Come and Get it! Free Healt Care for All!

[TheMercenary]

OPINION By JOHN STOSSEL
Aug. 8, 2007

"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! Its 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. Postal Service, 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.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3460371

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We need laboratories of failure to demonstrate what socialism is like. All we have now is Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the U.S. Postal Service, and state motor-vehicle departments.

...and Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bosnia, Canada, Croatia, Czech Reublic, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom...

[slang]

That's a pretty impressive list of countries whos populations are coming to the US for medical care.

I wasnt aware that it was that large of a number.

[yesman065]

As long as they all go to Wisconsin, that is.

[DanaC]

Yeap. Course most Brits just stay here in Blighty. Most French stay in France, their health system is excellent.

And Cuba has its own 'Health Tourists' as well. As do several other countries.

[orthodoc]

Can't say that for Canadians. Even the recent birth of identical quadruplets to a woman from Calgary took place not in the land of 'free, universal' health care, but in Montana. The woman and her husband had to drive 325 miles and cross the border for her delivery. Why? Hospitals in Calgary were 'at full capacity'. The two ways to manage socialized health care are to tax more, and to restrict access to care. Canada does both.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And it makes the kids US citizens.

[mitheral]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Can't say that for Canadians. Even the recent birth of identical quadruplets to a woman from Calgary took place not in the land of 'free, universal' health care, but in Montana. The woman and her husband had to drive 325 miles and cross the border for her delivery. Why? Hospitals in Calgary were 'at full capacity'. The two ways to manage socialized health care are to tax more, and to restrict access to care. Canada does both.

A) this is an extreme example of a rare case.

B) How many Americans had their employer provided healthcare rates go down or coverage increase at the same price in the last few years? Canadians don't have to worry about HMOs or whether the closest/best hospital is in their companies network. Or losing coverage at the same time as they lose there job and ever after having a non covered existing condition. And of course 16% of our population doesn't have no healthcare coverage at all.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by mitheral

B) How many Americans had their employer provided healthcare rates go down or coverage increase at the same price in the last few years? Canadians don't have to worry about HMOs or whether the closest/best hospital is in their companies network. Or losing coverage at the same time as they lose there job and ever after having a non covered existing condition. And of course 16% of our population doesn't have no healthcare coverage at all.

Well if I need a knee replacement or hip replacement how long would I have to wait? How about 5 to 11 months?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3749801.stm

What if I was diagnosed with lung cancer? How long would I have to wait for treatment? How about 44 days?
http://www.cardiothoracicsurgery.org/content/2/1/5

[DanaC]

OKay. First off:

Even the recent birth of identical quadruplets

(my bold)

That suggests that's a regular everyday occurence that every hospital should be ready to deal with. When in fact you are dealing with an extremely complicated birth and very likely post natal complications for the babies.

Which brings me to:

Why? Hospitals in Calgary were 'at full capacity'.

No. Hospitals in Calgary were not at full capacity. southern Alberta's only neonatal intensive care unit was, however, full. The highly specialised care needed was not available for four babies in one go. For the kind of care those babies were likely to need, we are looking at a serious spike in numbers with 4. Fortunately, they were near enough to the states to drive across. Presumably had they been further in the other direction they'd have driven to Montreal or something.

The two ways to manage socialized health care are to tax more, and to restrict access to care. Canada does both.

One extraordinary case does not a trend make. Figures to back up that assertion would be appreciated.



[edit] I just want to reiterate the first point i made in this post. *Even* the recent birth of quadruplets.....this is being offered as evidence of the perils of socialised medicine? i'm sat here now, listening to BBC news on the radio and they've just talked about this woman giving birth to "rare" quadruplets. This makes international news. Not that it was a Canadian in America, but that she had quadruplets. [/edit]

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by DanaC

That suggests that's a regular everyday occurence that every hospital should be ready to deal with. When in fact you are dealing with an extremely complicated birth and very likely post natal complications for the babies.

Which brings me to: No. Hospitals in Calgary were not at full capacity. southern Alberta's only neonatal intensive care unit was, however, full. The highly specialised care needed was not available for four babies in one go. For the kind of care those babies were likely to need, we are looking at a serious spike in numbers with 4. Fortunately, they were near enough to the states to drive across. Presumably had they been further in the other direction they'd have driven to Montreal or something.

Sorry to come back into the thread so late ... I had to go out of town. Shouldn't have posted and then left, but ... some familiarity with the geography of the region would be helpful. Calgary IS the referral center for half the province of Alberta (which is huge). It's the equivalent of Montreal in Quebec. If there aren't 4 neonatal ICU beds in Calgary, there's a big problem. The problem is that the federal and provincial governments don't fund the facilities, technology, and services that current populations require.

The tax burden in Canada is extremely high (maybe not comparable to the UK, but much higher than in the U.S.), and there isn't a lot more room to meet costs that way. The other way of containing costs in a single-payer system is to limit access. There are many studies and reports on Canadian Medicare that make this statement; it's not an opinion. The Canadian system is unique among government-funded health care systems in that Canada is the only country that outlaws the provision of private medical services. The UK, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, and every other country I've read about that has taxpayer-funded health care allow parallel private systems. The private systems take the pressure off the public ones and allow innovation and competition.

The U.S. already has government-funded health insurance, as some others have noted - it has Medicare and Medicaid. It also has a private insurance system. While I think increased government oversight of private health insurance would be a good idea (to prevent cherry-picking and unilateral dropping of insurance, which looks to me like breach of contract), I think a private system is necessary to prevent what's happened in Canada. Canada is starting to think so, too - in spite of the Canada Health Act (the law that makes it a crime to provide health care privately), private clinics are finding loopholes and springing up more and more. In response, governments are de-listing more and more services and procedures, and allowing them to be picked up by private clinics. Unfortunately, this means that some important services go completely uninsured (eg. physiotherapy for most people; eye exams except in children; and dental services have never been covered).

I grew up in the Canadian system, have been a patient in it, and trained and worked in it as a physician. The most important thing to know about a single-payer system is that insurance for all does not translate into access to health care for all. People in the U.S. may have (sometimes voluntary) gaps in insurance coverage, but laws such as EMTALA provide for evaluation and needed care; people in Canada have access to insurance (though there are gaps and limits there too), but their access to care is limited, and there is no EMTALA.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Thanks orthodoc, good perspective. That's also what my Canadian kin have been saying, but without your background expertise.

[orthodoc]

Thanks for fixing that quote, Bruce. I used the 'quote' button but couldn't get it to look right. Probably something to do with my neo-luddite inadequacies. :p

[xoxoxoBruce]

Obviously over educated.... or used to letting the nurses handle the details.

[DanaC]

In fact, the odds of giving birth to identical quadruplets through natural conception are 1 in 13 million