havde to with health care for everyone? You mean besides everything, right? Health care costs money which is generated in the private sector. If there isn't enough money to pay for "healthcare for everyone"- there is no health care for anyone. There ISN'T enough money to purchase health care for everyone!

Even in existing failing socialized systems, limits are set on who can get care and what type of care can be obtained . We have no limits, no borders, and circling cadres of lawyers- conditions that don't apply to systems that fail in other countries- what do you think will happen here?

Want to see a socialized....
system check out the military system. I was a soldier for 22 years and I had serious problems with the healthcare. One is there is no such thing as a second opinion. It took me several years to get a knee fixed because the first exam had a comment stating that perhaps the injury was not real but imagined.

Also, there is the problem with health care rationing. This happended in the military system over and over again. The people that worked in the system were inefficient. It was really nice, for example, to have an 8:30 appointment with a doctor and show up and find out there are at least 20 people there with that same 8:30 appointment.

The attraction of socialized health care is the concept of "free." Free to who. Is it free to the taxpayer. The medical professionals will never work for free. Someone has to pay.

Regarding illegals. They are not entitled to medicaid or medicare by law. All we have to do is obey the law. Massive deportations would be a great idea. If you claim we cannot deport them all I say let's do the best that we can.

The type of experiment Wisconsin is engaging in can be very very expensive and ineffective.

Coolnout
I work in a field that features the very same dynamics you applaud for health care. I am part of a large, useless, and very expensive bureaucracy that is creating more of a need for itself than it is fixing. I have had supervisors that couldn't read, ones that scope out teens to get into porn when they are 18, and ones that couldn't speak English. They have all been promoted, and are making decisions for the "greater good" at higher levels- this will be true for unaccountable government health care.

You incorrectly assume "fixing" the problem lies in goverment control. Again- I have 24 years in big government , whose ONLY source of revenue comes from capitalism, and can assure you your thinking is very mistaken.

forder ....
you probably have a home with a big note on it. How does one walk away without forfeiting everything? If the productive sell and leave, it is a race for the door.

These guys in politics are Evil. What is it that people don't get about that? A long time ago, guys like Sowell and Reese warned us about the dilution of words and ethics. Anti-Abotion people are scoffed at, but we were warned that once this became common place and accepted, people would be hardened and almost anything would go.
Eminent domain. I understand that people are already being pushed from their homes for the new Mexican Highway invasion ... first we make news with test cases, and the clammer subsides.

We are being played by Evil people. Nothing and no one will stand in their way.

I like Rush and I like Hannity ... I don't think that they are Evil ... but when our spokes people carry water for these guys, you have to see how subtle this Evil is.

I said the Abortion word .... now watch how the entire site moves from the Evil of Socialist Health Care to the sanctity of 'Abortion RIghts'.


Coolnout
Let me understand: Failure to force American citizenry into rationed and substandard "health care" will somehow put us on the fast track to failure and end capitalism?

Where do you think money comes from in the first place?

Countervailing Powers
Since 1960 America has been a "Oligopoly".The efficiencies that so many yearn for have been absent.Yet most Americans speak as if free market economics are at work.They are NOT!Where countervailing powers fail to exist,the government must occupy that vacuum.Health -Care in America is controlled by Doctors,HMO,and Private Insurance.They also control the price and the system of delivery.How does a powerless public countervail these powers?They don't and therefore the government "MUST".If you attended any of Dr. Galbraith's lectures at Harvard, you would know what to do in this economic environment.Yes I know!That is why I find it hard to understand, why people reject government intervention at this point, in our Health-Care debate.When the American Consumer comes to understand Economics,then they will be capable of providing their own "COUNTERVAILING POWERS".WELL!!!

heallth care
hopefully we in the badger state still have enough republicans in the state assembly so that this proposal will never get off the ground. These people don't think of the true cost of their commie programs.

words that scare
Cliff mentioned the "A" word (abortion) and pondered that would strike fear into people...

However, it was this line of his that has me in a complete panic..

Eminent domain. I understand that people are already being pushed from their homes for the new Mexican Highway invasion ... first

Could someone please tell me when we VOTED to turn over parts of Kansas City to Mexico???

I keep hoping this is all a bad dream....

Stossel got it right
Unfortunately for my badger friends, it's better for one state to experiment with socialized medicine than everyone. But it's easy for me to say that, writing as I am from the highly taxed Empire State. We'll be brothers in misery.

Do you want lower health care costs? Inject more competition into the system. Let the badgers buy from Michigan. Why in heaven's name not? Can anyone give me a coherent reason why this is illegal? But we all know why. It's a power struggle, and taking away health care choices takes power away from politicians desperate to keep their own jobs.

And thank you John for metioning the U.S. Postal Service debacle. Kill this bureaucracy. Let FedEx, UPS, et al compete for our business. They're better at deliveries than the USPS anyway.

Iris, it not a bad dream
The ants have decided they will take the picnic from here, thank-you. It won't be long until near depletion for "the greater good".

Ants are notoriously bad at regeneration of resources- only taking and hoarding.

killer, I would imagine
Dr.Galbraith, for all his lofty pontifications, retains private health care for himself. Enough said.

Wisconsin Healthcare, socialized


Massachusetts has made it mandatory for all its residents to have health insurance. It is fine with my son Josh and I because I receive coverage by the state because of my present low income, but I'm not sure how it is with people that are forced to pay and couldn't afford to pay prior to this and I'm not sure how employers are handling it.

killer ...
you have a wonderful ability to manipulate language, but you can't manipulate the facts on this site. HMO ... Insurance Companies ... Big Governement ... different slices of the same cake. HMO were designed by congress .. Yes? With the approval of the insurance companies .. Yes?
Big Money loves Big Government as much as the little people do and for all the same reasons. Access to the government treasury. The difference here being, for the guys on top it is a realizable ambition, for the rubes on the bottom, they are to remain forever, shills and marks.
We really don't require the presense of a Hillary in our lives as a controlling authority. In a true measure of things, she has accomplished absolutely nothing. However, should you ever require medical care, don't visit some evil doctor ... ask your good government agent to cure you. Ask Hillary .. she is so vituous that the glow she emanates melts butter at fifty paces.


re: killer
"Yet most Americans speak as if free market economics are at work.They are NOT!"

No, free market economics aren't at work. That's part of the problem. Even now, the government is too involved with over-regulation and limits on interstate health care competition.

"Health -Care in America is controlled by Doctors,HMO,and Private Insurance."

I wish doctors were more in control.

"That is why I find it hard to understand, why people reject government intervention at this point, in our Health-Care debate."

Clear-headed consumers reject it because they see the results of government-run health care. Look north to the waiting lines in Canada. Or across the pond to the year-long waits for hernia operations in the UK. Or to the UK's higher mortality rates for prostate and breast cancer. Or look at their oppressive tax rates to pay for this swollen bureaucracy. It doesn't work. It never works. When government gets involved, the wheels fall off.

and, killer,
lawyers control more aspects of health care costs than doctors or insurance companies. There are more lawyers in public office than other members of the public. They are also responsible for the high cost of most things.

Bounce this one off of Dr.Galbraith.

Stossel nailed it
A great article, albeit a negatively predictive one. There is not a single instance of a country or locale with universal health care that stands up well. Perhaps the most palatable country with universal health care is Canada, and there are plenty of posts on TH alone that substantiate the long waits, serious restrictions and serious danger caused to patients by both, all because of university health care.

Government interference and government operation of anything points to disaster. Considerably freer market forces are what is needed, in my opinion, and NO government intervention.

real health care
We'd be better off with no one having ins., and everyone actually paying for services. Really outrageous prices that no one could afford would not survive in a no-ins. system, which is practically what the US had until the mid-60s with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid.

Now nearly everyone has some form of med. ins. and if not, all hosp.'s and clinics have to provide "charity" aid, which insured people pay for just as we pay for the uninsured driver through our car ins. The result is that prices are cost-pushed constantly to raise prices for services.

People think gov't health care will free them from priv. ins. restrictions. But tax-supported health care always has to have limits. In the UK, most people cannot get dialysis after 67 or heart surgery after 70. Dermatology is restricted after 80. Forget Cuba. Cuban refugees can tell you the hosp. may be free, but you better have relatives bring you food and drinks or you'll dehydrate and starve. Elective surgery in Canada means taking a trip to the US for med. care.

And consider the state of pub. ed. in the US. The people who will run universal health care anywhere are my former students who couldn't bring a pencil to class or remember where their lockers were. The rats in Walter Reade, one of the "best" VA hosp.'s, will be everywhere, because unionized healthcare administrators will have contracts like NYC custodians who only wash the cafeteria floors once a month and dump the trash once a week.

Oddly, as the UK works to add more privatization to its health system, the great socialist constructs of Finland and Sweden lower taxes and boost private sectors, and even France realizes it can't give everyone 6 wks.' vacation and unlimited med. access, America seems hellbent on repeating the errors other countries are moving to correct.

UHC: a foregone conclusion by 2009
Why?

Because to anyone that is even slightly left-of-center, it appears as a panacea. The rhetoric that is most often heard is: "If the US is the only Western democracy that doesn't 'protect all its citizens' clearly, there must be something wrong with US."

But how do conservatives view UHC? I refer not to the ivory-tower, intellectuals (and TH bloggers) - but real-world voters ..

I must confess that it has a seductive appeal - even for a conservative business owner like me. When I spend $250/mo/employee on health insurance, it is tempting to think of a nanny state stepping in, wiping my tears away, and writing that check on my behalf. It takes some thought to make a connection between that 'warm, fuzzy feeling' and the fact that with UHC, my six-figured annual business taxes will rise by at least 20%.

It is even more difficult for those Americans who are honest, hardworking, conservative and poor to take an ideological stance against UHC on the grounds that it is unfair.
...
Every entitlement is a stepping stone to another.
--------------------excerpt ends-----------------
Read the article "And 'free' health care for all..' which also makes reference to the July 24 WSJ OpinionJournal piece as does Stossel's article:
http://voice.townhall.com/g/654fd9b5-7314-4731-a311-90df415cbe80

Another Wisconsin perspective
As a resident of the badger state, I am disgusted with this plan for so many reasons. First, teh democratic state senate slipped this in on the last day so that there would be no real debate or investigation of the plan possible. It is part of a rediculous increase in our already top-10 tax levels.

Republicans quickly put forth a completely new budget, with no tax increase, and the budget committee is now trying to find a compromise. I hope that the compromise does not include this universal plan, because I will no longer be a resident of this state if it is.

What is also not understood is that the "free" program will cost taxpaying (working) families twice as much as whatever they currently have. This is because most people pay for their insurance through one person's work and it is deducted from one paycheck. Under the new plan, both working parents (and any working children) will pay for the plan, effectively doubling the premium that is paid.

My wife fears that this will go through, and I had been confident that it was just too stupid to succeed. Now, I have been forced to accept it as a real possibility.


UHC will work .. and grow ..
The scary part is that UHC wil work for a few years - after all, docs will still have to earn a living, and they will not 'forget' their training overnight. Same for hospitals, pharmaceutical & equipment mfrs, etc. I call that the 'inertia' in the system, borrowing a word from Physics.

Just as the full damage that resulted from our 1960s experiment on Public Education didn't become obvious for a couple of generations, UHC will appear to be 'working' for a decade.

Based on the short term results, Hillary (and others) will crow about its success, and use it to expand the program. Then, those pols will be gone, writing their memoirs.

For us, decades of disaster will follow.

Voice_of_Reason I wish you were wrong...
...but sadly, I have to agree. On paper, everyone will be "covered," which will be trumpeted from the treetops as a success. And of course, it takes a while for rust to get on any machine, but rust it will, and eventually, it will be more rust than machine, which is about the time that it will all stop working and fall apart.

Again: socialism kills everything.

coolnout
Do you think health care for all with the gov't running the show would be better or not?

coolnout
How old are you?

Typical Liberal Nonsense
Liberals are FOREVER trotting out Communist programs. WHEN THEY SPECTACULARLY FAIL, you don’t hear a word about it. IF THEY SUCCEED IN 1 INSTANCE, The New York Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Baltimore Pun, The MSM and the rest of The Communist Media shout it from the rooftops!

If a Conservative calls them on their failures, they are called racist, sexist, etc., the Usual Liberal Screeching Points.

This time it will be different
Living in county that is almost as liberal as Berkeley. I have argued many times with liberal friends. When the USSR collapsed they said the reason it collapsed is that the West, the USA in particular didn't give it a chance to work. "We" kept the Soviets on a war footing so they could never implement socialism as had been planned by the Party.

Mr. Stossel's line "Socialism will work this time because the "right" people will be in charge" is an argument I heard often. Having worked in state government and with the federal government I have seen time and again government trying to reinvent the same old wheel hoping that some how this time it wouldn't be flat or severely out of round. When reminded that government had been down the road before and the plan had failed miserably someone would always argue that it was "really a great idea, anyone objecting (the naysayers reminding them of history) were the only problem and the new folks in charge would make it work." Hey it worked for the Democratic Party during the last election and most of American bought it.

From the time we went into Afganistan. literally before they knew we had boots on the ground, the Democrats and media were screaming that we were in another quamire just like Vietnam. Indeed they have used the same playbook for Iraq as they used in the late 1960s and 70s for Vietnam.



Voice of reason is right
It would give the initial appearance of "working", but, of course, the coffers will be drained within a few years. Bureaucracy is a closed, non-regenerative system that sucks its host- in this case working people, dry.

A simple litmus test is this: Can socialism exist without a strong private sector? No. Can the private sector exist without socialism? Yes. The parasite is quickly revealed, and that which should be emphasized and fortified is also made clear.

Who is responsible?
Whoever is responsible will harvest the results. When individuals are responsible for providing for their own health care, some succeed, and some fail. When a state makes itself responsible for health care, then the whole state succeeds or fails. When a nation makes itself responsible for health care, then the whole nation succeeds or fails. That's the wonderful thing about freedom, it diffuses risk by diversifying responsibilities. Socialized medecine MIGHT make things MARGINALLY better, it will PROBABLY make things SIGNIFICANTLY worse, but the REAL risk is the catastrophic failure of our health care industry and the economy in general. Personally, I think it's a foolhardy risk to take.

Thanks John
I've been pushing this idea to people for years. Universal healthcare by the federal government would be a disaster for the whole country. So, why not return to federalism, and let individual states take care of it? That way, when it fails, you can still get good capitalist healthcare in the state next door.... it'll only be a disaster for one state.

Oregon is getting close to doing something such as Wisconsin is planning. I'm looking at jobs and real estate in Idaho.

oldsocialworker
I recall that Charlie Reese wrote that if you elect lawyers to office ... sure as cows give milk, lawyers give laws.
Got to like that Celtic Reb.

"Dangerous" Dave ...
guess it's a pretty fair assumption that you think of Hillary as untrustworthy?

American Socialism
John Stossel omitted one HUGE example of a socialistic system already in place in America: the public school system (for which I work). As it stands, an innovative, effective, hard-working rookie teacher makes waaaaaaaaaaaay less money than a burnt-out slacker who's simply counting the years 'til retirement. In other words, teachers are rewarded not for excellence, but simply for "being there."

Let's fix it then , Coolnout
My suggestions: Close the borders- do give free health care to non-citizens.

Tort reform- do not reward frivolous medical lawsuits.

Enforce informed consent- WARNING: this medication may impact your heart, liver, kidney, etc... let the buyer beware.

Allow tax credits for purchasing private insurance.

There will always be people who prefer their vacations, new cars, tattoos, manicures, concerts, plasma screen tvs, alcohol or drugs,having more kids than they can afford, etc... to purchasing health care. However, this should not obligate the rest of society into public health care. Some will have access to preferable care- complete equality is not an option because people make differnt choices and should reap the results of their individual choice.

I meant do NOT give free health care
to illegals.

Thanks, Everyone!
As I read back through all of the postings, I'm struck by the articulate intelligence of the discourse on this topic. (AND, as an English teacher, I can't help but notice all the correct usage and mechanics of the text! Wheeeeeee!) We are so lucky to have access to a message board like this -- thanks, everyone.

Modern Crucibles of Socialism
"All we have now is Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the U.S. Post Office, and state motor-vehicle departments."

He forgot to include our contraceptive application training schools, I mean Public Education

Reform
Tommy Thompson is the father of welfare reform. He developed it in the Badger State and it became effective nationwide. Now Badger legislators have undone Thompson's great work and started on the road to bankruptcy. Badgers? We don't need no stinking Badgers!

No notice of greedy lawyers, Coolnout?
My health care providers are people who are smart and have worked hard and sacrificed to become physicians, nurse practitioners, chiropractors, etc... They SHOULD be rewarded for what they create and contribute. Most notably is my Lyme doctor, who has helped thousands of people from around the world and would be finished under national health care. Lawyers legally steal more than the productive earn- and are largely responsible for the mess we have. You have no problem with that, the obscene profits of the lawyers?


What's coming
America's constitution is the longest-running one ever, in part because it gives U.S. citizens the right to be FREE from government intrusion. (At least, that was the theory behind it). Our Founding Fathers knew from long experience that if government got out of people's way, they would be free to be productive and profitable. And so the Constitution was written that way.

NOW, what you see is constant clamoring for "we want this!" and "we want that!" and the government is supposed to "provide" it all. NO one acknowledges that the government produces NOTHING. It only takes from those who produce.

What is happening in Wisconsin is what is going to happen all over the country. And there will be no staving it off, either, because this is the inevitable result of having more voters who consume than those who produce. They vote, and so the politicians who pander to them get elected, and the policies they want get enacted. America has been a successful democracy because a majority of its citizens have been self-sufficient. Want to know what America will be like when a majority of its citizens are no longer self-sufficient? Just look at New Orleans. It's just math, folks. There's no magic to it.

And so it goes with health care. If you think it's expensive, bureaucratic, unresponsive and unaccountable when run by a handful of big corporations, what do you think it will be like when it's run by the government?

Ergum
You clearly speak from experience. I agree with everything you posted.

I've lived
in Wisconsin my whole life (53 years and counting). One of our daughters teaches for a public school and is not even allowed to talk about their insurance plan--it is that good!!! Another one of our daughters has had Raynaud's Syndrome and scleroderma for 22 years. She is living in Texas with her husband and 3 little ones, but she would be left behind totally with this plan if she still lived here. She has already lost one finger to this illness and all the rest of her fingers and toes are compromised. Her situation is constant "emergency" infections, etc. Who do you think would be left standing in line? Of course, it would be those most in need. Meanwhile, a friend of mine who works for the healthcare industry blatantly told me that it is truly better to have "no" insurance than some of the healthcare that is out there. Then you are able to claim free care--but at what cost? Let's hear it for the biggest dummy of all--Gov. Doyle and his evil cohorts.

Giving this article...
...a grade of 5 stars, I have but one exception to Mr. Stossel's thesis. Many politicians don't learn from mistakes, but liberal ones have the corner on this pathology. That's what happens when government is held to be a form of cult-oriented religion.

The certain failure of socialized medicine in Wisconsin will be met with comments like, "it just needs some restructuring", or, "don't end it, mend it". The failures will continue as businesses leave the state, people suffer, and the tax base diminishes.

Never underestimate the power of the diseased ego. Such will continue to do the same destructive things and then expect different results. The only thing crazier is that the politicians who support cancerous policies like socialized medicine will be voted into office at every election.

Yeah!
Take one for the team, Badgers!

A chicken in Every pot
I'm so sick of the politicians (I watched part of the debates last night...yech!) promising a chicken in every pot. They all do it, but NEVER tell us the COST of that promise. UHC is a TERRIBLE idea. It might be fine for the beautiful state of Wisconsin to be thrown under the bus if it would wake up Americans who think FREE means there is no COST! WAKE UP America!

Push for Tort reform! Vote for fiscal conservatives! Call your congressmen and representatives and tell them what is really important! NO Socialized Medicine!

Here's how gov't really works
I retired in 2004 and went on survivor Soc. Sec. from my deceased ex-dead husband. In Jan., 2006, a Soc. Sec. worker--one of my former students who couldn't locate his textbook he'd put under his desk--decided my 2004 tax form was my 2005 tax form and stopped my Soc. Sec. benefits and told me I had to repay c. $16,000.

I got the notice in a letter in late Jan. 2006, when the payments had already stopped. I called Phila. to argue their error. In March, of 2006, Soc. Sec. wrote me that they would start benefits again in April, but they would not reimburse Jan.-Feb.-Mar. entirely, but in half.

I never have received ANY monies from Soc. Sec. regarding that loss of benefits, have written a dozen letters, and am about to have my second meeting at a local office about this matter. I, at least, would like to secure the HALF of the monies some idiot stopped, and think I should receive the entire amount for the three months. A YEAR AGO. The error was not my fault.

Now, I'm having a stroke under UHC (the following is a real Soc. Sec. episode) and when I dial for emergency care, I get a message that says, "All our representatives are busy and your call will be responded to in 30 mins. As an alternative you can access our website at http://www.healthcare.com...goes to muzak." When you access the website, it offers all kinds of answers to questions about diabetes but nothing on heart attacks. On the telephone, when your 30 mins. are up, the voice menu announces you are being connected with a rep., whereupon, the connection rings once, then goes to a busy signal, and then goes dead. And so am I.

Marlin is sooo right
Government failure doesn't go away- ever. Here in Jersey we cannot dismantle our wildly expensive and useless division of youth and family services, so now we have other agencies to work around the bufooons at DYFS (who- in slight defense- have to work around the rights of crazy "parents" and their lawyers). Government jobs become entitlements, regardless of job performance. In fact, the worse an employee is, it seems the more he/she is promoted, especially if they are a minority. Its so true.


mrs Paddy
I'm totally in agreement with you regarding UHC, but hey, thanks for being so willing so toss my family under the bus!!!!

Government interference
I just retired from Kaiser in CA. In the last 20 years I've watched as care for our patients has declined and paper work for the government has increased. We now have layers and layers of non-medical people just to fill out the endless paperwork required by the government. Nurses spend so much of their time documenting what they do instead of actually doing it, heading off the lawyers circling, even though we require arbitration.

I don't pretend to know the answer, but I know a disaster in the making when I see and we're on the brink. Throw management of health care to the government and we might as well buy our burial services in advance - we won't be able to afford when we finally die.

truetolife
You mis-read my post. I have friends and relatives in Wisc. It is a beautiful state and I think it would be disgraceful to be the guinea pig for this (thrown under the bus) only to be sacrificed for nothing. I'm cynical enough to believe that no learning will take place. Hope you all can stop the madness.

''Badgers? We don' need no...'''
--
"...steenking Badgers!"

Oh, how truly good. "Progressive" Wisconsin (which was one of the states that first floated the whole idea of socialist "populism" more than a hundred years ago) gets to become the test laboratory proof of how swiftly and overwhelmingly socialism drives a polity into bankruptcy.

The interested reader might like to leaf through a recent novel titled *Noble Vision* by Gen LaGreca (2005); see review at:
http://www.capitalism.net/Noble_Vision.htm

LaGreca uses New York State as her plenum, but the impact of socialist health care ("Adolf's Ice Cream: One Flavor, Take It Or Leave It!") in Wisconsin is going to run along pretty much the same lines.
--

health care
New Book: EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL (ISBN 13: 978-0-9796994-0-5) Visit http://www.equalhealthcareforall.com for more info.

Doctor K.

Won't work
While I applaud the intention behind Wisconsin's health care for all, it won't work. Why? With 15-20% of Americans lacking any access to health care at all, the incentives for them to move to Wisconsin are great. Insurance companies call that "adverse selection", that is, when the sickest of individuals are disproportionally attracted to a plan, thus increasing the costs of that plan. It's what happened in Tennessee a few years back. I personally know of someone who was a longtime Georgia resident, had no health insurance, and knew that "something was wrong" medically. Because he was a low-wage worker and not a welfare recipient, he was not eligible for Medicaid. He moved to Tennessee because he saw it as the only way to access the health care system. Never found out what happened after he moved, hopefully all went well. Wisconsin will have the same problem. When the sick from other states swamp their system, the plan will be declared a failure.

What is needed is nationwide access to health care/health insurance. That way, communities will maintain a balance between the sick and the healthy, instead of what will happen in Wisconsin, wherein they will have all the sick from neighboring states accessing their healthcare plan, perhaps accompanied by those who feel secure in their healthcare access moving out from Wisconsin.


GeorgiaGal
You are absolutely correct! My husband and I already had a discussion this morning regarding whether or not we will stay in Wisconsin (where we have lived our entire lives) if this thing goes through. I keep thinking about all of the elderly people I have known since I was a kid who will be choosing "death" at home rather than dying in a long waiting line.

Wisconsin Healthcare
What an oxymoron, I am a 53 year old female who has used a wheelchair for about 35 years. I have worked full time for about 25 of those 35 years, sometimes 2 and 3 jobs to be self sufficient (I am still employed which is good because I am not considered disabled by the State of Wisconsin because I earn a living wage). I have paid for health care insurance at my jobs, I cannot get weighed at Frodtert Memorial Hospital Clinics because there is only one wheelchair scale that I am aware of in the Physical Medicine Department and it is in an examining room. Most clinics and healthcare facilities do not have a wheelchair scale, nor examining tables that I can use so I can only conclude that the only thing they want to see is my money. Most recently I found out that if you dont see your primary care physician at least once every 2 years you can be purged from the system. Hmmmm, penalized for being healthy????? I refrain from going to the doctor because the only thing I see getting healthy from that is the insurance provider, hospital, doctor, and pharmaceutical companies...last time I went to the doctors office I got a case of strep throat. So now this stupidity, I just may have to move!

Wisconsin Healthcare
One more quick comment, the healthcare we have now will not cover smoking cessation, but will cover a lung resection. It will not cover a dietition but will cover gastric bypass. What I don't understand is how such stupidity passes for humanitarisim and what can be done to bring back free enterprise so that I can choose healthcare based upon performance not who has the best lawyers and can build the most buildings.

VA the socialized medicine we can have!

VA is designed to accommodate all people equally to anything you need, so get in the free cheese line. Civilian medical is designed to treat the infirmed with a monetary self interest. VA is 5 people or 10 you get the same so why work past 4 PM, there is nothing in it to feed their family.

Remember the VA system is a great government system that does a very efficient job. VA does precisely what it is designed to do very well with a smile. Once you get in, the people are nice and very competent. VA can not be compared to a civilian system for profit.

So cheese-heads must decide whether they want medical help so to go back to work, or take a year to 18 months to wait in pain then try to recover what might be lost forever due to damage. I was back to work in 30 days from the surgery so production time was about 45 days down.

So compare the loose of production to the country, loose in income to the individual, pain that was horrible, and medical the cost. Which system do you want to have to suffer with when pain is unbearable? Ten days or 8 months before pain subsides plus loss of job and income. Make your choice, and then don’t complain when government gives you what you wished for in the form of a VA hospital utopia.

Health Care in the US and Abroad
This discussion seems to ignore the reality of our health care system and that in the remainder of the developed world. You think we have the best health care system in the world? How so? We spend approximately 15% of our GDP on health care--the highest percentage in the world--and for that get results that lag behind most of the other "socialized systems" in the world. On both life expectance and infant mortality we are behind most of those "socialist systems" and we pay considerably more for it. By my calculation this is not a success! Sure we have some of the best health care in the world, but we do not have the best health care system in the world. Any way you look at it our system comes up wanting.

While those systems are not perfect ours seems to have more flaws than most. While many of you tout the free market as likely to produce the best results, it does not work with respect to health care. Unless you are willing to forego all insurance and allow everyone with large medical bills to go bankrupt, or for many people do without health care entirely--which neither I or most of you are willing to do--we do not have a free market. If we allow insurance in the system, then we have a third payer and lose many perceived advantages of the market. In addition, insurance companies will primarily compete, not by offering a superior produce at lower cost, but by excluding from coverage those with higher risk such as those born with health issues, the elderly, women of child bearing years, and anyone with chronic illness.


More US and Abroad
The only way to insure access to needed health care and to have any fair cost sharing it to have universal coverage. To those of you who object to cost sharing that is the principle behind insurance so I presume that you all have chosen to not have insurance as well.

The systems in France, UK, Canada, while not perfect, all outperform ours in lower costs and better health outcomes. I have been in those countries and, while they too complain about the shortcomings of their systems, the vast majority would not want to have any part of our system.

There are, however, some cultural habits peculiar to this country which may make the systems that they have not as effective here. Nevertheless, to claim that our "system" is superior to theirs is ludicrous.

insurance
I survived just fine without ANY insurance auto home or health until the mid 60's.
Although I worked for a large corp. we had the option to decline insurance-which was minimal.I owned my car and if I had an accident I would have covered it myself as there were far fewer lawyers who would make a mountain out of a molehill.
When I got married there was NO coverage for maternity and it cost me -wow 2 thousand dollars to pay for our first child - btw-why should all the other insureds pay for a coupple's decision to have a child?
the second one was covered 3 years later - and the insurance Co. paid 12 thousand 8 hundred dollars- what progress!!

Pay as you go
Pay as you go, catastrophic coverage only, tort reform- these are answers.

UHC is not only a bad idea, it is beyond expensive. No one ever looks at the COST! Just because it is a 'feel good' proposal, doesn't mean it makes sense. Be careful what you ask for America. Speak to someone that deals with UHC now. You don't want it. Trust me, been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Phil
When I was young healthy and and rash with few assets I too did not always have health insurance. However, I would not recommend it since I know young people who have, through no fault of their own, had huge medical bills that they would not have been able to pay in a lifetime if they did not have insurance.

I did not even have collision insurance on my car although I always had liability insurance to cover any other party. My cars then were older and less expensive than the ones I have now.

Perhaps some of the routine health care costs should be covered out of pocket and not covered by insurance. I have alway argued that, for me, dental insurance was not necessary since the annual costs of the insurance were likely to be roughly the same as the dental costs plus administration. But then I do not have to live on $15,000 a year. In any case, I do think that it is cost effective for preventive care to be covered.

Our insurance industry spends an incredible amount of money trying to figure out who to cover and who not to cover and once coverage is granted spend considerable money trying to determine whether they should pay or not. Similarly, medical practitioners have to spend significant amounts of money to deal with insurance issues. Imaging how much could be saved by eliminating all of this. A single payer universal coverage system could eliminate most of it.

There are other cost savings that could be realized but it probably won't happen under the current system.

Not Much Really
$4,462 will just about cover one stay for three days if you have pneumonia. If you have surgery, where the hospital is charging $1500 per half hour and the surgeon charges another $1200-$5000, I don't see how it could be done if everybody was not in fact being subsidized. Therefore, there is really no Simi to it. We already have it socialized with the communist plan where those who can pay do (along with a few dead beats called the uninsured). I will not discuss the outpatient trips, the ED trips, medications, etc.

I am not in support of what we have mush less a system where I could no longer employ the physician of my choice. That is coming soon if it has not already hit you.

All I am saying is wake up and smell the coffee. Without Federal subsidies and guarantees relative to bad debt and uncollected claims. You could not buy medical care for less than $10000-$15000 per year. Forget heart transplants for 70 year olds, joint replacements, and intensive care. Grow up ladies, gentlemen and John.

Mrs. Paddy
How can you say that universal coverage is "beyond expensive?" Cite some evidence that it is so. Our system spends far more on health care than those countries with universal coverage.

The results are always the same.
The experiment has already been run, many times, in many different places. The results are obvious and always the same, declining quality, declining availability, and increasing cost.

If socialists were capable of learning anything from the real world, they wouldn't have to run the experiment yet again, just to get the same results.

JPH
You need to look at the root cause of the expense. Tort reform is needed so that unnecessary tests are not ordered so the health care provider can CYA. We have excellent health care here, both availability and calibre of our providers...you might call it state of the art. We treat everyone. In countries with UHC there are limits imposed...age, practicality/expense of treatment, availability of services. No choice in provider. Long waits.

Most doctors in the US do not like to even deal with Tri-Care (military insurance for dependants)...or as I like to call it Try to Get Care. It low-balls the money it will pay, and increases the amount of paperwork for the health care provider. (i.e. increases the expense, decreases the reward.) When you do get a consult to someone that does accept the medical insurance, you get whatever you get...not necessarily your choice, or even a competent provider. The red tape, wait times, etc. etc.

It's like when we needed to get our windshield repaired. If the insurance paid, it was going to cost $500. When we asked what it would be if we paid ourselves it was $270 (we had a $250 deductible, so we paid our own and didn't bother with the insurance...rates and all that)...It's the same way when you ask someone else to pay for your medical care.

See phil's post at 3:07...very illustrative.

I don't see Americans being happy with having to wait, having no choice of physicians, and paying the vast majority of their paycheck to the government, just so we can all feel good about health care.

Medical Insurance
Stossel wrote,
"But taxes on business are often paid by workers, stockholders and consumers." In fact, taxes on business are always paid by those groups. It is an economic dictum that business don't pay taxes.

Here's another take on this subject:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080607B

Mrs Paddy
We do have excellent care here for those with insurance and those who can afford it. However, we have a large number of people who are not insured. Those who are insured also have to deal with hassles from the insurance provider. This also costs a great deal (See my post to Phil). There are waits here too particularly, if you are uninsured.

We have a non-cost effective allocation of resouirces in our system. We spend relatively little on preventive care and approximately half of each health care dollar is spent in the last year of someone's life to relatively effect. We would be much better off as a nation if we changed that allocation. Dollars spent on prevention would yield much greater benefit.

You claim tort reform would have a major effect. The number I saw recently was that it would make roughly 3% difference in the cost(sorry I do not recall the specific study) Perhaps, it would make a greater difference if we eliminated all recourse to the courts but I don't think any serious student of the issue would want to do that.

You did not address the issue of the "beyond expensive" nature of universal coverage. Where is that true?

Stan
No Stan. The experiment has be run and we have the highest cost ands a less than stellar outcome. When will we learn?

mrsPaddy, thank you for
explaining the details to JPH. To compare American health care which treats ALL those in America (including ILLEGAL aliens who show up at hospital ER's) PLUS those who come over from Canada, South America, England, France (or other countries with supposed perfect socialized health care systems) is like comparing apples to oranges.

not ashamed to be right writes
Those countries also have their immigrants. The French from Africa in particular and the UK from Asia and more recently from Eastern Europe.

Remember those immigrants from Mexico also contribute to our GNP. I know you probably do not like immigrants but they probably contribute more to the economy than they use in services. You get cheaper food, landscaping, hotel services and even health care because these institutions us this cheap labor which they would have to pay more for if there were not immigrants.

JPH
It's hard to compare exact costs when you look at countries that have UHC. England, for instance, plays 40% on earned income, 40% on savings, and 32.5% on dividends for an earner of about $70,000/year. Canada, likewise pays high taxes, but they are harder to deduce from the sites I visited due to national and territorial taxes being different.

We already pay punitive taxes in the USA, as far as I am concerned. What makes you believe that UHC will reduce them? If it goes up, how much are you willing to pay into taxes? 50%, 60%,

UHC is not the best solution. More beauracracy is a bad idea. The IDEA of UHC is so nice, but the reality will cost us bundles, and I have yet to see anyone really spell out the bottom line cost wise to do this.

Gotta Run
Sorry, it is getting late, and I have to go...please do some research JPH and see that the models for UHC do not support jumping on board...If we need reform (and I don't argue that we do) it is not to socialize medicine. Ta

Stossel wrong again (or still?)
Stossel has much of his facts wrong, but that has never stopped him from spouting in the past.

Most glaringly is that in the process of adding a 10.5% tax Healthy Wisconsin eliminates the 15-to-20 percent corporations currently pay for health premiums for employees. That's $15B spent and $17B saved, a GAIN for corporations. And equal savings offset the taxes paid by taxpayers.

See more at:

About Healthy Wisconsin: http://www.healthywisconsin.net
From a Republican senator: http://tinyurl.com/yunecm
From the Business Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare: http://www.businesscoalition.net

Madness
If this insanity takes hold throughout the country I say we demand the same coverage our politicans have. Pipe dream I know, they don't particiapte in Social Security why would they have the same coverage as the commom folk.

Mrs. Paddy
The numbers you cite are the aggregate tax rate out of which they cover many things beside health care. Those numbers include many social services that we do not have in addition to health care. For example, in most of those societies higher education is also paid out of that rate as well as a much more extensive public transportation system. So the aggregate tax rate tells you relatively little about how much they spend on health care. For data on those percentages go to the current World Development Report published by the World Bank or UN reports for comparative amounts spent on health care.

You should remember that the higher taxes would be offset by not having to pay Health Insurance premiums to our insurers. So the fact that the taxes would go up does not mean that we will pay more. We would in fact eliminate a tremendous amount of administrative overhead. The comparative cost for administrative overhead for insurance is much greater that that for Medicare for example.

I enjoyed the exchange. Have a good evening.

JPH, you said
"I know you probably do not like immigrants"

And HOW do you "probably know" this? I have no problem with LEGAL immigration, it is ILLEGAL immigration which I oppose. But I digress, my POINT was that this is one of the contributing factors to "beyond expensive" discussed by mrspaddy. Your trying to change the subject and inject what I "probably like or do not like" has nothing to do with the discussion. Liberals often resort to feelings ("like" being one) whenever attempting to argue a position along with changing the subject. Ding ding, that's 2 for 2 with you.

Also, like mrspaddy mentioned, go do some REAL research into actual facts before you make comparisons about "cheap" labor versus the cost to American taxpayers from those who are here illegally versus legally.

not ashamed to be right writes
I did not mean to change the subject but I get suspicious when people try to blame everything on "immigrants." But I do want to make the point that the immigrants, legal or illegal, also contribute to the economy so the effect is not just a drain on the system. At the very least, they make some economic contribution that offsets costs they may incur.

Do you have any data that illustrated that they use more than they contribute?

Send them home???
Can you imagine what we'd do with 5 million newly emptied homes if we sent all immigrants home tomorrow? Yes, we should close the border and send the bad guys back to Mexico. But while they are in Wisconsin, the Healthy Wisconsin plan will cover them.

Actually, we already ARE covering them when they show up at the ER and the taxpayers pick up the tab. But under HW, if they are gainfully employed, they will be covered and they and their employer will pay the tax.


Employer paid?
And surely the employer, if it is not government, will eat the cost and not pass it along to the buyers of its product.

We already know the government does not need money at all. They just deficit it if need be and it does.

Wisconsin Healthcare
I believe the beginning of this end started with the legal system. A landmark case back in the 80's when a woman CHOSE to have a tummy tuck and when the plastic surgeon put her back together somehow her belly button was off center a micron or some such hoo ha, anyway our fine legal system sued the dr for malpractice for 10 million dollars (I am not sure of the exact amount, I do remember it was the largest malpractice payout at that time) because her mis-centered belly button adversely affected her sex life...please how frivolous!! We live in a country where doctors cannot even call fat people fat without a law suit for pete sake!! Look at the number of class action suits for procedures that were not medically necessary and the fraud of people trying to make money through litigation. I love my Country, I love my State and I love my City. Reason, because life is not fair, and there is no level playing ground. I want it to stay that way, get government out of my day to day activities, get government to focus on what it was designed to focus on protecting our boarders and our way of life. The most pivotal moment in my life was when I was living on welfare and social security, a single mom with 3 kids, I was driving home one night and saw a house with 2 cars in front, my car I had gotten used, and was held together with bailing wire and tape, at first I thought thats not fair, then I thought they had to work for their money and then I thought If they could work for their money why couldn't I? Every time government has put their nose into something it just burgeons into a catastrophe..welfare, cudzu, pork bellies...etc. I want to know what I can do to help bring sanity back, because I can complain all night...not gonna change a thing, but can anyone propose how to get this situation turned around?

A WAITING RM, ANY TOKYO (or Wisc.) HOSP.
Having lived in JAPAN where there's free health care, let me describe a Tokyo Hospital waiting room on any day of the week:

There's not an empty seat. A sea of grey heads sitting (& standing) and gossiping to their neighbors as they happily wait to see a strange doctor with some minor complaint that may or may not be fixed by the next day.

Yet that same granny/grandpa will be there every day reporting on her progress, first to her neighbors, then to a different doc than yesterday. With the old complaint healed, a new soreness emerges in need of a doctor's care. Hospitals are de facto social centers for a part of the population guaranteed to have some ache or pain. And why should they restrict themselves? That's what must happen when health care becomes a "RIGHT."

ABUSE is inevitable when health care is free. Even sane people will be feeling justified indulging in free care for problems they might have treated at home. LONG WAITS and other glitches in the system will serve as necessary filters to weed out the frivolous. There will be problems with Wisconsin's Universal Health that will serve to warn the rest of the nation of the ILLUSION of THE FREE LUNCH.

It won't work in Wisconsin, a very civilized and sophisticated state, imagine here in the Tri-State jungle where the best of us take pride in aggressiveness, chutzpah and out-witting the system.

JPH, here is one source to get you
started on your research. Illegal immigrants receive and utilize thousands more in free government services than they contribute. If you search the TH archives you find a multitude of columns written on illegal immigration, as well as posts from many, many people who have done their research. Anyway, here is the link:

http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/

Just a comment about other government
programs....I went to the post office today to buy stamps. The line of 15 or more people waited while 2 clerks worked. One clerk disappeared and left the other one to take care of everyone. New postal package size regulations increase the time it takes to get a package ready for the mail as the clerk has to measure it exactly before determining the postage amount due, so the wait was even longer. I was glad I was only buying stamps so as to not make the delay even longer for those waiting behind me. THIS is exactly what National Health Care would be like!

Wow, are you uninformed!!!
We already have a national healthcare system, and it's called Medicare. I see the same doctor and go to the same hospital as before I retired. No rationing. No unreasonable wait times. No insurance bureaucracy to drain 31% of the healthcare dollars spent.

I get sick, I get care, and the caregiver gets paid. Simple as that.

For the same $2.1 trillion we are spending today we could expand Medicare to all 100% of the nation's people. Yes, we should limit the free visits and charge extra for the abuses, but eliminating healthcare from the costs of employment will help stop jobs from being outsourced.

Our healthcare crisis has now become a national economic crisis.

Medicaid as UHC
As an obstetrician, I get a first hand look everyday at UHC that is "free". The majority of my pregnant patients are on Medicaid which is essentially first cent/100 per cent coverge (I once asked an insurance salesman to give me a quote on such a policy for myself and my employees. He gave a sardonic laugh and said, "Doc, there ain't no such thing". To which I replied, "Oh, really - 75 percent of my patients are on it - it's called Medicaid".) Anyway, there is no limit to the consumption of service. Nearly every obstetric visit is accompanied by the query: "Do I get a sonogram today?" A headache or a bout of nausea usually "necessitates" and immediate trip to the emergency room or labor and delivery. Male partners often don't get treatment for shared STDs which may harm the pregnancy because the relatively cheap medication isn't free for them.

As pointed out in the post above about the state of "emergency" health care abuse in Japan, once something is perceived as "free", it is also perceived that one is only cheating oneself if the "free" staple is not consume ad lib and with gusto. Until that economic reality is addressed, UHC is doomed to failure. Either the expense will break the bank, or the quality of care will plumb to the same level as its "value" which, costing nothing, is worth nothing.

health care
There is a new book, EQUAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL, that offers a refreshing and comprehensive overhaul of the American health care system. Visit my web site http://www.equalhealthcareforall.com to learn more about the book as well as other articles that I have posted there.
Doctor K.

Coolnut

.....can you explain to me how ...when I was a child with mumps ...that a doctor climbed three flights of stairs to look at my tongue and listen to my heart for a $5.00 house call fee?

.....why was I able to get my cavities filled for $3.00 each and go to the Free Clinic for my shots where doctors and dentists volunteered one day a week of their time to treat the poor? ...

.....How was all this possible without health insurace or a medical plan? ...

.....Was I raised in a much simpler and naive time in our history? .....COLOSSUS

God Bless Wisconsin

.....For vounteering to show the rest of us how big a disaster National Health Care will become if we let the Socialists and the "something for nothing" nutcases sweet talk us into it ...Go Wisconsin .....COLOSSUS

jlohman, do you even have a clue
as to how much your Medicare costs have amounted to for the years you have been covered? Or do you simply ignore this inconvenient truth because, heck, you don't have to pay them?
Medicare does not cover everything either, and many health care providers refuse to accept Medicare patients who do not have secondary coverage (which is where they recoup the loss that Medicare does not pay them in the first place.)Just ask my relative who is paid $40 flat fee for each Medicare patient he sees whether the visit takes 15 minutes or one and half hours.

I would have to say that you are woefully and willfully ignorant when you post things like
"I get sick, I get care, and the caregiver gets paid. Simple as that."


Equal for all
Dr. K -- how come EVERYTHING isn't equal for all? Why can't we all live in 20,000 sq foot mansions like the medical malpractice multi-millionaire John Edwards? Why can't ALL of us drive a Mercedes. Why can't we ALL take a 2 week Caribbean cruise. Why can't we ALL send our kids to Ivy League colleges. Why can't we ALL sit behind homeplate or on the 50 yard line. Why can't we ALL eat at the finest restaurants, wear the finest clothes, give our wives 2 carat diamonds? Why aren't we all the same? Why can't ALL of us GIVE accordisng to our ability and TAKE according to our need?

I can't believe it.
I can't believe that anyone would want socialized heathcare (or anything else). Name three things the government does well. Name one. (Spending money doesn't count.) What makes you think a new, huge government bureaucracy would be any better? Because some polititian says just give me a little bit of your liberty and a little bit more of your money and it will be just wonderful?

What you will get will have the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the DMV. And the cost will dwarf any other government program.


Jlohman
Well then the least you could do if you had any class (or conscience) at all would be to say "thank you" to folks like us who pay more in taxes to cover Medicare and all the other programs each year than many people make. Or do you think that money grows on trees? Certainly our family does not benefit in spite of paying more than 50K/yr in taxes!

What an ignorant ingrate you are.

Calm down...
I completely agree with Stossel here.

Let Wisconsin go go go!

Let's let every state who wants to try Universal Health care for its residents have at it.

At least we can see what happens...

While we are waiting those of you who think we should go right ahead and let the Federal Government handle it... Please read the 10th Amendment of our Federal Government's Constitution.

Then ask yourself why would our founding fathers think this was necessary?

Could it be that where there is a great deal of $$ and power there is a gravitational pull towards unethical and tyranical behavior?

Certainly could not find that anywhere in our current government could we?

Shrink the Fed--Grow the states, county and /or cities and let the rest of us learn from others efforts--mistakes and successes.

doctork
I knew you would post your same liberal dribble on this thread.

Lolo, that is one link I have
always ignored, just figuring it was a liberal
posting it.

Sen. Erpenbach Response
Your inaccurate attacks on the historic “Healthy Wisconsin” plan use the Wall Street Journal column from July 24 as a basis, so I thought it appropriate to set the record straight on both. It is editorial Journal repeats the myth that “Healthy Wisconsin” is a government-run health care system.

“Healthy Wisconsin” is not a government-run health care system. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Healthy Wisconsin is a balanced, public/private partnership, in which the government plays a limited role.

Individuals have their choice of networks to join, they have their choice of which doctors to use. Insurance companies choose whether to organize health care networks and submit competing bids. Those networks decide what prices to bid – not government. They also choose which doctors and hospitals to include-not government. Those doctors and hospitals choose which networks to join-not government.

Under our current system, employers don’t offer their employees a choice of health care plans competing for enrollees based on cost and quality. “Healthy Wisconsin” does that. It is a market-driven plan that amasses real savings for businesses and workers.

In addition, “Healthy Wisconsin” includes important market-based incentives which will work to slow the growth of cost for employers, employees and local and state governments. It will ensure that no one is left to pick up the tab for those without coverage.

Employer premiums in Wisconsin have jumped by double digits every year since 2000. Businesses are forced to pay double what they paid just seven years ago. What is the cost of doing nothing? It is time to be bold, it is time to stop tinkering around the edges of reform.

Under this plan, Wisconsinites will receive the same coverage as their legislators for almost $3 billion less than what is currently being spent on health care, and we cover everybody.

The status quo is no longer good enough for Wisconsin.

Sen. Jon Erpenbach

So Who Pays?
Sen. Erpenbach: That sounds better than the typical government run program, but in your response, I didn't see any mention of who pays for the program. The employer/employee? The government?

Senator Erpenbach,
You said, "It will ensure that no one is left to pick up the tab for those without coverage."

Like Stan above, I ask WHO will pay for all those withOUT coverage then? Surely Wisconsin ER's are overloaded with illegal aliens who do not have health or auto insurance. Somehow, someone will have to pay for it. Also, how is Wisconsin's program different from the failed Tenn Care Program?

One more question for Senator Erpenbach
If I prefer to provide for my own health care, can I opt out of the government program? Opt out of both the benefits and paying for it?

Why not? If its actually better, no one would want to opt out.

Do you really think the 14.5% payroll tax collected from the employer/employee combined will also pay for the unemployed? How much extra will the taxpayers actually be expected to pay?


"Market Based" without "Opt Out"?
It is not truly "market based" so long as "everyone is covered."

There needs to be an option for businesses and people to "opt out" of the system completely if they so desire. This would mean, of course, that there will necessarily be someone who is not covered.

The Truth about Healthcare

The problem is the intellectual dishonesty of lawmakers from both parties on this issue. The real truth is we do have a dysfunctional form of socialized medicine between programs like Peach Care and free healthcare via county hospitals like Grady. And the system will become bankrupt and/or people who do pay via taxes and health insurance will keep seeing the cost go up and quality go down.

You cannot fix a problem with talking points from both sides and not being honest about the issue.

That is why I support mandatory pay health insurance for people who can afford it. We cannot have a system of using tax payers and people who do buy health insurance as an emergency back up plan for people who do not.

We must open up the system to let employers and individual have a choice to buy the same plan lawmakers, vets, and federal workers receive. This would pit private against public insurance—lets see who wins.

We must also eliminate all exclusions, which would encourage preventive medicine which is less expensive and better for consumers. At the same time people must pay extra for life-choice behavior to give an incentive to change bad health choices and promote fitness.

This is just a start.

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/the-truth-about-healthcare



John Stossel
John Stossel is on the right path. There is another article posted on Townhall.com discussing Michael Moore's "Sicko" and regarding Cuba. If socialized medicine in Cuba is so good how come Castro had a Spanish doctor do his surgery. @ other examples of leaders leaving Cuba for gastric surgery and ophtalmology procedures are discussed.

The question for people in Wisconsin- Where will the politicians and wealthy go for their procedures. Someone noted that it takes about 20 years for the bad to become manifest- look at the Medicare program instituted in the 1960's--a government promise and guarentee to those 65 and older-- that they would have health care. With all the bureaucracy and add ons, the system is going bankrupt. Never fear- the government is going to fix it. They continue to reduce reimbursement to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers and institutions. They raise the co pays and the limit medicines that people require by either removing the drug from a formulary or reducing the reimbursemnet to the pharmacist so that the pharmacist loses money on filling the prescription.

The 20 year to 40 year delay in going from good to bad is related to the time it takes a generation of medical health care providers ( doctors, nurses, techs, etc) to decide they don't like working hard for the government which continues to cast the cost of the system on the doorstep of these hard working individuals. Soon either the very affluent or the bureacratically inclined go into these fields and survive long enough to perform an 8-5 job. Notice the wording, job not profession. They become like the lady at the motor vehicle office- please take a number, get in line and be quiet- I am on my union sponsored break. Take 2 aspirins and if you are still breathing I will give you some paper work to fill out. After hours of paper work, if you are not dead yet, you will get to correct your errors.

GOOD LUCK WISCONSIN!!!

DP1 doesn't understand
DP1 doesn't understand the Wisconsin system. Wisconsin will not be providing the care. The same privately-owned clinics, hospitals and health care networks will provide the same care they have always provided. Plus more in some cases. The state is only involved in collecting the revenues needed to run the system and passing them to a non-partisan healthcare commission. Importantly, the members of the State Legislature will receive their care the same way the public does, thus I expect that they'll not let it deteriorate or become bloated.

I was not an early supporter, but I've grown to understand it and appreciate it. Citizens can opt for a health care network (HCNs) of their choice, independent of what employers or coworkers or other family members select. And the HCNs can compete on the basis of price and service, exactly what the right-wingers want. Or the citizen can choose to join the fee-for-service program, if that is the most cost-effective. Stossel should be tickled pink about the


More for DP1
>>> "With all the bureaucracy and add ons, the [Medicare] system is going bankrupt."

Medicare has its unique problems, the biggest that it covers almost exclusively seniors, end-of-lifers, and the handicapped…. all of whom the traditional insures reject. But expand it to everybody and the average cost becomes less than what we are paying today. Why? Because Medicare has eliminated the most costly waste in the system, the 31% of insurance industry administration costs. Yes, Part D is a mess, but thank your politician who is on the payroll of the pharmaceutical industry. Hopefully the Dems will correct that, and if they don't they should be term-limited.

But you folks should realize where we will be if we DON'T do something quick. As a retired business leader I got used to looking at trends. Health care does not present a good one. Wisconsin has set about to prevent the demise of quality health care, Stossel or not.

See: http://www.throwtherascalsout.org/quality_health_care_will_soon_be.htm

I agree with John Konop
John Konop writes:
"That is why I support mandatory pay health insurance for people who can afford it. We cannot have a system of using tax payers and people who do buy health insurance as an emergency back up plan for people who do not.

We must open up the system to let employers and individual have a choice to buy the same plan lawmakers, vets, and federal workers receive. This would pit private against public insurance—lets see who wins.

We must also eliminate all exclusions, which would encourage preventive medicine which is less expensive and better for consumers. "

I completely agree. Please note that Konop's solution is exactly Sen. John Edwards plan 2007, or Sen. John Kerry's plan 2004. Kerry/Edwards also included subsidies for low-wage workers (non-workers are on Medicaid).

Mandatory health insurance
Mandatory health insurance -- no, any health insurance -- is bad for the public. The insurance bureaucracy consumes 31% of healthcare dollars without ever laying a hand on the patient.

We must eliminate the insurance industry, not guarantee its position in the system. We must guarantee care, not insurance.

2 easy steps
I personally think that 2 simple things would fix most of the ills of our current system. First, mandate a minimum deductible of say $2500 for any insurance policy. Insurance is supposed to level out the big hills, not cover everything. Second, create a scientific review system to determine the merits of any lawsuit. This could involve appointing a double blind panel that would be able to say, no, all babies don't have to be delivered caesarian to avoid cerebral palsy, etc. These experts could be compensated by a loser pays (or better yet, loser's lawyer pays) system.

Let Wisconsin Experiment with Socialized
Why not a single-payer national health care program? We already have one (actually two) that work quite well. Medicare works very well and according to the actuarial rule the larger the pool the lower the cost it would work even better if every citizen was part of the pool and every citizen payed into the pot. Also, one should note that the congressional health plan works very well. Why can't every citizen be covered in the same way?
Why should the citizens of the world's wealthiest nation not have the world's best health care? We are already paying considerably more than anyone else in the world for health care and yet we rank 37th in the world. If you feel that other countries national programs don't work as well as they should so what. Are we not capable of creating our own system that will work or have we lost that "American Enginuity"?

Medicare-for-all would be ideal system
>>> "Why should the citizens of the world's wealthiest nation not have the world's best health care?"

We should, and Medicare-for-all would be an ideal system, though it has some aspects that need fixing (like Part D).

But follow the money. Our politicians have been corrupted by campaign contributions from the insurance industry and thus will not pass a bill that eliminates them from the profit-taking process.

Our political system is as corrupt as Mexico's, and we would be well-advised to start term-limiting them at the voting booth. Byrd, McConnell, Lott and all the old-timers must be tossed. Only then will we start getting them working for the people rather than their pocketbooks.

I reject the entire premise.
The recent comments here all seem to assume that there should be some sort of mandatory government health care, by whatever name. Only the means differ.

Why should government be involved in healthcare at all? About the only role government should have is making sure doctors etc. meet minimum requirements, much the same way governments set standards for places that serve food but don't determine the menu.

I'm responsible for my own health. And there is no valid reason why I shouldn't choose my own insurance (including whether or not I wish to have health insurance) and what type of treatment I should get and who should provide it.

One size fits all insurance actually fits very few. Everyone else has to pay for things they don't need and don't want, whether through taxes of some other method.






Being self insured
In other words I have put away enough money over the years to cover my wife and myself pretty completely. I did this by opting out of employer paid health insurance and making a deal with my employer to put 80% of what he would have paid as a premium into my pay check. The 20% he kept was his incentive to go along with the deal. I then put that money plus what I would have had to pay as my portion of the premium into a mutual fund and over the years it built up to quite a tidy sum. I now can pay any medical expenses I have out of pocket. I am not a high powered executive, just a non-union carpenter and I have been doing this since 1978 and I am now 55. I have paid for the births of my 2 children and all their attendant normal medical costs as well as several surgeries and other medical incidents for myself and my wife. The amount I have put into this fund is substantially less than what I would have paid over the years for insurance through work and incredibly less than I would have paid to buy insurance privately. Now that I have done this I will fight to the end to not have to be included in some ponzi scheme run by either the State or federal governments.

Being self insured pt 2
The above is in addition to my retirement savings which are set up in a similar fashion as well as a similar fund for my vehicles and home. In the case of my auto and home I used standard insurance to cover me until I could build up the proper funds to be able to stop buying insurance.

Hmmmm
In reading through my posts I realized it sounded a lot like bragging. I assure you that was not my intent. Even though I am proud of what I've done my point was to show that insurance doesn't have to be the main focus of your financial plan. Independence should be the ultimate goal. I did this with a regular job, more than a little help from my wife because she has a vested interest in the success of this plan and she is the real financial and organizational wizard. One of the real benefits of a plan like this is you don't lose your coverage if you lose your job. Another is if you don't use all of it you get to pass it on.

Snake0311 is exactly right.
There is nothing more to say.

Individuals know what is best for themselves. And can take care of themselves without a government nanny.

Snake0311 is LUCKY!!!! Pure luck.
Hope like hell you never get REALLY sick! Like you or a family member getting something like hemophilia or a disease costing real money. Then say goodbye to your life savings and your house.

Lucky???
jlohman writes: Monday, August, 13, 2007 6:26 PM
Snake0311 is LUCKY!!!! Pure luck.
Hope like hell you never get REALLY sick! Like you or a family member getting something like hemophilia or a disease costing real money. Then say goodbye to your life savings and your house.

Luck has nothing to do with it. It is all in hard work and how you plan it. If I got cancer and had to have the full boat of treatment I would be fine. I have sufficient money in my medical account to insulate the rest of my estate completely no matter what disease I might get. I have set my house up in trust for my wife and kids so even they can't sell it and the income from my investments is more than adequate to last for longer than they may live in the worst case. I feel sorry for the people who think the government will take care of them because they are the ones who will be starving and living in poverty.
I have never believed the government would or should take care of me and mine. They couldn't handle the job.

Stan and standards
--
Interesting notion:

"Why should government be involved in healthcare at all? About the only role government should have is making sure doctors etc. meet minimum requirements, much the same way governments set standards for places that serve food but don't determine the menu."

Unfortunately, you assume that "government" is capable of ensuring that health care professionals of any kind - doctors, nurses, pharmacists, anybody - is *CAPABLE* of setting "minimum requirements" or ensuring that such professionals meet those standards.

Remember, when you're talking about government, you're dealing with people whose fundamental purpose in life (and whose only tool to achieve their purpose) is the ability to point guns at the rest of the population.

This does not make for technical competence in fields other than extortion and murder. Any such other competences as may develop (and I'm an ex-U.S. Public Health Service officer, so I speak from proximal experience) are entirely incidental/

Would it surprise you to learn that the real reason for governmental professional licensure is to limit the number of professionals you and your family are allowed to consult for the licensed services?

Doctors are licensed for the benefit of the doctors, not to ensure quality of care for patients. It's a method of creating artificial scarcity so as to ensure that you (the patient) will have to pay more for the services of the doctors.

Study the history of professional licensure in these United States the way they make us study it in our Medical School courses covering medical ethics. It's fascinating.

And bear in mind the fact that when the late Milton Friedman was asked what single step could be taken to immediately reduce the cost of health care in America, responded: "Eliminate professional licensing of all kinds."

He didn't get that Nobel Prize in Economics for ignoring the obvious.
--

Great....
Then we won't see you draining the Medicare and Social Security systems when you retire. I wish their were more of you! You are wonderful!

jlohman writes: Great
There could be many more like me if the liberals would quit trying to be the nannies to our people and go back to doing what is actually needed and not what they think will get people to vote for them. If our politicians would start thinking of the country instead of their pockets we would get a lot further.
When I went to school we learned about economics and how money works. Things like the rule of "72" were taught so you would know how compound interest worked both for you and against you. Budgeting was standard fare and we learned how to be responsible with our finances. The liberals have lowered standards in schooling to the point of creating a permanently under-educated and therefore permanently ignorant and poor group of Americans. The only reason they could be doing this is to create an underclass they can manipulate and rely on to support their increasing grasp for political power. The liberal left screams that the right is taking away our freedoms when in fact it is the left that is trying to tear down the Bill of Rights while creating false rights that only their underclass will appear to benefit from. I say appear to benefit because in the end these "rights" only serve to make people more dependent on the government. This divides the country and makes us less likely to be able to get together to take back our country from the usurpers.
The right isn't much better. They are caving in to the left on enough things to allow this trend to keep going so they can maintain a semblance of power for themselves. They all are only really interested in growing the government so they can keep us under there thumbs.

To snake0311, the issue is money!
Remeber that? That's what motivates those so-called conservatives. Except that they can't see the forrest through the trees. Government is more bloated under Bush because the Right wants the "freedom of speech" when it comes to buying their congressman. So the special interests are walking away with $400 billion a year in taxpayer money -- a cost of $4000 per taxpayer per year -- all while the Right claims they are for smaller government.

With public funding of campaigns we'd have smaller government, and all at a cost of $10 per year. If it were 100 times that it'd still be a bargain.

jlohman
I agree that the issue is money. You can't fix that by giving the government more power. Term limits would be a very effective way to limit power and runaway pork and having a fund that paid for the campaigns of anyone running for federal office could be a good tool as well. An amendment to the constitution outlawing pork would be nice also. But how do we reduce the level of screaming from extremists of both wings down to a reasonable level? My personal fantasy is to give anyone who is yelling how bad the USA is a one way ticket to the country of their choice.

jlohman
One other thing that would be nice is taking back the raises they keep giving themselves and making any further raises subject to a vote of the people. Taking away the profit motive from politicians instead of citizens and industry would go a long way toward making things more reasonable.

jlohman
BTW the liberals are just as motivated by money and in some cases it seems even more so than the conservatives.

snake031
Term limits are not my preference, because we'd eliminate the good guys before the bad guys got voted out of office and we'd have a constant state of flux with the unelected congressional stafe driving policy. But I would favor term limits for all congress members that refused the public financing of their campaigns.

Earmarks should be included in one standalone bill called "Earmarks," with each one identified with the congressman responsible, and let it go through the conference process.

>>> "But how do we reduce the level of screaming from extremists of both wings down to a reasonable level?"

Get the private money out of our public electoral system.

>>> " My personal fantasy is to give anyone who is yelling how bad the USA is a one way ticket to the country of their choice."

I wouldn't. We should not have to leave our country because crooked politicians have taken it over. That's what happened in Mexico. We should get rid of the crooked politicians before we *become* another Mexico.

>>> "…. taking back the raises they keep giving themselves"

Actually, what I'd like to see is an independent ethics commission establish the raises, and they could take into account how well congress has served the public. The commission could be appointed like the quasi-government Federal Reserve Board where all members serve a staggered 14 year term subject only to impeachment.

FYI, see http://www.throwtherascalsout.org and http://www.wicleanelections.org

jlohman
What good ones? The ones you might call good are to me just the least bad. I still prefer term limits or time served limits. Let them serve for 12 years maximum then they could swap from the house to the senate and vice versa. And make it 1 term only if they refuse public funding.
I told you it was a fantasy but the reasoning is that if they don't like it here they can leave. I'm not saying they have to leave just that they can and on the taxpayers dime. The notice arriving in the mail that they are now eligible for a free trip to the land of their dreams may smarten some of them up.
Earmarks should be taken out of the realm of the congress and given to the governor of each State to handle. If the governor feels that federal money is needed for something then he/she should approach congress for it.
I still feel that raises for the congress should be voted on by the people. That way the approval rating the congress has will have a direct bearing on the money they take home.
If a politician is found guilty of a crime they should be handled like a drug dealer. Seize their assets and throw them in jail.

snake031
We aren't that far apart, and you can tell because neither of our proposals will go anywhere. The best thing we can do is work for a complete turnover in Congress. Then perhaps we'll see action.

jlohman
The primary difference I see between us is I do not want the government to be involved in any way with health care. They should be educating people about the type of system I set up and helping them to set them up themselves. There is a place for insurance but it is not the be all and end all of the financial world. It is as a temporary safety net while your own program gets going.
There is a place for government in this as well but not as a replacement for an insurance company. The government should provide a framework to use to build self insurance programs and they should step in and help people who have failures in implementing theirs (due to catastrophic incidents, etc.) to help them get back on their feet but not to be the nanny and put people in the position of being permanent welfare cases.

There are ways to get things on the ballot without going through the politicians. For example: Approach every organization that works for the rights of their members and get as many to sign on to a grass roots effort to place an initiative on the ballot for term limits. Once you have a good sized effort going use it to put other proposals on the ballot. It would take several years to get it rolling but once you did it would become like the NRA - basically unstoppable.

why Americans are upset now
"I'm struck by how many hate the current semi-free-market system America has now."

Well, let me tell you why people are so furious about the system America has now:

Because what the "semi-free-market" came up with on its own to constrain costs was something called "managed care." In practice, this consists of throwing up so many bureaucratic obstacles in your face and in your doctor's face that you give up filing claims.

One result: My "semi-free-market" health care plan refused to pay for regular colonoscopy screening for me, even though I'm past 50 and the latest medical thinking is that I need such screening regularly from now on. Cost to me: $2,000+ per colonoscopy, out of my pocket, once every two years.

Several years ago, another "semi-free-market" health care plan, Tufts, simply refused to pay for prescription minimally sedating antihistamines anymore, on the grounds that too many patients were taking them and getting reimbursed by Tufts. Tufts told the patients to go take Benadryl over-the-counter and use nasal spray instead. Only after a huge outcry from dozens of allergists and asthma specialists in Massachusetts did Tufts reinstitute payment of antihistamine claims.

The idea that you will save much money by being able to choose from multiple plans is ludicrous, because no plan is going to be so cheap as to lose money. Here in Massachusetts, the CHEAPEST plan for a single person (no dependents) cost $4,000 a year--and that's the one that wouldn't cover my colonoscopy screenings. (It has a $4,000 deductible on surgeries too.) If you have dependents to cover, it goes up from there. It's not cheaper to buy health plans from neighboring states. It's going to be $4,000+ just about everywhere in the Northeast because our doctors and hospitals just happen to charge more than they do in the South, for example.

for REDRX8: That's not the problem
REDRX8 writes: "They take their kids for every cough and always have them on antibiotics, all because it only cost them a $10.00 co-pay. If it cost them more than $10 bucks, maybe they would let a common cold just run it course instead of wasting money and the doctors time."

That is not much of a driver of health care costs these days. Ever since common childhood antibiotics like amoxicillin and erythromycin became available in generic form, those antibiotics really are inexpensive. At Walgreens, a popular national drugstore chain, a 10-day course of erythromycin will cost you only $13.99. But if your child is prone to asthma or croup, then you had BETTER take him to a doctor when he gets a cold because if not you may end up taking him to the ER in a couple more days.

That's not what costs so much money. The biggest driver of health care costs is CHRONIC illness: asthma, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. Because much of the time those illnesses can't be cured; instead you need to manage those illnesses by regular visits to specialists and expensive tests to monitor the progress of the disease. None of which a family physician is equipped to do.

The "semi-free-market" that Stossel extols so much tried to promote "managed care" as a way to control health costs. This means getting an approval from a primary-care physician to see a specialist. But if you have any of the above chronic illnesses, that's a total waste of time because the primary care physician can't do anything for you anyway. If you're having angina or you need a bypass operation, he has to refer you to a cardiologist anyway; in which case the insurance company just paid for an utterly useless visit to a primary-care physician.

Irresponsible
It's irresponsible to have government paying for your health care costs. If you can't afford children you shouldn't have them. If you can't afford to go to the doctor you need to look at your lifestyle, the job you're working at and other personal factors which are your responsibility.

The government is not your parent; grow up and stop looking for a handout.

I just don't get it
What is it with people wanting to destroy themselves?!? Why is it that people are so economically stupid that they think socialism works? Have they not learned anything outside of our horrible government run school system?

I feel like we're living in the book Atlas Shrugged. I really wish there was a place "we" could go, those that just want freedom and extremely small government. An island, or a town...something, somewhere to escape and live in freedom. But it seems like the entire planet is going this route, believing in big government having all the solutions, all the answers, and ruling with an iron fist, disallowing any disagreements. Sure you can disagree, but in the end they'll shoot you or throw you in jail if you flatly refuse to pay into their evil schemes.

It makes me feel like giving up.

Thank God for people like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and John Stossel.

Cold War rhetoric is so 20th century
I don't understand how when "socialism" is mentioned people still run away in panic. It's too easy for pundits, and speaks ill of our ability to think independently.

One important statistic to keep in mind is that while the US pays around $5500 per capita on healthcare every year, the other industrialized nations pay less than half that, around $2200. But how can this be, if our system is set up to manage consumer behavior? Obviously there is something askew, whether you believe that extra money accounts for the layer of bureaucracy and inefficiency our system has enjoined, or if you believe that money is actually subsidizing innovation for the other industrialized nations. I believe it is almost exclusively the former.

It's true that the poor tend to go to the doctor only when it's urgent, and spend roughly $750 a year on care out of their own pocket. But because they fail to seek preventive care (annual checkups, cholesterol tests, dental visits) they tend to develop conditions that end up costing much, much more in the end. The example of having a mole checked might seem like a frivolous cost that our efficient system should weed out. But if that mole turns out to be malignant and cancerous, the $100 dollars it could have taken to remove the mole now turns into $10,000. Now, do we still consider this a frivolous cost? Americans don't partake in preventive care, while the industrialized nations do. Therein lies the disparity in per capita costs.

If there's one way thing I wouldn't mind shelling out a little extra dough for, it's healthcare. But in this case, I believe some savings could be realized.

Ashwan
When socialism is mentioned it is still just as much of a losing proposition now as it has always been. The US is not geared to accept socialism primarily because it takes away so much of your free choice and gives so much power to the government. These are the antithesis of what our country was founded for.

We may have to do something like this...
...eventually.

Within the next ten to twenty years, via genetic screening, we'll be able to determine - ahead of time - the vast majority of the maladies that will eventually afflict us. We'll almost have individualized calendars of what's going to befall us, physical injuries (from accidents and so on) excepted.

Needless to say, such a situation will make private insurance a losing proposition, because only those individuals who are virtually certain to NEED private health insurance are going to buy it. Because the insurance industry is necessarily based on uncertainty and pooled risk, it would be destroyed under this scenario.

The consequence, then, is that we will HAVE to put in place some kind of scheme for tax-subsidized medicine; otherwise, only those who are well-heeled enough to afford the extortionate costs of unsubsized health care will be able to receive treatment.

Of course, Wisconsin is not going about it optimally.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.