McCain's Health Care Plan

Email Print posted by Verified1 07/02/2008 01:20:49 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
So do you really want to talk issues? Buck up and read this.

For those of us whose working lives revolve around helping ordinary people get access to affordable quality healthcare, here is an excellent analysis of the real dangers of John McCain's healthcare proposal. From a cursory read of his published plan, one could easily be fooled into thinking it actually had some merit. The Center for American Progress has done an outstanding review of his plan and details the frightening implications of putting his radical ideas into place.
 
Even if you are only a consumer of healthcare and pay premiums for insurance, you should be interested in the summary. 
 
Here is a link to a quick read at Think Progress. 
 
Here is a link to the excellent 17 pg analysis by Kvval, Harbage and Furnas.
< 3 Facts That Could Change This Election (If We Share Them) | Japanese Obama "Change" Cell Phone Ad >
 Display:
McCain's Health Care Plan | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
Time saver (none / 0)

McCain's plan is the same as the Bush plan: "Don't get sick!"

by MedfordTim on 07/02/2008 02:32:00 PM EST

And Don't Buy Insurance (none / 0)
Yes Tim, but the McCain plan also says don't even bother to buy insurance unless you are already wealthy and don't need it. The other concern evident in this analysis is that the elderly are really screwed the worst. And they are the ones supporting McCain?

by Verified1 on 07/03/2008 02:40:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They are? (none / 0)

I was under the impression that McCain was doing worse than most Republicans with the elderly.

For one, they tend to think he is too old to be president.  That was not a joke.

by ProfRich on 07/03/2008 03:12:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
McCain still ahead with older Americans (none / 0)
Not according to Gallup, Rich. Here's the latest I could find for McCain vs. Obama by age among registered voters. Let me know if you see anything that contradicts this.

by Verified1 on 07/06/2008 11:51:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As Astro would say, (none / 0)
"Ruh Roh" If pollsters are weighting young people, this could skew results. Kids always talk smack about voting, and then they never show up on election day.

by KenTX on 07/07/2008 12:59:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Doing worse than most republicans (none / 0)

I didn't say losing.

There are demographics each party has to dominate to win.  The Dems need blacks and women, for example.  If Obama was only 3 points ahead in women he would be in a world of trouble. 
One could argue the greatest electoral headway Bush/Rove made in 00/04 was splitting the hispanic vote.  They didn't even need to win it, just shave the margin.

The GOP has to do well with old voters (it would seem McCain particularly does).  Winning it by 3 points is BAD news for him.

by ProfRich on 07/08/2008 10:28:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tax reform (none / 0)
While from what I can tell Obama's plan is potentially better, I think that generally reforming the tax structure for health care is rather important.  It won't solve the problem entirely, but it at least levels the playing field.  Also, the simple act of disconnecting exclusivity of the tax benifit from employer sponsored plans potentially opens up a completely new market and competition for private health insurance which may help lower the inflation rate of health care costs.  This by itself will by no means solve all health care issues, but I think it should be an important part of any comprehensive plan.  

As for the specific analysis presented i have a few bones to pick.  The first is that it ignores the fact that the original plan (tax exemption for employer paid healthcare) would also have to indirectly increase taxes on everyone including everyone without insurance.  Here is the logic in a nutshell....insurance prices go up 7%/year, tax break goes up 7%/year, cost of tax break to tax payers goes up 7%/year..... True that hypothetical couple making 40k may pay more in taxes due to health care inflation in 10 years, but what was ignored is that someone would have had to make up the difference if the other plan stayed in place.  That difference will have to be made up by other tax increases or more deficit spending. 


To put it another way, if the plans cost the same in 2008 and health care increases at the same rate then they will cost the same in 2018 as well, the only difference is who gets the benifits and how exactly they are paid for.  If you are paying 35% of your income on health care (as the hypothetical couple was), you may be a bit worse off.  If you are normal and are paying less or don't have insurance at all then you're better off.  There is no magical "Win-win" solution where people who don't currently get a tax break get one and those that do get a tax break don't decrease while the cost of the program (overall taxes) stay the same.  The only thing you can do is change the distribution of the benifit or increase taxes. 

by alphasigmookie on 07/07/2008 02:49:30 PM EST

For-Profit Insurers (none / 0)
alpha, I enjoyed your analysis. But as a health care provider, I gotta say that for me the only real solution is government sponsored universal care. Medicaid and Medicare are not perfect, but they take greed pretty much out of the picture. I don't have any faith in CIGNA or UHC to care about anything but their bottom line. Their profits are immoral.  I cannot tell you how many patients I've had to listen to while they cried because CIGNA wouldn't pay for needed treatments and they couldn't afford them on their own. We need to get health care out of the realm of profit. Until we're all in the same boat, we won't be fighting for the welfare of society as a whole, or to keep costs reasonable - we'll only be looking out for our own little family concerns and fighting over scraps. I know it's a dream that won't happen in my lifetime, but I can still dream.

by Verified1 on 07/09/2008 02:18:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Parallel argument (none / 0)
Can someone explain why, if health care must not be nationalized, we can all (mostly) agree the military should be?

by ProfRich on 07/09/2008 11:35:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
monopoly (none / 0)
because monopoly no matter who it is run by (government or private industry) is always highly inefficient.  Anyone want to argue that the US Army is more efficient than Blackwater? 

The real problem with health care is that there is no real competition.  In most cases you're stuck with the plan your work offers you.  What I really like about Obama's plan in that it provides a government option (not for profit), but still provides enough incentive for private insurers to match or better the plan.  I would go out on a limb here and guess that in such a plan, many private insurance companies will find a way to provide a better plan at a lower cost than the government while still making a hefty profit.  If they can't do it, the government plan will grow and become a defacto single payer plan.  Either way the better system will win. 

by alphasigmookie on 07/09/2008 02:44:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Disagree on the military thing (none / 0)

Like the health care analysis.

by ProfRich on 07/09/2008 03:43:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
McCain's Health Care Plan | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: