Dems’ Budget Breaks The Bank
Senate Democrats added to the budget a 384-page amendment with pet programs, a $90-million increase in taxes on businesses and other changes.
[...]
According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the Senate-passed budget would raise overall state spending over the next two years by 23% - largely because of the $15.2 billion universal health care plan. If the cost of the health care plan is subtracted, overall state spending would go up 9%.
So even without the BS socialized health care proposal, the Dems budget increases state spending by 9%! And that’s just state spending. By the time all of the local tax increases come in, most Wisconsinites are probably looking at a 11%-15% increase in total taxes. Let me ask you… did your income go up by that much? Do you think that the average Wisconsinite’s income will go up by that much?
The Senate Dems don’t give a crap about the average taxpayer. They just want to increase their own feeling of self-worth by spending other people’s money.
How many dollars would that health care plan save the average Wisconsinites?
Posted by scott on June 26, 2007 at 2259 hrsGiven your faith in government projections, I’m sure you think it’s quite a bit.
Heh… my verification word is “soviet”
Posted by Owen on June 26, 2007 at 2312 hrsHow many dollars would that health care plan save the average Wisconsinites?
When they have to flee the state to actually get treated this decade, it will cost them out of pocket. A lot.
Posted by Jed on June 27, 2007 at 0632 hrsTo all you tax supporters:
Please name one, just one economy that has taxed itself into prosperity.
C’mon...just one!
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 0849 hrsName one country with universal health care that pays more than we do.
You folks are determined to stick to your ‘government can never solve a problem’ ideology, even when faced with the fact that seemingly everyone else has found a better and cheaper way to handle health care.
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 0856 hrsHow many dollars would that health care plan save the average Wisconsinites?
how does that address question about the amount a person’s income will increase, or the government not being fiscally responsible because they feel they have an endless supply of money?
When in doubt, change the subject. perfect.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 0915 hrshow does that address question about the amount a person’s income will increase
I think it addresses it fairly well. If I pay less for my health insurance than I used to, I have more money. What am I missing?
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 0920 hrsYou’re missing the obvious fact that you’re not paying less. Instead of insurance, you’d be paying HIGHER TAXES.
As I’ve said before and will say again. You have to pay the bill. Nothing is free.
And anyone who believes socialized medicine is better hasn’t done their research.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 0946 hrsYou’re missing the obvious fact that you’re not paying less. Instead of insurance, you’d be paying HIGHER TAXES.
I think it’s you who’s missing the point. It’s immaterial whether you call it taxes or premiums; if it costs less, it costs less. Less does not become more just because you call it “tax.”
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 0959 hrsThe fact that you assemble a list of politicians that aren’t going to raise taxes I find hilareious. Its blacklisting politicians over taxes! You know We don’t ever have to raise taxes in fact we could do like GWB and cut taxes. Only problem is you never get a balanced budget so we have to pay off a humongus defecit in the long term. Which means guess what we will have to raise taxes alot in the long term. I have never met people who were so obsessed with keeping taxes down at all cost. We need higher taxes to pay for thigs the government wants to do. They should have raised taxes after declaring the “War on Terror”. Instead they just deficet spent. If you really want to cut your taxes ask for decreased spending and a balanced budget not lower taxes.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1022 hrsIt costs less because of the rationing too, let us not forget that. If we only have to pay for 500 budgeted heart transplants, it will be less than if all 900 people that need one get one. Scott the humanitarian is backing this so it must be humane.
Just out of curiosity Scott, who do you think will be waiting for those transplants til they die, the rich? Rationing services is a basic staple of socialized medicine. So under this Democratic plan it is ok to deny medicines because the consumer is old and/or has reached his limit? How deliciously Kevorkian of you.
If we were the first model of socialized medicine to NOT ration, it would not be cheaper and we would be bankrupted very quickly if all the other states did not quickly follow suit through all our new sickly residents. Hey I can’t afford cancer treatments, let’s move to Wisconsin where Scott and the Government says everyone will be covered...oh wait, not EVERYONE will be covered? What was the point of this?
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1039 hrsIt costs less because of the rationing too, let us not forget that.
No, let’s not forget it - even if it’s not really true.
“It is commonly believed that waiting lists in other countries and malpractice litigation in the United States are major reasons why the United States spends so much more on health care than other countries. We found that they only explain a small part of the difference” - link
And anyway, what on earth makes you think health care isn’t being rationed right now? You think private insurers aren’t restricting access to medical treatments? Wake up, man.
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 1051 hrs“The Senate Dems don’t give a crap about the average taxpayer. They just want to increase their own feeling of self-worth by spending other people’s money.”
Sigh. I can’t believe that any smart person could stare at politics for years and still think that one party is significantly different than the other when it comes to deeds versus demagoguery… as if Republicans don’t pork and spend, as if they’re pure-hearted and never do it to please cronies in their districts…
Sayeth the Wiki: “The early 20th century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, known for his “definitions” of terms, defined a demagogue as “one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” Though this definition emphasizes the use of lying and falsehoods, some point out that demagogy does not require such, but that skilled demagogues often need to use only special emphasis by which an uncritical listener will be led to draw the desired conclusion himself, seeding a belief that is self-reinforced rather than one based on fact or truth.”
Posted by John Foust on June 27, 2007 at 1205 hrs“...as if Republicans don’t pork and spend,”
Generally true. Why comments like “The Senate Dems don’t give a crap about the average taxpayer” are more common now, is that the Senate Dems ARE the one proposing even more spending on top of Diamoind Jim’s insane budget.
STILL waiting for a pro-taxer who can name one group of people (other than congress) who taxed themselves to prosperity,
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1220 hrsScott, your response to me is only vaild if you believe that government control will result in lower costs overall. It will not - in my view, since government is notoriously inefficient.
And since it won’t be cheaper, your argument doesn’t hold water. If I pay $10 in taxes and $5 in premiums, that’s $15. If I pay 12.50 in taxes and 2.50 in premiums, that’s still $15.
You’re missing the point. You have to pay the bill.
Make the health care system more efficient, make it CHEAPER to provide the services and it will then cost less.
Moving the payments from one entity (consumers) to another (government) doesn’t save anyone any money! Who funds the government? CONSUMERS!
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1223 hrsPrecisely my point, Bajaskier. Right now, it’s the Dems. When the Republicans were in power, they slid what they could through, too. And when they’re not taxing, they’re stacking the Supremes so they can declare that free speech isn’t free if it’s making fun of drugs. As for your double-dare, you link taxation to “prosperity.” What’s that, when the economy seems to be going good? What about a decade later when it don’t? Whose fault was that? G.W.B. told me that spending a half-trillion on a war would keep our ‘Merican way of life intact. It wouldn’t? Is a trillion more than a billion?
My verification word: “Poor.”
Posted by John Foust on June 27, 2007 at 1247 hrsyour response to me is only vaild if you believe that government control will result in lower costs overall.
Whallah! Black is white and up is down. Simple as that. YES, I think government funded insurance can be cheaper than the private system. Shall we look at the dozens of countries who pay half - HALF - what we pay? And even looking at the Wisconsin Dem’s plan, it does look like the premiums paid as taxes will be less than what most people are paying now, doesn’t it?
make it CHEAPER to provide the services and it will then cost less.
It will be cheaper. Just like it is everywhere else where they have government-funded insurance. God, I get tired of repeating this and having to defend it every. single. time we have this discussion. It’s a fact. A stone-cold, irrefutable fact, that they pay LESS and we pay MORE. Christ. Can we move on now?
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 1250 hrsInteresting article on socialized healthcare, even being 2 years old. article
But even if Owens numbers are halved, you’re still looking at a 6-8% increase in taxes(spending). How many people get that sort of raise every year in order to keep par? I know I don’t.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1254 hrsPerhaps you will when your employer and you don’t have to pay an even larger percent of your salary to a private insurance company. Make sense?
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 1259 hrsScott, your statement makes gramatical sense, but I just don’t think it’s gonna work out that way. As pointed out earlier, government, of any kind, does not have a good track record for running large programs like this without asking for more down the road because they miscalculated the true cost of the program.
My main disagreement with this is that it’s not being asked of the people, they’re gonna try to put this on us because they think it’s a good idea. I’m pretty sure if they put this to a vote by the people it would die.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1313 hrsGosh, Scott, you’re tired of repeating yourself? I’m so very sorry.
Either way, your irrefutable fact - doesn’t make sense to me. I’ll look into it. I’d love to hear your source for that one.
And Looking to Move - your employer likely won’t have the money for raises since they are paying higher taxes, even if you aren’t. Somebody’s paying for this thing.
Or nobody is. As long as it’s free, who cares?
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1322 hrsgovernment, of any kind, does not have a good track record for running large programs like this
Actually, it does. I would argue that both Medicare and the VA system are far more efficient and cost-effective than our (what I shall for the moment refer to as) “system.” Plus we have the example of so many other foreign governments, all of whom provide comprehensive insurance for every single citizen at a far lower cost than our own costs.
I’m sorry, but your position seems to be coming from one of pure ideology (government can never solve a problem more efficiently than the private sector), rather than from facts.
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 1324 hrsAnd what about that health care system within the US military? They use that as a selling point during recruitment, don’t they?
Verification word: “Sure”.
Posted by John Foust on June 27, 2007 at 1336 hrsGreat link Scott,
Ok, another concern I have is still, who is covered and how would it affect Wisconsin compared to the surrounding states? Can this be implemented effectively in just one state? It SEEMS to me, no. What am I missing?My ‘druthers is still a market solution, but with the level of Government involvement already in place, I don’t think it is feasible.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1338 hrsyour employer likely won’t have the money for raises since they are paying higher taxes, even if you aren’t.
Let me make this as simple as I can, since some folks here just do not seem to get the concept. Let’s use small simple numbers. The only important thing is that they be proportional to one another for now.
You pay $5 in insurance premiums. Your employer pays the other $20 on your behalf. Not even counting copays and other stuff, your health insurance costs $25. With me so far?
Under this new plan you pay $4, your employer pays $15. In taxes. But neither of you has to pay the private insurance premium anymore, get it? So you/employer have a net savings of $6.
“Yes, but your’e paying more taxes!!!!” Uh, yeah. But the taxes are less than the premiums that you’re no longer paying.
“But the taxes!!!!!!”
Um, yeah.
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 1344 hrsCan this be implemented effectively in just one state? It SEEMS to me, no.
An excellent, excellent question. I’d like an answer to that myself. One suspects that it would involve a residency requirement of a certain length of time before coverage kicks in. But I really have no idea.
Also, this is one of the reasons I favor a federal solution rather than piecemealing it state by state.
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 1346 hrs"But the taxes!” Warren Buffett, known Commie billionaire, asks why he’s taxed at 17% and the average secretary is taxed at 32% to 39%.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/26/news/newsmakers/clinton _buffett/index.htm?cnn=yes
Posted by John Foust on June 27, 2007 at 1357 hrsBecause Buffett pays accountants lots of money to know and use the tax code in his favor and since most of the Government officials are either very rich or receiving ‘donations’ from the very rich, there are more tax exemptions for them than for us(less wealthy). As has been pointed out earlier, both parties are equally guilty in this type of problem, the GOP just has the worse rep at the moment because they have most recently been in power. Look for Democrats to use words not actions to correct inequities in tax rates, just like the Republicans big push to...not pass the taxpayer’s bill of rights. Funny how that issue is only an issue when GOP is in the minority, or enough of the minority to not get it passed.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1415 hrsboth parties are equally guilty
There’s some truth to what you say, sadly. But I don’t know that I would use the word “equally.” You tell me if there’s a difference between the taxes we had in the 90s and the tax structure today. Somehow the word equal doesn’t spring to mind.
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 1419 hrsAgain Scott, your premise is that the government will do it cheaper. I refuse to accept that.
The cost of the actual service - that’s the doctor’s salary, equipment costs, drug costs, malpractice insurance costs etc....how are they being made cheaper? Isn’t the cost just being shifted to a different person? Someone besides you is paying, right?
If you can make yourself believe that the governments costs would be less than the insurance companies costs with the only difference being who is paying the bills, you are capable of some amazing mental gymnastics.
You could say it’ll be cheaper because the government doesn’t have a profit motive, as an insurance company does. But that would be false too. Taxpayers are a funding source for all sorts of government goodness.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1419 hrs...the government will do it cheaper. I refuse to accept that.
Yes, I know. What about France, Canada and the UK. Have their costs just been shifted to a different person? Why do they pay half of what we pay? We’ve already established that it’s not because of constriction of services. Three explanations come to mind:
1. Negotiating power. 300 million people have a lot of it. We could negotiate far lower prices for drugs and procedures, just like they do elsewhere.
2. No profit skimmed off the top.
3. Reduced administrative costs. It’s widely known that Medicare costs less to administrate than private insurance.
you are capable of some amazing mental gymnastics.
Let’s see. Everyone else has universal coverage. Everyone else pays less than we do. Yup, that’s quite a gymnastic leap for me to assume that there’s something to it!
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 1426 hrsI don’t have a problem with giving this idea a shot, but I think they should write some sort of determining factors of success that can be checked against in a few years. Stuff like money spent on HC/person is less than the average for insurance. and we have to have the same level of care, similar infant mortality rates and etc.. If the program doesn’t meet the success requirements, then we should get rid of it and try something else.
Yeah, I know I’m living in a fantasy land asking for the possibility of a government program to go away if it doesn’t work.
Posted by Matt on June 27, 2007 at 1431 hrsStuff like money spent on HC/person is less than the average for insurance. and we have to have the same level of care, similar infant mortality rates and etc.. If the program doesn’t meet the success requirements, then we should get rid of it and try something else.
If only conservatives were more sensitive to issues like this all the time. We’d have abandoned our current system a decade ago.
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 1437 hrsPS,
Read the link in comment 12 and read the link in the salmon box, “It’s the prices stupid”. I tend to believe that argument because of our own beloved market system. We have more money in th US, if a doctor can charge twice the cost, wouldn’t any capitalist? With all the regulations in place in the health care system, it may be difficult for a hospital or doctor’s group to offer ‘discount prices’ to let the Market fix the problem. Carrying it further, businesses would be charged less than other states so it could be a health insurance tax haven for businesses, depending on how much corporates were taxed compared to other states.I always think of the wtmj radio commercial with Drs. Foote and Dudley doing eye surgery at 1199.00 per eye. “Don’t be fooled by those other places offering 299.00 per eye, because yada, yada, yada. How much does it cost?
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1440 hrsScott the real question is would it really be possible for the government to drive down the HC prices in this country so that we are paying similar prices as the other countries?
In the companion piece to that article you linked to at John Hopkins, he says we simply pay more for HC in the US, for apparently no good reason. So would the government just say this is how much we’re going to pay and everyone in the HC business has to take a pay cut or something?
That’s probably a pretty good reason why this won’t work in only Wisconsin, most of the doctors would just move to the UP, Minnesota, and Illinios.
Posted by Matt on June 27, 2007 at 1441 hrsAnother good question to ask is what does a socialized Health Care system do to medical innovation? Is there less incentive to innovate in a non-competitive system? Absolutely.
Posted by Matt on June 27, 2007 at 1445 hrswould it really be possible for the government to drive down the HC prices in this country so that we are paying similar prices as the other countries?
Good question. For starters, doctors would make less money (as they do in Canada), drugs would be negotiated 20% cheaper (as they are in Canada), overhead administration would go from 15% to, what, 5%? Sure, I think we could see some immediate cost savings. How much of it might come over time in the form of cost freezes? Some, surely.
Could we cut costs in half? That seems like an impossible dream. But cutting it by a third might be pretty doable.
would the government just say this is how much we’re going to pay and everyone in the HC business has to take a pay cut or something?
Yeah, I think you’d see that happening. But again, some of the savings might come over time in the form of cost freezes rather than immediately.
this won’t work in only Wisconsin, most of the doctors would just move to the UP, Minnesota, and Illinios.
Yes, I do worry about that. At the same t ime, though, Canadian doctors make far less than ours do - and they have more physicians per capita than we do. Clearly there’s not been a mass exodus to the States over it.
Posted by scott on June 27, 2007 at 1452 hrsScott,
Let me give your premiums/taxes scenario another view.
Simply comparing a line item on a business statement with taxes on monetary numbers is missing most of the point. This particular line item is health care premiums. But like all line items they have particular characteristics like the ability to create them, to delete them, to modify them, to reconfigure them, put them out for bids or create one to be dealt with internally.
Taxes are different: You pay them or you go to jail, they never go down, there are always unintended (though not surprising) consequenses.
Additionally, the premiums remain a cyclical part of the private economy. Taxes are run through Madison which means trouble - always has always will.
$30 Billion - every budget through Madison would set up an irresistable pot of money for the Dems to create new ways of spending.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1452 hrs"$30 Billion - every budget through Madison would set up an irresistable pot of money for the Dems to create new ways of spending.”
This sort of thing is my biggest worry as well.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1459 hrsAs even Owen says it will be cheaper with lower administrative costs, that sold me on the Senate Dems’ plan.
Too bad, as it won’t get past the Assembly.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1641 hrsNice Scott, but once again you should really read something you link to. The study to which you link, and the companion study they link, specifically refer to the unwillingness of the USA to ration healthcare. Second, they cite our higher GDP as the single biggest reason we spend more on health care.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1649 hrsNot quite sure of your comment bvbigbro. They do refer to the unwillingness of the US to ration healthcare, but their study (right or wrong) found that the services that are commonly rationed specifically are only 3% of the total dollars spent where we are commonly spending 60% more per capita than national health care countries. The higher GDP as I mentioned earlier is the single biggest reason and national health care would regulate that (again for better or worse). The savings would come from lowering the price of services. The questions raised by that are:
1) Would that hurt the quality of care, less incentive to enter the medical field.
2) Would innovation suffer, would the geniuses enter the field or would there be private companies paying more for say research or other.
3) Shouldn’t we be paying more for services? You can live in many orient nations on $1.00 an hour...we just make more money here, hence supply and demand can command higher prices for most things.I like this thread, less name calling and nit-picking, more give and take discussion.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1708 hrsNo, TUERQAS. They mention that other countries have set effective limits on the maximum they pay, thus establishing an upper limit on expenditures per capita.
I think what’s being confused here is rationing as in waiting, and rationing as in not getting the service at all. The study that says reduced waiting periods are not a big cause of higher costs links to a study that specifically suggests that denial of services is a big way to obtain lower health costs.
Also, the studies use PPP dollars, and I have a small problem with that given that consumers from different countries may not equally value the common breadbasket used to calculate the PPP dollar. PPP dollars may be a really bad measurement to use when one of the things we are talking about is the willingness of people to spend money on a particular item, namely healthcare. It also assumes that all countries are reporting this data equally.
Also, nowhere do we have a country that has similar size, geography, demographics and population density as the USA. I wonder what impact these have on health care? I’m guessing very large. In addition, we are supposing that the services being offered are truly equal. Do all these nations have similar survival rates when all demograhic features are equalized?
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 1727 hrsNo, that is not being confused. I noted earlier in what was hopefully a wry tone, that Scott the humanitarian is actually championing something that will ultimately shorten many people’s lives because of upper QALY limits for the elderly in particular. I see your point, though and I guess I took the spirit of the article(s) at their inference. None of the three articles I read from that link (there were many) came out and said that QALY costs for extending end of life procedures was a major cause of our increased costs in the US. When it stated rationing was NOT a major cause it inferred that QALY costs with upper limits was included in that statement.
Thanks for pointing that out.I think the PPP dollars is splitting hairs to an extent for two reasons:
1) There is enough of a gap that gaining even 10% from figuring the total costs by using more standard exchange rates is not a significant factor.
2) You mentioned willingness to spend. I think humans are relatively consistent enough in nature to predict that very few people want to pay for something they take for granted (good health) until they lose it.Your last observation may have huge significance or be smoke in the wind. I know I don’t have that expertise, but Canada is also a very wide demographic and I think sparser populations would make the per capita rise not fall.
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 0945 hrsI guess what I was getting at with the willingness to spend is that the supposed higher limits on ultimate expenditures in the USA would imply a gretaer willingness to spend, even if that spending may not seem rational for the benefit achieved. That in turn would call into question the use of the PPP as a good figure to use.
The demographics provides a potentially huge factor given the propensity for diseases to have genetic and climate related factors. Also in the USA the genetic makeup of the population is much more diverse, and much less uniform over various age brackets. A great big unknown.
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 1020 hrsSo yeah, I guess I did have them confused...but I am not as dumb as I really am!
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 1043 hrsI see what you mean, it is just too awesome to get my mind around. Here is the selfish, self-centered, US spending more money on keeping our elderly and ‘in peril’ people alive than all the socialist humanitarian countries that look down on us for not caring enough about those people. Now the Democrats that agree with them are proposing that we also go Spartan in the name of humanity..."I’m still geekin’ out about it...”
Seriously though, I think it is a politically correct phase the US is going through. In some areas have an inferiority complex to Europe and this is one of the issues. Conservatives in general, believe that people should save for their own rainy days and liberals feel we should be more like Europe in the health arena. It may let a few folks die earlier, but at least no one in the world is more compassionate than us. I am not sure that we (the US) really feel that spending $100,000 to keep an 82 year old alive for seven more months lying in the hospital is worth it, it is just politically incorrect to admit it.
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 1132 hrs
Ol' Army
