Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (1720)	6/24/2007 12:17:20 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 42652

"Sicko" Campaign Asks: Who Will Fix U.S. Health Care System? Sun Jun 24, 2:04 AM ET The Nation -- Former newspaper and magazine editor Michael Moore's "Sicko" is a staggeringly powerful piece of journalism -- yes, journalism, in the truest sense of what the craft can and should do. What makes the documentary on the nightmarish failure of the American health care system such effective journalism is Moore's determination not merely to meticulously illustrate what is wrong with the system -- something that has been done a thousand times by a thousand media outlets, if never quite so entertainingly -- but also his certainty that there is a solution. Like Tom Paine or Upton Sinclair, Moore is not satisfied to simply recount the crisis. He seeks to address it. Moore's advocacy on behalf of a single-payer health care system, which he accomplishes by showing Americans what works in other countries and how, is the ingredient that makes "Sicko" essential media. It is also what makes this film the most important political statement so far in what remains an ill-defined domestic policy debate among Democrats who propose to replace Bushism with something better. When Moore went to Capitol Hill last week to make clear his position in the health care debate, he gave the definition that was needed: drawing a "which-side-are-you-on" line for presidential candidates and party leaders to arrange themselves around. Of course every serious candidate for president will offer a plan for reforming the nation's health care system. Even the Republicans who evidence an incomprehensible commitment to complete the mission of their party's least likely leader since Warren Harding find themselves forced to offer a reform agenda. To do otherwise would be too great a denial of reality even for the most neo of conservatives. But Moore knows there is no need to go to the trouble of penning new policy statements. The plan that addresses the crisis his film so ardently, and so amusingly, confirms is already on paper. It has been introduced in the House and has attracted 74 cosponsors. The measure is H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, sponsored by Congressman John Conyers, D-Michigan. And among the cosponsors is Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination who Moore singled out for specific praise when the filmmaker formally endorsed the bill this week. "Thank you Dennis Kucinich for running for president and at each of the debates... bringing up this very important issue and requesting that our fellow Democrats state their specific positions [on] how we're going to bring health care to all Americans and remove the profit incentive from health care. It has to be removed," said Moore, who turned to the congressman and added, "Thank you for saying that again and again." Moore's not making any endorsements. But he is telling audiences in the key first primary state of New Hampshire -- most recently at a packed event in Manchester that had the filmmaker answering questions along with representatives of Physicians for a National Health Program and the Massachusetts Nurses Association -- that Kucinich "is 100 percent on board" for real reform. Moore is also explaining why the proposed reforms of leading candidates -- including John Edwards and Barack Obama -- won't work. And he is bluntly suggesting that the flaws in many of the plans proposed by Democratic presidential contenders could have something to do with the fact that those candidates have raised more than $3 million so far this year from individuals and political action committees associated with the for-profit corporations of the health care industry. Moore wants candidates to sign a pledge to support free, universal health care "as a human right for every resident of the United States," and to work to remove private insurance companies from providing health care. The pledge also calls for stricter regulation of pharmaceutical companies. And it asks candidates not to take any money from the health-care industry -- or, if they have taken such money, to give it back. Kucinich can sign that pledge. What about the other Democrats who would be president?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (1720)	7/27/2007 9:49:09 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Cheese Headcases Wisconsin reveals the cost of "universal" health care. Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:01 a.m. 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. And, 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. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker. Employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages. Wisconsin businesses would have to compete with out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined. This employment tax is on top of the $1 billion grab bag of other levies that Democratic Governor Jim Doyle proposed and the tax-happy Senate has also approved, including a $1.25 a pack increase in the cigarette tax, a 10% hike in the corporate tax, and new fees on cars, trucks, hospitals, real estate transactions, oil companies and dry cleaners. 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 R.J. 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 1.5 percentage point payroll tax to finance higher outlays in the future. This could bring the payroll tax to 16%. 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. Proponents use the familiar argument for national health care that this will save money (about $1.8 billion a year) through efficiency gains by eliminating the administrative costs of private insurance. And unions and some big businesses with rich union health plans are only too happy to dump these liabilities onto the government. But those costs won't vanish; they'll merely shift to all taxpayers and businesses. 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. So where will savings come from? Where they always do in any government plan: Rationing via price controls and, as costs rise, waiting periods and coverage restrictions. This is Michael Moore's medical dream state. 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. Would that Washington Democrats were as forthright. opinionjournal.com