In This Issue | 1. Healthy WI Breaking
the Bank
2. Badgercare Explosion
3. I support "Clean"
Elections - Until I Don't
4. Green for Thee, Not
For Me
5. No Update Next Week
|
|
 Make a Donation today!
|
| Keeping Free Marketers Current on the Issues
 Thanks for your support of Wisconsin Club for Growth!
We hope you enjoy the newsletter. Our goal is to be brief, informative and bit provocative.
We welcome your feedback. Please feel free to contact us anytime by emailing staff@wicfg.com , or come visit us on the worldwide web. Wisconsin Club for Growth Website | Back to top |
Healthy Wisconsin - Breaking the Bank
 Last week, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute released a report addressing the shortcomings of the proposed government run healthcare program, dubbed "Healthy Wisconsin" by its supporters. The program, which was added to the 2007-09 state budget by Senate Democrats and subsequently removed by Assembly Republicans, would have raised taxes in Wisconsin by $15.2 billion - more than the entire current general fund budget. As it turns out, Healthy Wisconsin would end up sucking even more blood out of Wisconsin taxpayers than originally believed.
According to the report, Healthy Wisconsin would face a deficit of between $4.7 billion and $10 billion within the next ten years. Naturally, with this kind of shortfall, the tax to fund the program would escalate quickly. Even the study commissioned by the Senate Democrats concedes that the tax will have to increase to 13.51% on business payrolls and to 4.62% on workers by 2017.
The math is fairly easy, yet plan supporters seem confused about how the numbers were acquired. According to the Lewin group report on Healthy Wisconsin, health costs are expected to rise more quickly than personal income in the next decade. With costs rising faster than revenue, a gap is created that will have to be filled, either by rationing care or raising taxes.
Naturally, the plan supporters don’t have an answer for these glaring holes in their program, so they choose a strategy of creating villains in order to deflect criticism. The group One Wisconsin Now actually blamed criticism of the program on Big Oil, which means they have their random talking points generating machine at the ready. Perhaps most embarrassing is the press release issued by plan co-sponsor Senator Kathleen Vinehout , who can’t understand how Taiwan has figured out free health care, but Wisconsin hasn’t. (Never mind that in Taiwan, if you go in for a sore throat, you might end up leaving with an extra foot sewn on to your forehead.)
| Back to top |
Badgercare Explosion
 Astute observers of government programs recognize the pattern - government starts a new handout, and people flock to it like moths to a flame. The program grows and grows - and even if legislators choose to restrict the program’s growth, it is derided as a "cut."
This pattern is especially true in health care, where projections consistently underestimate the number of people that eventually take advantage of taxpayer funded health programs. According to Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute, in 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. In reality, the program cost over $110 billion that year. In 1987, Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would reach $100 million in 1992. The actual cost exceeded $11 billion.
Wisconsin health plans are no different. When the Badger Care program was instituted in 1999, it was estimated that program would serve 19,600 children and 22,800 adults, for a total of 42,400 enrollees. Yet when the program went into effect in 2000, the results were somewhat of a surprise. In the first quarter of enrollment, the program welcomed 23,151 new enrollees (6,298 children and 16,853 adults). By the end of 2003, that number had grown to 114,237 enrollees (37,839 children and 76,383 adults).
So it should surprise no one in Wisconsin that the newly created Badger Care Plus program has taken on thousands more enrollees than the 2007-09 budget projected. The program, instituted to cover more children under a state government health plan, had expected to sign up 26,000 more children and adults by June of 2009. Instead, the program has already increased by 75,500 – triple what had been expected a year from now. Where are all these people coming from? The answer may be found in a review of the application process.
The state and counties are supposed to require applicants to verify that they were uninsured for 12 months, however, nothing in their marketing of the plan informs potential enrollees of that requirement, and more egregious, is that this information isn’t even asked on the Badger care application form.. How can they enforce the requirement if they don't even ask applicants the question? For the insurers that have to process these applications, it doesn't appear they are able to determine if prior coverage existed. Is the State asking this question verbally? How can they possible verify that these 70,000 enrollees were uninsured for 12 months?
Creating a new government entitlement program and having lax application procedures is like lighting a bale of hay on fire. Soon, your barn is going to be engulfed in flames. And with the state's Medicaid budget already carrying a $78 million deficit that could very well happen with all these new questionable enrollees.
| Back to top |
I Support "Clean" Elections - Until I Don't
 For years, liberal politicians have been pushing for public funding of elections - that is, the use of taxpayer money to run their campaigns. Supposedly, once the public is picking up the cost of campaign television ads, candidates will magically be nice to each other.
Until last week, presidential candidate Barack Obama also purported to believe in taxpayer financed elections. Then, while he implored a compliant media to "quick – look over there!" he eschewed public financing so he could run off with boatloads of privately raised cash. Even the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, who will spend the remainder of the elections season regaling Obama with daily tongue baths, called him out on this acrid flip-flop.
Of course, the Journal Sentinel believes Obama has now damaged the cause for campaign finance reform. In actuality, he has just exposed it for the sham it is. Saying Obama "ruined" campaign finance reform is like saying the Minnesota Vikings stink every year because of their awful uniforms. Back to top |
Green for Thee, Not for Me  While former Vice President and environmental nag Al Gore has run around collecting an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize, some folks from his home state have been checking up on his devotion to climate change.
According to the folks at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Gore’s home energy use surged more than 10% in the last year:
"In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month…"
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month -1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations - at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration."
Hot air, indeed.
Back to top
No Wednesday Update Next Week  There will be no Wednesday Update next week.
The staff at Wisconsin Club for Growth wishes you a Happy 4th of July! Back to top |
|
