| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2007/7/24-28 [Health] UID:47404 Activity:moderate |
7/24 Wow, universal healthcare is expensive
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010374
\_ It comes to $3000/yr per resident. That's actually less than
my health insurance, which is $4200/yr. I think they should
build in more incentive to wellness on the part of Wisconsin
residents.
\_ Where did you get the $3000/yr value? And what do I care about
"per resident" when it should be "per taxpayer"?
From the article:
The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion
more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and
corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month
in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.
\_ $15.2 billion/population of Wisconsin. It's actually $2700 or
so but I rounded up. My health insurance costs $450 when
all is said and done, so if I were in Wisconsin, it'd be an
extra $100/month for me for there to be universal health
insurance. (I rounded up again.) Workers here with families
pay $900/month for health insurance (most covered by employer).
\_ Of course, government estimates are never wrong.
\_ You'd be paying your $4K + the $3K.
\_ Maybe, maybe not. You might be able to get the money
back from your employer, since his cost will be lower.
\_ And why should people without families pay for those who
have them?
\_ It actually promotes my health not to be surrounded
by sick people.
\_ So paying for someone else's kid's broken leg from
soccer practice makes you healthier? Okey dokey.
\_ No, but paying to control TB for example and for
immunizations in general does.
\_ You are picking and choosing though. Paying
for 'universal healthcare' means you may be
paying for immunizations, but you are also
paying for a crapload of other things, many
of them misused _because_ they are perceived
as 'free.' -- ilyas
\_ And it may well not be doing any good. -- ilyas
\_ And employer provided health insurance
isn't perceived as "free"?
\_ My point wasn't to argue in favor of the
current form of healthcare over
'universal healthcare' but to try to
shift the debate more towards looking
shift the debate more towards looking at
whether healthcare actually helps people
be healthy. -- ilyas
\- a study just came out comparing
newly eligible medicare patients
showing people who went from no
coverage to covered needed more
"work done" than people with
continuous coverage.
\_ I am not surprised that healthcare
would be of benefit to that segment
of the population. This isn't the
same as 'overall effects' on the
whole population, of course.
-- ilyas
\_ Send me a link, please. -- ilyas
\_ there are plenty of people without
healthcare in the U.S.; do you think
they're likely to be healthier than
those with healthcare? I can't
believe I bothered to reply to that
absurdity. -tom
\_ Feel free to actually read the
study I linked (twice now I think)
rather than acting like an ass.
The claim is that while healthcare
has a positive effect (obviously),
this effect is mostly negated by
negative effects (with some
exceptions, for instance optometry
is generally clearly beneficial).
My untutored intuition would say
that healthcare would have a
positive effect, but a very
inefficient one given the amount
of spending. That there might be
no effect is something I think is
pretty scandalous. -- ilyas
\_ I am LEWIS@SODA. I am offering
to teach you about Partial
Derivatives, if you would like
to learn about these wonderous
things.
\_ I think I understand what
an effect is and what it
isn't pretty well. -- ilyas
pretty scandalous. Your example
isn't as obvious as you might
think -- are you controlling
for race, wealth, etc? What should
you control for? What shouldn't
you control for? -- ilyas
\_ I'm going to control for
ilyas being a moron by
stepping out of this
conversation. -tom
\_ So, ausman, to go back to our
earlier discussion: this is
apparently the best place
on the internet you could
find for general discussion?
I brought up this study
repeatedly, because I think
its conclusions are
somewhat counterintuitive
(they certainly are to me).
But the extent of discussion
so far has been either to
ignore it or ridicule it.
Compare to how this study
was discussed on
overcomingbias, for example.
-- ilyas
ignore it or ridicule me for
bringing it up. Compare to
how this study was discussed
on overcomingbias, for
example. -- ilyas |
| 7/8 |
|
| opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010374 Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:01 am EDT When Louis Brandeis praised the 50 states as "laboratories of democracy," he didn't claim that every policy experiment would work. So we hope the eyes of America will turn to Wisconsin, and the effort by Madison Democrats to make that "progressive" state a Petri dish for government-run health care. This exercise is especially instructive, because it reveals where the "single-payer," universal coverage folks end up. Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate have dropped the Washington pretense of incremental health-care reform and moved directly to passing a plan to insure every resident under the age of 65 in the state. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker. In all, the tax burden in the Badger State could rise to 20% of family income, which is slightly more than the average federal tax burden. "At least federal taxes pay for an Army and Navy," quips RJ Pirlot of the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce business lobby. As if that's not enough, the health plan includes a tax escalator clause allowing an additional 15 percentage point payroll tax to finance higher outlays in the future. One reason to expect costs to soar is that the state may become a mecca for the unemployed, uninsured and sick from all over North America. The legislation doesn't require that you have a job in Wisconsin to qualify, merely that you live in the state for at least 12 months. Cheesehead nation could expect to attract health-care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes. And unions and some big businesses with rich union health plans are only too happy to dump these liabilities onto the government. Small employers that can't afford to provide insurance would see their employment costs rise by thousands of dollars per worker, while those that now provide a basic health insurance plan would have to pay $400 to $500 a year more per employee. The plan is also openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs. Private companies are making modest progress in sweating out health-care inflation by making patients more cost-conscious through increased copayments, health savings accounts, and incentives for wellness. The Wisconsin program moves in the opposite direction: It reduces out-of-pocket copayments, bars money-saving HSA plans, and increases the number of mandated medical services covered under the plan. Where they always do in any government plan: Rationing via price controls and, as costs rise, waiting periods and coverage restrictions. The last line of defense against this plan are the Republicans who run the Wisconsin House. So far they've been unified and they recently voted the Senate plan down. Democrats are now planning to take their ideas to the voters in legislative races next year, and that's a debate Wisconsinites should look forward to. At least Wisconsin Democrats are admitting how much it will cost Americans to pay for government-run health care. |