Posted by
voice_of_reason on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:34:13 AM
If you watched the (D) candidates at the YouTube/CNN debate last night, you may have been aware of a sickening sensation that began in the pit of your stomach and then headed north.
In my case, the above symptoms occurred when the candidates were discussing the merits of various Universal Health Care plans. There was no discussion about whether UHC was moral or fair
to the providers of Health Care. In fact, the providers were roundly criticized and subjected to the outraged indignation of the candidates.
Nor was there any mention of the efficacy of UHC in delivering high-quality health care.
Not one (D) candidate expressed the viewpoint that in light of all the
failed entitlement programs that currently exist, we may want to rethink the very
concept of entitlements before we even
consider tacking on this new behemoth.
If you are a Leftist, instead of intestinal discomfort, you may have felt the comfort of knowing that soon, oh so very soon, all your health care problems would be swept away as you were nestled snugly in the bosom of the State, cocooned by the warmth and generosity of Universal Health Care. In that case, you may have cheered on your favorite candidate as s/he scored rhetorical points against the
evil providers?
It is beginning to appear that UHC is a foregone conclusion by 2009. Why? Because to anyone that is even slightly left-of-center, it appears as a panacea. The rhetoric that is most often heard is: "If the US is the only Western democracy that doesn't 'protect all its citizens' clearly, there must be something wrong with US."
But how do conservatives view UHC? I refer not to the ivory-tower, intellectuals (and TH bloggers) - but real-world voters ..
I must confess that it has a seductive appeal - even for a conservative business owner like me. When I spend $250/mo/employee on health insurance, it is tempting to think of a nanny state stepping in, wiping my tears away, and writing that check on my behalf. It takes some thought to make a connection between that 'warm, fuzzy feeling' and the fact that with UHC, my six-figured annual business taxes will rise by at least 20%.
It is even more difficult for those Americans who are honest, hardworking, conservative and poor to take an ideological stance against UHC on the grounds that it is unfair.
A post by "True American" on a recent Townhall thread caught my attention:
True American: "I have no family and can't afford health insurance. Although I work about 45-50 hours a week as a laborer on a landscaping crew my $10/hr doesn't pay for much more than rent and (some) food. While my wages are low due to the influx of illegal immigrants throughout the southeast the fact is I can't afford to get sick. I'm no socialist but healthcare is a dream in this economy."
And later, in the same thread, he writes (in response to another poster): "your husband sounds like a good employer. with all due respect, how does he compete with employers like mine, who will fire me if I have a sick day and doesn't have to factor in employee health into their costs?"
The angst of this poster comes across in his writing. He sounds like a fiscal conservative who understands the ideological failure of a welfare-state. But, can anyone expect him to vote against a candidate who provides him 'free' health care? If our country allows illegal immigrants to undercut him in the job market, can you fault him for opting for health care as an entitlement.
Yes, I'm aware that
two wrongs don't make a right, but UHC will become reality because of our previous mistakes. Every entitlement is a stepping stone to another. If "True American" is paying taxes to support the Public Education of his neighbor's kids (remember,
he has no family), can anyone blame him for expecting something in return?
Although I fear that the tide has turned on this topic, there are plenty of intellectual, moral and pragmatic arguments against UHC. An article that was posted today at WSJ's Opinionjournal.com explains the true costs involved with free health care - in real-world terms.
"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. "
Read the article titled "
Cheese Headcases" at OpinionJournal.com.