More on Universal Health Care

Author David Anderson.
Should Minnesota pass a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing every legal resident access to health care as a “fundamental right”?
Just think of it, by the vote of the people, health care could become a fundamental right guaranteed by the Minnestoa Constitution. Well they want to tax and spend by the Minnesota Constitution so this should not surprise anyone at all.

Who could oppose having the government provide such an important benefit?With all due respect to these liberal State Representatives and Senators, there are two main reasons why I believe voting to place health care in Minnesota’s Constitution would be a devastating mistake for Minnesota: Cost and Constitutional.
Cost. Although a government guarantee of health care sounds plausible on the surface, its costs would be prohibitive. Even if we deduct the billions of Medicare, Medicaid and other federal payments, the unknown tens of billions of dollars a year for Minnesota health care is still a lot of
money and is exactly why Wisconsin said it is not an option and is unaffordable.

Where would Minnesota get the money to fund the fundamental right to health care, if passed by Minnesota voters? You guessed it—a humongous tax increase. One source being bantered around the Capitol is a payroll tax to pay for universal health care. Since a 1% payroll tax would generate approximately $650 – $750 million per year, it would take an 18-20% payroll tax to fully fund the proposed “fundamental right” for just one year.

Unfortunately, health care costs increase at more than 7-10% annually. Since wages increase at only 3% annually, the required payroll tax would need to be increased every year just to maintain health care cost inflation levels. Consider for a minute what Minnestoa employers and potential Minnesota employers would think about having to pay an additional payroll tax of 18-20%, plus anticipated annual increases every year thereafter. Although unlikely, there might be employers who already pay more than 18-20% of payroll for group health care benefits. If you can find one, that employer might not mind replacing group insurance costs with such a payroll tax, but there are no guarantees that any money would be saved if Minnesota’s Constitution require state payment of health care as a “fundamental right.” In that event the Minnesota Legislature would be required to raise the money, however necessary, to meet the “fundamental” Constitutional requirement imposed by the people’s vote on such an amendment.
One final thought on the exorbitant cost of meeting the constitutional mandate for health care which would result from making health care a Constitutional right. When payroll taxes are unable to pay the escalating costs of universal health care, the largest pot of state money to dip into will be that allocated for K-12 education. What irony to imagine the Legislature diminishing its financial support for K-12 education because of the unanticipated high costs of paying for constitutionally mandated health care. Our children might be ignorant, but, by golly, they will be
healthy. In such a world, Minnesota’s undereducated youth will need to be
healthy…manual labor is hard work.

But wait I am sure that a Constitutional Amendment to raise taxes or guarantee a level of funding for Education is next. So guess where that is coming from? You guessed it more from your paycheck, or sales tax or someother formula that the liberals will stick in the Constitution.

Constitution. All Minnesotans want access to health care when they need it, yet amending the Minnesota Constitution is serious business. A constitutional amendment should only be considered after careful consideration of its consequences. There is a reason why in our nation’s
220 year history, neither the U.S. Constitution nor the constitution of any State has successfully implemented and retained a constitutional amendment promising statewide health care. For Minnesota to do so now is a social experiment, and would effect a monumental change in the role and power of Minnesota government.

Historically, from Thomas Jefferson’s foundational statement in the Declaration of Independence, America’s vision was to have a government limited in scope, and intended to protect its citizens, to regulate trade, currency and commerce, and to enable its citizens to enjoy their God (“Creator”) given rights to maintaining life, maintaining liberty and to being free to pursue personal happiness. Essentially, federal and State government were intended to be a shield to protect their citizens and enable them to live their private lives, pursue their personal interests and participate in their community affairs to whatever extent they felt appropriate within the constraints of orderly and lawful society. This political philosophy of limited government as proclaimed in the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and summarized in Thomas Paine’s,
“That government is best which governs least”continued for nearly 140years.

Mandating in the Minnesota Constitution that health care is a “fundamental” right, which is a direct quote from their proposed legislation, may well result in Minnesota’s Supreme Court determining that the Legislature must fund universal health care above other non-fundamental” expenditures, regardless of the costs or consequences onother State programs, such as education.

Thus, in my opinion, although Minnesota has already traded the “limited government” enjoyed by our forefathers, for the post New Deal era of social-welfare programs passed by Congress and State Legislatures, this type of Constitutional Amendment will result in a new and historic, Constitutionally-mandated “fundamental” right to State-funded healthcare…in other words, Constitutional Socialism..
If Minnesota is going to blaze the trail to Constitutional Socialism by providing government guaranteed solutions and “essential safeguards to human life” for health care, what about other and even more fundamental human needs? IF the people are going to be asked to mandate the State to provide health care, should the people also be asked to mandate other “fundamental rights,” such as for food and clothing and shelter?
Consider the logic. What benefit is health care if a person is malnourished, inadequately clothed or homeless? Should not a caring society that requires government mandated universal health care also address other, more basic needs for human survival? Well that might be coming too and guess who is going to pay for that?
In summary, I believe this foolishness will introduce Constitutional Socialism to Minnesota and to America and is a dangerous political experiment we should avoid.
This is a misguided response to the high and escalating costs of health care insurance and treatment in Minnesota. The cost of health insurance and health care treatment is beyond the reach of many individual and family budgets. Skyrocketing health care costs are a real problem, but a problem not solved by this sort of policy or legislation. Yes, Minnesota needs health care reform. Once the government is required to solve the problem, private participants will no longer have the same motivation to remain involved and invested in contributing to the solution.

This is fundamental Constitutional Socialism – it will mandate a state system of health care regardless of the costs to Minnesota business, Minnesota education, other priorities, and Minnesota taxpayers. Don’t be fooled by the only trick that everybody else will pay but you! Simply not true and we will pay in many more ways than just the cost.

~ by maddmedic on September 29, 2008.