Come and Get it! Free Healt Care for All!
 

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

...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...

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.

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

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.

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.

And it makes the kids US citizens.

OKay. First off: (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: 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.


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]

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

Socialized medicine certainly has its benefits as well as its drawbacks, based on what I've read. Canada's plan doesn't seem all that great to me.

Unless a fundamental shift in thinking occurs in this country, I don't see Americans trusting their government enough and will not shell out extra tax money to pay for it. We're ornery by default and we like it that way. It makes us look like assholes on one hand, but helps cushion us when we hit rough financial times better than most countries.

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.

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

Joint replacements in Canada:

Joint replacements: Joint replacement surgeries grew significantly in the five years leading up to 2002–2003. Together, knee and hip replacement surgeries increased 30%, amounting to 11,340 more surgeries over this period. According to the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry, waits for a knee replacement are longer than for a hip replacement, with half of all patients undergoing surgery within seven months for knees and four-and-a-half months for hips. However, 10% of knee replacement patients wait 21 months or more, while 10% of hip replacement patients wait 15 months or more. These results reflect submissions from selected orthopedic surgeons in eight provinces.

http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage....ia_07mar2006_e

And what percentage of an equivalent American contingent had to wait indefinately whilst they argued with their insurance providers? What percentage of an equivalent American contingent were not able to access treatment at all, because they had no insurance cover?

These arguments against socialised medicine only really stack up if the alternative system results in treating a higher percentage of people faster and better. If, as is the case in America, many millions of people are without health insurance, and several million will go without needed medical care because of a lack of insurance, or a lack of co-operation by the insurance companies, then pointing at the much smaller percentage of Canadians or British who go without needed care (or have to wait several months for operations) is a little disingenuous.

The typical order of things is get treated first, then argue over who owes the doctor the money. We also have Medicare for the elderly, and Medicaid for the poor, and guaranteed insurance for all children in most states. In the "no insurance" statistics, they also never mention what percentage of those people are willingly uninsured, like both my brother and my father.