McCain Campaign: Our Health Plan Doesn't Work
Posted on October 28th, 2008 by Jason Rosenbaum in Profits Before People
 |
Another admission from the McCain campaign that their health care plan is nothing more than a bunch of right-wing platitudes thrown together without any real serious thought as to how to solve the health care crisis. From CNN:
Changing the tax treatment wouldn't hurt the employer-sponsored system and would allow more of the uninsured to buy their own coverage, [the McCain campaign says]. Also, his advisers say a McCain administration would keep an eye on the credit to make sure it didn't lag behind the cost of coverage, while also working to lower the rate of medical inflation.
Younger, healthier workers likely wouldn't abandon their company-sponsored plans, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior economic policy adviser.
"Why would they leave?" said Holtz-Eakin. "What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit."
Got that?
The entire premise of McCain's health care plan is that people can do better on the free market. That's why you get a tax credit. That's why you would be able to buy insurance across state lines. The market supposedly makes health insurance cheaper, makes your health insurance company offer better coverage, and makes buying the insurance you need easier. And things like tying health insurance to employment are anti-free market, which is why the McCain plan taxes employer health benefits to encourage people to get insurance on the individual, free-er market.
Of course, tying health care to employment is the way we've done things in America for generations, and it turns out it's also pretty popular. (Not to mention that insurance companies have to cover you through an employer health care plan, while they can deny you for pre-existing conditions on the individual market.) And so, in the face of political pressure, you have Douglas Holtz-Eakin admitting the truth.
Faced with the fact that destroying our employer-based health care system isn't exactly a priority for most Americans, he argues that the McCain plan wouldn't actually destroy the employer-based system. Why? Because the tax credit McCain is offering wouldn't buy a decent health care plan, even for the young and healthy!
Let's unpack this a little bit more. According to Holtz-Eakin, John McCain doesn't actually want to dismantle the employer-based health care system. But, McCain's plan would tax any health benefits you'd get through work. So, if Holtz-Eakin is right in saying you'd get better coverage through work than you'd get with the tax credit on the individual market (and he probably is), and if he's right in saying most workers won't drop their employer-based insurance for the individual market because they're getting a better deal at work, then John McCain is simply proposing a tax on your current health care benefits without giving you anything in return. That's the worst kind of tax increase.
Shorter Douglas Holtz-Eakin: John McCain's health care plan won't destroy the employer-based insurance system because McCain's plan doesn't work.
Remember John McCain: Less jobs, more war? Well now it's John McCain: More tax, less benefits.
Your rant is better described using your own words….."Another admission from the liberal Democrat campaign that their health care plan is nothing more than a bunch of left-wing platitudes thrown together without any real serious thought as to how to solve the health care crisis." or more likely, how to pay for it.
Great post. I used a big portion of it on my own blog- hope that's okay with you (full credit given, plus a link here, of course).
I don't see where "a moderate Dem" gets his notion, though. Obama's plan is pretty comprehensive and actually DOES think about a lot of the problems behind why healthcare (and healthcare insurance) costs have been zooming up- and Obama's plan addresses those issues.
Improvements in computerization. Improvements in quantifying quality of care. Improvements in quantifying actual costs, including comparisons of how much of the money from premiums goes to marketing, profit, and actual patient care. Improvements in prevention (far cheaper to prevent stuff up front than it is to pay for it later when it's a crisis.)
Compare the plans, and think about the causes behind the things that Obama's plan works on, Mr "a moderate Dem".
Of course, feel free to quote! This is a blog, after all.
My employer is the state of Wisconsin. Our health care plans are negotiated by the state for us to choose from, they are negotiated for a huge number of people and provide the best possible rates for the health care we receive. Just as an example, my plan costs $7200 per year. I pay $29/month for this plan and my employer pays the rest of the monthly premium. My health care is HMO.
John McCain's plan does not seem well thought out. No way could anyone solicit health care for the amount of money he's proposing. It costs more than that. Think about it…it's not a good plan.
Unfortuantely, Senator Obama's plan is little better than McCain's. It largely mirrors the current disaster playing out in Massachusetts. We will never get universal access as long as we retain private insurers in the system. Meaningful healthcare reform appears to be DOA!
If you are proposing we go to nationalized healthcare, I would suggest you visit some of the countries that have such programs. I do not want to put the well being and lives of my family into the hands of the government.
Obama and his "progressive" supporters seem to think that government intervention can solve all problems. They want government to take control of our lives.
I don't want a handout.
George,
I hate to burst your bubble, but I've lived in some of those countries, and the systems work!
McCain's policy is much better than Obama's. Check the AARPs website for all of the complaints from their members from people trying to get group insurance and can't let alone the high costs. I know I don't need maternity benefits so I don't need group insurance to cover it. Reform in many ways is what is needed. For example, people who submit claims on patients behalf in doctors offices and hospitals should be credentialed coders but the insurance companies do not (this includes the government). Many times when claims are denied, the patient is given a bill but most of the time the patient DOESN'T OWE the entire balance! The claim is usually submitted or paid incorrectly. Example, when my father died my mother received $70,000 in bills (he had %100 coverage). I told her not to pay anything until I reviewed all bills. When I was done she owed $0. I'm a healthcare consultant and speaker and know what to look for but what about those patients who don't know that there are errors? They either pay or file bankruptcy. There is a disconnect and reform is needed which would save millions of dollars! Obama's statement for medical record technology, which already is in place for the hospitals and the large physican practices, is not practical for all physicians. Do you know that many physician offices in the USA don't even have a computer in their offices? They can't afford them!
You make yourself look like an idiot