Those busily touting universal health care (read socialized medicine) in this country would do well to look at the horror stories that are reported almost daily in Britain at the moment. And at studies like this one that show that access to the newest cancer fighting drugs is ten times better in the US than in all of Europe put together. More importantly, they should look closer to home and look at what just transpired in Illinois when governor Rod Blagojevich tried to force a "progressive" Universal health funding scheme through the legislature. The result was a disaster when even Democrats realized that it would essentially destroy business in Illinois.
Easily re-elected in November, the Governor used every trick in the "progressive" political playbook to sell his proposal. Instead of a general tax increase, he claimed it would be "targeted" for universal health care and education. Instead of raising individual taxes, he aimed at business and even built in an exemption for smaller firms. "These corporate guys, they can't avoid this tax," declared the Governor, sounding one of the "populist" themes that liberal columnists are now recommending for national Democrats.
Mr. Blagojevich also pitched his plan as a moral imperative, unveiling it while standing in the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago and saying it was necessary to force businesses to pay their "fair" share of the tax burden. He wanted to force most employers to offer health insurance or pay a 3% payroll tax. Liberal special interest groups–including the state AFL-CIO and the Illinois Education Association–initially supported him.
But a funny thing happened on this road to Canadian health care. The state's more rational Democrats revolted, arguing it would drive businesses out of Illinois. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was an early opponent, and Democratic Lieutenant Governor Patrick Quinn was cool to it. House Speaker Michael Madigan very publicly withheld his support and last week came out against the tax hike.
As tax increases go, this was one of the worst. A "gross receipts tax" is popular with politicians because it applies to every dollar of company revenue, not merely on profits, or on final sales the way a retail sales tax does. But this means the tax tends to hit hardest those small and medium-sized businesses that have healthy sales volumes but narrow profit margins. The tax is a huge revenue-raiser but can also be a job killer.
Mr. Blagojevich tried to soften this impact by creating an exemption for business with annual revenues of less than $5 million. But even with that exemption, retailers would feel the squeeze from the higher cost of goods. And because the tax applies to all business transactions, it creates what economists call a "pyramiding" effect that has a damaging overall economic impact.
The scheme was defeated by a small margin: 107-0. That's right, a unanimous vote against the idea. Funding a national plan would be even worse for the American economy. The resulting socialized medicine program would be a disaster. Britain is having to ration health care already.
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
This was a proud moment in the corrupt and clannish political body that is Illinois. The leader of the House and the Senate are both Democrats, but they often don't agree with each other on big issues.
(Edit – content warning)
Pingback: The Thunder Run
Pingback: The Anchoress » Scanning the “Sighing” Sphere
Nice blog, I’ll be back.
That is, if I don’t croak from something or other while waiting for my Canucki medical service to ‘service’ me.
I disagree with this idea that any national system to actually get people the health care they need is automatically a bad thing. I do not like Blagojevich (Illinois is my home state), and he obviously was not in the least bit sensitive to any of the issues that the opposition to the bill have raised, but that does not mean we can condemn the idea outright. And obviously this bill would be bad for business in the state–it is only one state and any business would easily be able to move to one of the neighboring states. That’s why we need a NATIONAL system, one that doesn’t give any individual state an unfair advantage or disadvantage in terms of business. And I personally don’t think a national system would be bad for business–IF it is well though out. We are already putting business–and ultimately, our economy–at risk with the ever-increasing cost of private health insurance, not to mention the lack of mobility between jobs and therefore decreased creativity, new ideas, and productivity, since a lot of people would rather stay in a job they hate than risk losing health insurance for their family. Plenty of other countries have national health care systems, and they are not at a disadvantage in business because of that in particular.
Also, we should not be looking at Britain as a model for a possible health care plan for the US anyway. The UK’s health system was set up in the 1940s, and since then, people have been basically deathly afraid of any real reforms to improve and modernize the system. There are other forms of social health care that would be better suited for the US. And even though the papers report on lots of stories of people who cannot get expensive treatments, living here in the UK, I would suggest that the vast majority of people get the care they need in a timely manner–better than the millions of people in the US who are uninsured or under-insured and therefore have almost no access to health care–in a timely manner or otherwise.
Amy, the businesses will simply relocatee out of the country. Other socialized medical programs all over the world are a disaster. It’s a bit arrogant to think we can simply do it better. We can’t because the numbers do not add up.
Health insurance is not a right. It is a convenience. How did we manage to build a vital republic without national health care in the Bill of Rights?
And always the example of the uninsured. Who can, of course, get treatment for any ailment at clinic or hospital, which they will have to pay for, naturally. They cannot be denied care just because they don’t have insurance, at least not by accredited hospitals. It may cost more, but the care is there. Just because you might have to pay for it out of pocket is not a national crisis.
And how many uninsured people are just not willing to pay for health insurance themselves, making a judgment that it is cheaper in the long run to not have it?
And keeping your coverage when you switch jobs is now federally protected. You might have to pay more for it, but it’s there if you want it. If you won’t leave your job because of your insurance, that’s your choice. The thing is, people seem to want to make it my problem somehow.
I have this argument with my mother all the time. I don’t think my neighbor should be paying for her medication. That’s my job.