Why Republicans Are Really Against Universal Health Care and How It’s Going to Swing Control of the Wisconsin Legislature
Due in large part to the proposal by Senate Democrats for Universal Health care for Wisconsin residents (see more detail here), I think Wisconsin Democrats have an excellent chance of not only increasing their majority in the State Senate in 2008, but taking back the State Assembly as well.
The Democratic controlled Senate is going to pass the measure that will give every Wisconsin resident top of the line health insurance while lowering costs for individuals and businesses. The Republican controlled Assembly will not pass it because frankly they’re beholden to the big insurance companies campaign checks, and this is a very important point going forward in this debate, their primary reasoning for opposing universal health care is because it’s an ideological issue.
They don’t believe “the government” can do anything right, nor should do it even try to do anything right. It’s not about what’s best for the people of Wisconsin, it’s about their belief above all else that government is bad.
So while they scream and shout and make up talking points about “20 BILLION IN TAX INCREASES!!#@”, just remember it’s a cover for the real reason they’re against this or any government social program that benefits the greater good of it’s citizens.
Republicans just don’t believe that government can do anything right, which is why when they’re in power, nothing is done right. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
But back to the Republican controlled Assembly. If this bill dies with them, which by all accounts it looks like it’s going to do, it’s going to be the #1 campaign issue for the 2008 elections.
Every Democrat running for Assembly is going to hammer home the fact that if it weren’t for Republican obstructionism in the Assembly, you Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer would have top of the line health insurance for a fraction of what you’re paying now. And what are Republicans going to come back with? Something about “taxes” I’m sure, but once the facts about this plan make it out in to the public realm, that’s going to sound like the lame argument it really is.
The message: If you want top of the line health insurance coverage for a fraction of what you’re paying now vote Democrat in 2008. If you want the status quo, vote Republican.
Health care is one of the top three issues that voters are concerned about, and after years of double digit premium increases, rightfully so. State Democrats have hit a home run with their proposal and it’s going to be one of the major factors that lead to Democrats regaining control of the State Legislature in 2008.
Comments are closed.
The Republican controlled Assembly will not pass it because frankly they’re beholden to the big insurance companies campaign checks, and this is a very important point going forward in this debate, their primary reasoning for opposing universal health care is because it’s an ideological issue.
Either it’s an ideological issue or it’s because Republicans are beholden to insurance companies, but whatever. :)
They don’t believe “the government†can do anything right
I find it ironic you think government should be in control of as much as you do. What has GWB’s administration done correctly in your opinion? Not a whole lot, if anything. So, you want to live through that crap for your HEALTH?
oops .. didn’t mean to post so quickly …
Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer would have top of the line health insurance for a fraction of what you’re paying now
Great .. I’ve got wonderful health insurance .. oh yeah .. with a cap I can spend per year. So I have “great” insurance, but cannot get health care. Ask any state sponsored health care participant and they will tell you some great horror stories.
Health care is one of the top three issues that voters are concerned about
For the record, I am concerned about it as well .. I’m not a state employee so the cost to me is tough to deal with, but I would rather not have the government involved in health care. Doctors all over the world want to practice in the United States because there is incentive to make money and have great resources. Go to France once and take a look at their unbelievably “disgusting” facilities and tell me you want the same here. Ask the people of Canada why they come over to the USA to get treatment.
You do know that most of the cost in health insurance is directly because of the government’s previous intervention right?
Last point first, but to correct you on the primary cost of health care: administrative costs account for 25 between and 35 percent of health care spending. 25% is based on a 2005 study in California, the 35% is according to the CEO or Northwestern Mutal here in Milwaukee. The plan the Democrats have put forth consolidate those administrative costs, just like the state run health care plans do, hence the lower cost.
The difference between health insurance and care is a good point, but for the record, I’m covered under a state sponsored health care plan as are all public employee’s and there’s nothing horrific about it. As for the plan you’re on yourself, I understand that and remember dealing with that myself. But under this plan, annual out-of-pocket expenses are capped at $2000 – coverage *is not*, and there are no penalties for pre-existing conditions either.
I find it ironic you think government should be in control of as much as you do. What has GWB’s administration done correctly in your opinion? Not a whole lot, if anything. So, you want to live through that crap for your HEALTH?
That’s exactly the point I make in the post above. Of course the administration of GWB hasn’t done anything correctly other than to prove that they can’t do anything correctly.
That’s the case precisely because they don’t think it’s their place as the federal government to do so! So you can’t be surprised when a group of people who claim they have no business running the show run it into the ground. That’s like being surprised when a person who’s telling you they can’t and shouldn’t be driving a car to begin with crash it on the freeway.
Let’s be honest, conservative ideology is based on the idea(!) that government can’t and doesn’t work. When your core belief is that government must be downsized and cut because it’s broken, and because it can’t and doesn’t work, it’s impossible to effectively govern. Doing so is at a juxtaposition with the ideology that serves as one of the primary doctrines of the conservative movement.
One final point, and that’s that the government won’t have anything to do with the actual health care. When you take out the what the insurance companies are willing to pay which is often a roadblock to the best *health care* and let doctors and nurses make the best decisions in consultation with their patients, it’s a win win situation, no bureaucratic meddling involved.
You do know that most of the cost in health insurance is directly because of the government’s previous intervention right?
Dan, my point of saying this is the regulation of the insurance and health industry is put us in the position we are in today! If we left the health industry to work in a free market, it would thrive.
That’s the case precisely because they don’t think it’s their place as the federal government to do so!
Well, this is a probably a different discussion altogether, but I believe they (GW’s administration) are simply incompetent Dan. I don’t think it has anything to do with a self fulfilling prophecy, but it’s an interesting idea that you bring to the table. Please don’t call GWB a conservative – he’s not even close.
This plan is not a win-win at all, it’s a lose-lose! More cost, less coverage, less choice.
If I want to make one point with you, it’s that it’s not more cost with less coverage and choice. I’ve documented in a few places already that this will cost taxpayers LESS, cost businesses LESS, and covered citizens LESS.
All with the same choices and coverage that any state employee gets. I’d seriously challenge you to find any state employee who isn’t happy with their choices, the cost, or the coverage.
About regulation and costs: by that logic the amunt of regulation has been tied to the increase in costs over the past 15-20 years. The fact is regulation of the health care industry has lessened over that time. And I stand by my opinion that 15 years of increasing costs and lowered benefits are the result of a “free market” in this industry, not in spite of it.
I think the Republicans who are opposed to medicare do so purely on class interests. I think that people who are opposed to universal health care already have health care and don’t like the idea of paying for someone else’s health care.
Yeah Boy, if you look at other things that have happened in the last 20 years in the health care system, increased government regulation isn’t much of a factor. What has changed about regulation of our health care system in that time? Not much. Two other things have happened that actually affect the cost to the user.
First, we have a lot more technology than we had 20 years ago. Back then, a lot of things that we now take for granted were new (MRIs, angioplasty) and a lot of things have just gotten better due to better (and more expensive) technology (NICU care, cancer care). This, most people are willing to pay for.
Second, the rise of the HMO/PPO/Plan Administrator has raised costs by “controlling” them. Who made a lot of money before this? Doctors. Who makes it now? The insurance industry. For the job of “managing” health care and screwing with the free market. These products are too big to truly compete with each other at the end user level. This, I’m not willing to pay for.
Do they really do a better job than the government? Have you ever been on the phone with these people? They are functioning at a level that is certainly no better than what you expect out of government workers (obviously excepting Dan) but we are paying a lot more for it, because the government isn’t in it for a profit.
You are right Jill, government isn’t in it for a profit; BUT government is extremely inefficient and, wether we want to accept it or not, there is always corruption at some level.
It’s a great idea, but they just need to think it through a bit more.
I am not opposed to Universal Health care, but I am opposed to what it will do to out state. When Wisconsin pioneered welfare there was a flood of people into our state which, in theory, would be great right?
It would be great if they were coming to live and work, which obviously wasn’t the case. One of the rules of welfare was that it was for single mothers, which means women kicked their men out of the house. So the last time the government got over their heads, Wisconsin encouraged people who do not have any intention of working to come and live in our state and then forced them to have broken homes to qualify for living without working. FYI, currently 60% of African American males in Milwaukee are unemployed, the racism reason only goes so far, especially with affirmative action. FYI, Milwaukee has a labor shortage, there is not enough people working to satisfy all the work that needs to be done so we are importing workers from other states, paying them, and they are taking our tax dollars that we pay them back to their states and communities, spending them there, and strengthening their own communities and, in turn, weakening ours equally – when we have 60% unemployed African American males already living in our city. This is what happened the last time we didn’t look before jumping.
Now we are going to have universal health care, which I fully support, but not when we rush into it the way we are. It truly will reduce the cost of health care per person, but it will increase the cost of health care for those who work and pay taxes. If everyone was working, it would reduce the cost of health care for everyone, but obviously that’s just not the case.
Now throw into that mix, the type of people that will now be immigrating to our state. People that most likely, do not work already, or those making so little that they can not afford their own health care already, which means that this group of people, will not be even close to pulling their weight for the health care they are provided. And I TRULY doubt they will be students just starting out in life but with promising futures. So now, on top of the people that we encouraged to move here with our welfare mistake, we will now be encouraging many more people, who do not work, to come and partake of our tax dollars. This will relieve their former states of the burden of taking care of people perfectly capable of working. This will again strengthen the economies of their former STATES (many states) and equally weaken our STATE (just one). Big burden. This is not healthy for our state, Wisconsin, and will be much more detrimental than just taking care of the current non-working residents of Wisconsin, because the burden includes all those, none of which will even close to help our economy, that this will attract.
This has nothing to do with class; I myself am in the lower class and can not afford health care. But I am a college student and I have the goal of one day not needing government support and I am taking steps to attain that goal. I am also working through school. I am also a disabled veteran.
The bottom line is that free health care should be for those who are disabled or working with low incomes and can not afford it even though they work. Other than giving those people free health care, the tax payers and citizens of this state would be better served by increasing education spending and financial aid so that people with low incomes are able to attain an education and someday be able to legitimately live on their own without the aid of the state. Then they will pay taxes and help the younger generation of low income people get an education and have health care until they can afford it on their own too. That would be a beautiful blossom of a government program. The way that it is presented now, it looks like it will crash and burn, but not until we deal with it and “growing pains” starving the state for a decade.
I am not a republican or a democrat, I make my own decisions on every subject presented and only after I have put considerable research and thought into it. I fully support a “helping hand” not “hand outs”. I think “hand outs” encourage the wrong type of behavior. I fully support universal health care, but only after it has been thought out, and after we can figure out how to get those who are able to work, to work. Few people love to go to work every day, but they go to work none the less. They may need more education, and state assistance to live while they are getting educated, and that is the right answer. Increasing the burden on those who work and encouraging those who do not work to flock to our great state, is just not the right approach. Supporting just any universal health care plan thrown at the legislature for the sake of being a democrat disappoints me.
Universal health care is a great idea, and we need it, but just need to think it through a little more first.
P.S.
**Remember, the same fire that keeps you warm can also burn you.
Also, food for thought, everyone who knows enough about it knows that communism was a great idea in theory, but it didn’t work; probably because they didn’t think it through enough and find out that there needs to be other elements added, like a form of democracy and ways to curb corruption.
Our democratic republic here in the United States has proven the best type of government yet, but it is very inefficient and there is still far too much corruption. We always need to be striving to be smarter and more efficient with less corruption.**
Jason,
Again, have you ever spent hours on a phone with any part of our healthcare system? My husband spends at least an hour a week dealing with the insurance company, the doctor’s office, the lab or the hospital because someone sent the wrong bill, coded it wrong, or put the wrong insurance company on the paperwork. And we have insurance. And we’re not even sick. We’re just a 4-person family who takes the baby in for her shots, gets our flu shots, and once in a while gets strep throat. This is not efficient.
As for corruption, look around the business world. I’m not even talking Enron here, just look around. There are unethical business practices going on everywhere, on all levels, large and small. Unfortunately, there generally only unethical, not necessarily illegal, but it’s still corrupt.
Jill, again you are correct and I do agree with you.
But customer service isn’t the only thing to look at. I am a veteran and trying to get my injuries taken care of at all, much less at all, is no easier than it is for your husband to deal with the insurance company, trust me. The only difference is when the government says no, what can I do? Sue the government? At least you can sue an insurance company that is cheating you. All I can say is, “ok, what do I do now?”
I don’t think either one is capable of running health care the way that we would like it to be ran. If I could choose, I would choose the government, but not the way they have it planned right now. The way that it is planned right now is worse than the way private industry does it currently, it is. Your family of 4 would suffer more all around the way that the bill is written up right now.
I want the government to give universal health care but I want them to think it through a little more, not just rush into it and apologize to all of us later.
As for corruption, you are right, it is everywhere. It is just my strong hope and wish that we find people that know the meaning of “public servant” to lead us. So far that is a far cry from anything either party has been able to offer us. To be honest, I was thinking of trying to be a politician, one that will expose corruption and truly listen to the people and find a way to merge reality and their wants into a government that isn’t too overbearing but still protects its citizens and makes it as easy for them and encourages them to attain a better way of life for them and their family. I think that both parties are far too extreme one way or the other to ever be in a position to offer this. But it is so hard to get into politics without being in someone’s pocket.
I do think about these things and perils people are faced with everyday and hope someone will step forward to fix what everyone knows is so badly broken. I hope things turn out well for you and your family, on every front.
JayDay,
I think you make many good points. I have to ask, how would you foresee a system that runs right – that is, how would it be different than what is proposed?
I’m sorry that you haven’t been offered the right care from the government. I’ve been fortunate in that my dad has had generally good care from the VA. And in a “rare” case of the government doing something right, the VA’s medical records system is acknowledged to be the best in the country by both the American Medical Association and Fortune Magazine. It’s actually efficient and operates the way it should for everyone.
I cannot sue my health care plan. I have to go through arbitration, which is no more unbiased or transparent than any government appeals process. I realize that you may not have access to this, but you should, and a provision for this should be included in any universal health care plan.
As for the poor, they already get “free” healthcare – from the ER. In the end, we already pay for this.
Thanks for your kind sentiments, this is very civilized discourse we’re having here. I hope that you, as well, find a way to work through the issues you’re having with the system.
Jill and Jay (and Dan),
These types of government programs ultimately fall prey to the laws of unintended consequences.
An example is social security … sounds great in theory, but it costs much more than the simple payroll tax that we “see”.
It was also pointed out above about the government programs that lead to single parent households.
How can you ignore the fact that most (all?) government programs have unintended consequences that end up causing more problems than they are designed to fix, even if they fix the issue(s) for which they were created?!
Yeah, I guess it’s gonna be messed up either way….sigh. We should be grateful that corporate America cares about our healthcare.
What are the unintended consequences of the current system? Well, doctors can’t practice medicine “unaided” by someone at an insurance company with no medical training. Doctors are seeing their incomes controlled by the insurance industry (see, I even like rich people). Insurance and pharma profits are just below big oil. Millions of working Americans can’t afford coverage, and those that have the misfortune to actually get sick have a good chance of going bankrupt.
I agree that there are unintended consequences either way. What I always find interesting is that if those consequences make a lot of money for a select few people, there’s no uproar about it, but somehow the government is inherently evil and greedy.
So I’m glad we agree on unintended consequences – I assume you’re including the war on your list of “government programs”?
All in all, like I said before, if I had to choose between government or privately controlled healthcare, I would choose government for many of the reasons Jill listed above.
I would just like them to think things through a bit more before just passing this bill so that there are not so many of these unintended consequences.
My biggest concern is not the quality, although it is on my mind, but more the attraction of a million or more of the people from around the country that do not intend on working, just living off the government. That will make this universal healthcare system collapse from the weight of so many people not even close to pulling their own weight.
My Bottom Line is:
IF YOU DON’T WORK AND YOU CAN, THEN YOU DON’T GET ANY HEALTH CARE.
Those who are CHILDREN, STUDENTS, or those with DISABILITIES (mental or physical), or those who are WORKING but only making enough to be in the LOWER CLASS are the only ones who need free health care.
All other health care for those who can afford it should also be taken care of through the government also, because it would be more efficient to have one system.
Those who are able to work and do not, do not need free health care. They need to get a job and then they will be able to have free health care. It is their choice.
War certainly is one thing that has had unintended consequences, most certainly resulting from rushing into it without thinking it through enough first.
How can you ignore the fact that most (all?) government programs have unintended consequences that end up causing more problems than they are designed to fix, even if they fix the issue(s) for which they were created?
And that’s exactly the kind of core belief I’m referring to about people like yourself believing that “government is bad”.
Social security has it’s issues, but would you really say it’s caused more trouble than it’s “worth” over the past 70 years?? You seem to forget that it was created for a reason, and that was the moral responsibility we have as a society to make sure that when people don’t have jobs anymore or are past their prime, they’re not kicked to the side of the curb and left for dead.
It’s ridiculous to say that whatever issues there are with a program are cause enough to end it or to preemptivly kill it off. I personally think that giving hundreds of thousands of kids great health care, or giving hundreds of thousands of seniors great health care, or giving the untold numbers who can’t afford *any* health care access to a system they’ve been shut out of for most of their lives is not only a wonderful and compassionate idea that’s time is past, but is the moral responsibility that’s ours to undertake.
I know how you feel about things like this, but I want you to know how I feel to. I can’t put a price on keeping someone past their working prime off the streets anymore than I can put a price on seeing someone less fortunate suffer needlessly.
DANIEL, or any democrat, I dont think there is anyone who would disagree with you, we all have parents and grandparents who need social security and health care.
The one and only issue I’ve ever brought up about the current universal healthcare plan has still not been responded to by any democrat on this forum and I’ve said it in about 5 seperate posts in a row here.
What about the people who have no interest in working at all, but are perfectly capable of work, who will flock to our state just like they did when we opened the gates of welfare??
same facts as before:
60% of African American males in Milwaukee are currently unemployed while Milwaukee has a labor shortage – (mainly because of migrating to our state of people that do not want to work in the first place during the height of welfare and the broken families it forced – a male was not allowed in the household in order to recieve welfare) racism is a factor but how far can even a democrat really take that argument especially with affirmative action? Not as far as 60%.
Costs will skyrocket for people that actually work and pay taxes, this states economy will falter as more people, of every creed, who do not want to work rush into this state for free government food stamps and health care.
How many people will migrate here that already actually work and can already afford health care? Not many, which means that no one who can pay some taxes to help support this program with come in to offset those who come here with no intention of finding a job.
The way that the universal healthcare plan is setup it will encourage the wrong types of behavior.
Do you think a simple provision stating that must have a job, only if you are capable of working, in order to gain free healthcare? Perhaps that the adults of families can have free health care as long as at least one parent is working? Children, the disabled (mentally or physically), and retired (of a certain age), and students (for a limited number of years) will have free health care no matter what.
Let me reiterate that I am NOT a republican or democrat, I consider every issue and candidate running for office individually. This sounds fair to me and sounds like it will encourage positive behavior for every citizen in this state.
For the DEMOCRATS:
All those who work, and those who are unable to work, recieve free health care strengthening the morale of the state.
For the REPUBLICANS:
All those who are able to work must in order to recieve health care, strengthening the economy and encouraging people to contribute to the society like we are contributing to them with free healthcare.
Can anyone respond to this, please?
I am open for suggestion, and if I am wrong, I would like to know how.
I already know that republicans wont like much but at least its a compromise, it encourages positive behavior, and its the right thing to do.
I am a student and frankly this state has rushed into so many things lately that this state really is going down hill right now, and I dont want to but I feel I must move out of this state because there is not way to stop the sinking and I dont want to go down with the ship for decisions I had no control over. Even when I elect the best candidate, they still fall SADLY short of the leadership this state needs.
Im not a democrat or a republican and frankly I feel that I’m witnessing what George Washington predicted when this country was formed:
“Parties will be the downfall this nation”
So far it becomes more and more true with every election that happens.
It’s impossible to get into politics without being in a party and in someones pocket, and theres not ethical pocket to be in.
Both parties are more than guilty and frankly, it disgusts me.
Government isn’t the problem, when government fails it is because of the candidates(and lobbyist’s pockets they are in) that we elect.
It is because frankly the people we elect dont know the meaning of public servant, only the color green.
Electing someone that is not affiliated with a party and who actually CARES about ALL of the citizens – not just those affiliated with his or her party – is the only way to save our state and nation.
PARTIES ARE THE PROBLEM
Jay,
PARTIES ARE THE PROBLEM
I have beat this drum forever – even on this blog. Nice to see somebody else has a sense of history. :)
How come all of my posts keep getting deleted!?!?!?
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessing; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” — Winston Churchill
Sorry, the quote got caught as spam, should be fixed now.
Jay,
I think it’s important to realize that slackers who can work and don’t want to already get free health care. They go to the ER and they don’t pay the bill. The rest of us do. This happens whether these people are in Wisconsin or some other state. These are probably not the type of people who are going to take the initiative to move to Wisconsin for something they already get where they are. By everyone’s admission, they’re not exactly self-starters. If we start giving away free cash TVs or cars, maybe, but the people you’re talking about probably aren’t all that in to having the best health care possible. I believe their desires are much more base than that.
I understand your point but I don’t think that the entire idea can be sunk on “what if’s” like this. There are always people who will game the system, and the system will always have rules that some of us don’t agree with. That doesn’t mean the overriding goal of something like this is wrong, it means that its implementation will not be perfect – just like every single public or private policy decision ever made. If we get hung up on that, everything will stop moving forward.
I agree that (both) parties have their issues, so I guess we’re all in agreement that we need lobbying reform NOW. Group hug!
As Jill pointed out already Jay, we already pick up the cost of those who don’t have jobs or insurance as taxpayers. The thing is it costs a lot more to treat them when they’re out of the system because we can negotiate a lower price for the care they receive as a group than they could alone.
Good point, if we can negotiate lower costs for those who already take free health care then that would be great! I agree that the entire idea can’t be sunk on the ‘what ifs’, but I would apreciate it being as complete and flawless as possible, ‘growing pains’ have an unpredictable, and usually high, cost to tax payers.
The other thing I was worried about is that this health care we will be getting, I would assume, will not be of the quality or caliber that we are accustomed too. For instance, if we were to get in a car accident and needed reconstructive surgery on our face but it wasn’t neccesary to live – I would imagine that the state could not afford it and would not do it. That is just not acceptable. Currently I know that those people who take the free health care would not and do not get reconstructive surgery that isnt neccesary to live. And then there is the quality of that surgery to consider, even we were able to get it.
So if we had to pay extra money into the system to get this better coverage, how much more expensive would the total cost (increase in taxes and extra fee for expected coverage) for decent health care be? I know that we would be paying also for the health care of our retired loved ones as well as the disabled and children who need health care, but I would like to be sure that I would still be able to afford the healthcare that I expect, which is full and complete health care (which of course is currently insanely expensive as it is). But I would almost assume that the same coverage would cost more that it does today, because there would be so many more people to pay for, even with negotiated lower costs per person.
I just want to know if we will have healthcare worth having or if we will all just get garbage and then no one is really covered but it is still costing a boat load for tax payers.
I dont think the idea should be canned at all, I again would just like to know how well thought out this plan really is.
Free health care for all is GREAT – BUT, there are all different types and qualities of health care and free health care for all honestly doesnt sound like quality health care for any.
But I could be, and hope that I am, wrong about that.
Sidenote:
Also, pharmacertical and insurance companies have quite a bit of expendible cash to throw at our qovernment officials and I believe extra checks and balances (more open records rights for the public, watch dog commitees, ect.) to be sure that there is no corruption. There is alot of money to be had in the health care industry and its extraordiarily easy to hide and cover corruption in such a big and complex system. So much so that the health care system almost invites corruption, one of the reasons why big pharma and insurace companies have so much money to begin today.
PS
I really appreciate the educated and civilized discussion we have all been having.