When the Wisconsin State Senate proposed provisions for a universal health care plan in their budget, many progressive groups applauded their effort and pointed to this legislation as the first step toward providing quality health insurance for all Americans. However, as your newspaper points out (“Cheese Headcases,” July 23), the Wisconsin State Senate’s plan includes tax increases that could easily drive skilled workers and profitable business from the state of Wisconsin. Skepticism in the government’s ability to lower costs of healthcare by centralizing administrative costs is understandable—both the federal and state governments have shown an inability to control costs, find the best price and the lowest bidder, and directly stimulate market growth. But we cannot dismiss the idea of universal healthcare because of the Wisconsin state legislature’s lawmaking.
On May 1st of this year, students from the Wisconsin chapter of the Roosevelt Institution, a student-run think-tank with 7,000 members around the country, presented viable healthcare legislation to the Wisconsin Assembly’s Committee on Aging and Long Term Care. Our plan aimed to provide care to every Wisconsin citizen while lowering insurance costs with as little government intervention as possible. We made our presentation while the Wisconsin State Legislature was developing their budget, and although they found a healthcare plan in the Democrats’ work, it wasn’t quite what we had in mind.
The policy concept was born out of pragmatism and efficiency, not ideology, and it kept the insurance industry structure intact. Using market-based solutions to address some of the issues that currently plague Wisconsin’s system, we outlined a three-pronged approach.
The first goal was to lower the enormous healthcare costs faced by senior citizens. We proposed creating Health Savings Accounts (HSA) to which both individuals and businesses could contribute tax-free funds. Their HSAs are similar to the common 401(k), but if the income generated from the growth of an HSA is exclusively used to finance medical expenses, then it is tax-free as well.
The second goal was to lower the number of uninsured citizens in Wisconsin. The original plan avoided the inclusion of any provision mandating that every resident of the State of Wisconsin be insured, it quickly became obvious that this provision was necessary. While the poor and uninsured may not get adequate preventive care, the current Wisconsin system makes sure that they get medical attention when they truly needed it. But, according to estimates in a 2003 Kiser Foundation study, when an uninsured individual receives medical attention, American taxpayers pick up almost three-fifths of the tab. Mandating that everyone obtain health insurance not only improves the well-being of many citizens, but it also saves a significant amount of government money.
The final goal was to subsidize care through vouchers for private insurance. Many people are too rich to qualify for current government programs, but too poor to afford coverage themselves, and current legislation does nothing to address this grievous error. Targeted subsidies both keep the bill from becoming a new burden to the States already stressed budget, while helping those who truly cannot afford coverage. The State Senators' plan does quite the opposite, by creating a pricy program that reverts some of the progress made by Wisconsin’s innovative welfare reform of the late 1990s. Our plan for subsidy provides affordable coverage for every Wisconsin citizen. (not everyone!)
Our proposal also reduced bureaucracy in healthcare. Their market-orientated approach was far more effective—both in terms of cost and quality of care.
The Wisconsin Democrats’ plan is one of outrageously high tax increases and more bureaucracy. Our plan was one of efficiency and efficacy.
We must remember that government bureaucracy and inefficiency is no reason to malign a policy idea like universal healthcare outright. Sound and efficient ideas to help Americans, ideas like the one proposed by these students, should always be considered in their purest forms. Just because a budget that proposes universal healthcare has damaging effects doesn’t mean that universal healthcare is a bad idea.
Our proposal to fix a flawed healthcare system on a localized level is exactly the type of pragmatic solution that should not be adulterated by partisan ideology. Failed legislation in this capacity is nothing less than a destructive force in the social welfare of American citizens.
1 comment:
Good words.
Post a Comment