McCain's health care plan will do for healthcare what Repub deregulation did to banks

[Pixsurguy]

Health Care Destruction
By Paul Krugman, NYT



Sarah Palin ended her debate performance last Thursday with a slightly garbled quote from Ronald Reagan about how, if we aren’t vigilant, we’ll end up “telling our children and our children’s children” about the days when America was free. It was a revealing choice.



You see, when Reagan said this he wasn’t warning about Soviet aggression. He was warning against legislation that would guarantee health care for older Americans — the program now known as Medicare.



Conservative Republicans still hate Medicare, and would kill it if they could — in fact, they tried to gut it during the Clinton years (that’s what the 1995 shutdown of the government was all about). But so far they haven’t been able to pull that off.



So John McCain wants to destroy the health insurance of nonelderly Americans instead.



Most Americans under 65 currently get health insurance through their employers. That’s largely because the tax code favors such insurance: your employer’s contribution to insurance premiums isn’t considered taxable income, as long as the employer’s health plan follows certain rules. In particular, the same plan has to be available to all employees, regardless of the size of their paycheck or the state of their health.



This system does a fairly effective job of protecting those it reaches, but it leaves many Americans out in the cold. Workers whose employers don’t offer coverage are forced to seek individual health insurance, often in vain. For one thing, insurance companies offering “nongroup” coverage generally refuse to cover anyone with a pre-existing medical condition. And individual insurance is very expensive, because insurers spend large sums weeding out “high-risk” applicants — that is, anyone who seems likely to actually need the insurance. [not really news, but emphasis mine anyway]



So what should be done? Barack Obama offers incremental reform: regulation of insurers to prevent discrimination against the less healthy, subsidies to help lower-income families buy insurance, and public insurance plans that compete with the private sector. His plan falls short of universal coverage, but it would sharply reduce the number of uninsured.



Mr. McCain, on the other hand, wants to blow up the current system, by eliminating the tax break for employer-provided insurance And he doesn’t offer a workable alternative.



Without the tax break, many employers would drop their current health plans. Several recent nonpartisan studies estimate that under the McCain plan around 20 million Americans currently covered by their employers would lose their health insurance.



As compensation, the McCain plan would give people a tax credit — $2,500 for an individual, $5,000 for a — that could be used to buy health insurance in the individual market. At the same time, Mr. McCain would deregulate insurance, leaving insurance companies free to deny coverage to those with health problems — and his proposal for a “high-risk pool” for hard cases would provide little help.



So what would happen?



The good news, such as it is, is that more people would buy individual insurance. Indeed, the total number of uninsured Americans might decline marginally under the McCain plan — although many more Americans would be without insurance than under the Obama plan.



But the people gaining insurance would be those who need it least: relatively healthy Americans with high incomes. Why? Because insurance companies want to cover only healthy people, and even among the healthy only those able to pay a lot in addition to their tax credit would be able to afford coverage (remember, it’s a $5,000 credit, but the average family policy actually costs more than $12,000).



Meanwhile, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most: lower-income workers who wouldn’t be able to afford individual insurance even with the tax credit, and Americans with health problems whom insurance companies won’t cover.



And in the process of comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted , the McCain plan would also lead to a huge, expensive increase in bureaucracy: insurers selling individual health plans spend 29 percent of the premiums they receive on administration, largely because they employ so many people to screen applicants. This compares with costs of 12 percent for group plans and just 3 percent for Medicare.



In short, the McCain plan makes no sense at all, unless you have faith that the magic of the marketplace can solve all problems And Mr. McCain does: a much-quoted article published under his name declares that “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”


I agree: the McCain plan would do for health care what deregulation has done for banking. And I’m terrified.

[sunburstlespaulhero1989]

McCain's plan is going to mess up the health care that is provided by the employers to the few people....... if it gets enacted, my mother is SOL........

[Pixsurguy]

Originally Posted by sunburstlespaulhero1989

McCain's plan is going to mess up the health care that is provided by the employers to the few people....... if it gets enacted, my mother is SOL........

Along with the rest of us.: omg:

[sunburstlespaulhero1989]

Originally Posted by Pixsurguy

Along with the rest of us.: omg:

I know bud, it ticks me off............

[DEATHSEEKER20]

Don’t be fooled. Every politician whether its Obama or McCain will lie cheat steal and kill to get that office. Don’t trust either of them. Just vote for the lesser of the 2 evils. And with Obama wanting to "change" everything I don’t think that he is the guy to do it. Change what, his diaper. This is no time to elect some kid into a mans office. McCain will at least have the experience to know what’s going on in this world. I’m not the biggest McCain fan in the world. In fact I think he is to liberal to even be called a republican. But if’s that’s my option I have to take it. It will be better then fearing for my families life because Obama did some thing stupid like pull out of Iraq. I been over there, it’s not as bad as the media says. They want us there, THEY NEED US THERE. Iran is begging us to pull out just so they can take it for themselves. All we are doing is giving it back to the people of Iraq. Trust me! I was there!

[Pixsurguy]

Originally Posted by DEATHSEEKER20

Don’t be fooled. Every politician whether its Obama or McCain will lie cheat steal and kill to get that office. Don’t trust either of them. Just vote for the lesser of the 2 evils. And with Obama wanting to "change" everything I don’t think that he is the guy to do it. Change what, his diaper. This is no time to elect some kid into a mans office. McCain will at least have the experience to know what’s going on in this world. I’m not the biggest McCain fan in the world. In fact I think he is to liberal to even be called a republican. But if’s that’s my option I have to take it. It will be better then fearing for my families life because Obama did some thing stupid like pull out of Iraq. I been over there, it’s not as bad as the media says. They want us there, THEY NEED US THERE. Iran is begging us to pull out just so they can take it for themselves. All we are doing is giving it back to the people of Iraq. Trust me! I was there!

While I respect both your right to a contrary opinion and the fact that you were in the Middle East, that does not change the facts about health care and, of course, that's what we were talking about. Neither does it change the fact that my 401k account is worth about one-half of what it was before the deregulated investment banks got through with it. NEVER forget - deregulation is not only a major part of the Repub. religion, McCain has been a Bishop in it for more than 25 years.

I'm not throwing rocks at you - not kidding - but it is classic Karl Rove and Republic strategy that when the issue looks bad for them, they try to change the subject with anything else they can think of. That, of course is what McCain's pick for VP did in her "debate". Same ol', same ol'.

The worship of deregulation has been a disaster for our country. Look at the S&L scandal (from which McCain personally profited). It was deregulation that brought that on. Did McCain learn one blessed thing? Of course not! He then participated in making sure that NO ONE was keeping tabs on those greedy pigs on Wall Street. Surprise, surprise - another situation where greed won out over ethics.

Don't fool yourself - turning over the economy to unconsidered deregulation is precisely what got us where we are today.

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. George W. McCain told us ten days before the crash that the economy is fundamentally sound. So, I must be wrong.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by DEATHSEEKER20

Don’t be fooled. Every politician whether its Obama or McCain will lie cheat steal and kill to get that office. Don’t trust either of them. Just vote for the lesser of the 2 evils. And with Obama wanting to "change" everything I don’t think that he is the guy to do it. Change what, his diaper. This is no time to elect some kid into a mans office. McCain will at least have the experience to know what’s going on in this world. I’m not the biggest McCain fan in the world. In fact I think he is to liberal to even be called a republican. But if’s that’s my option I have to take it. It will be better then fearing for my families life because Obama did some thing stupid like pull out of Iraq. I been over there, it’s not as bad as the media says. They want us there, THEY NEED US THERE. Iran is begging us to pull out just so they can take it for themselves. All we are doing is giving it back to the people of Iraq. Trust me! I was there!

I agree with you...Obama promised several things when he was running for senator and never fulfilled any of them...

[Pixsurguy]

Originally Posted by Iceman

I agree with you...Obama promised several things when he was running for senator and never fulfilled any of them...

Imagine that!!!

It takes the intersection of a number of factors to produce success in getting legislation passed.

It takes political muscle.
It takes having something to trade to mild opponents of what you want done.
It takes money to get your ideas publicized to the voting public.
It takes an energized public.
Finally, and certainly not last, you have to have been in the game long enough to know where the bodies are buried.

I'm not throwing rocks at either party or any particular person when I say these things. They are simply the facts of legislative life.

For example, the most recent example was the Wall Street Bail out mess. Both Republicans and Democrats of good conscience (I do mean that, btw) found themselves going against the leaders of their respective parties and I am quite willing to accept that some of them were doing so for what they believed were excellent reasons. On the other hand, there were many of both parties who supported the bail out, also for what I hope were good reasons. Did one side or the other "break a promise"? I don't think so.

If one is prevented from getting legislation passed by other legislators who feel just as passionate as you do about the subject, but on the other side, have you "broken your promise" if you cannot overcome the opposition? Further, getting legislation passed is heavily dependent upon one's priorities. If you have ten things that are important to you is it legitimate to sacrifice the tenth to get the number one matter through? All legislators are faced with that every day. One man can do only so much, so he must establish priorities. When he does that, it is inevitable that some will get more attention than others. How could it not be so?


In any event, I don't doubt your sincerity, but I would appreciate it if you would let us know what "promises" Mr. Obama did not keep. Again, I don't doubt your good faith, but it is not possible to judge the value of your comments without a lot more specificity than simply to make a generalized charge that: "Obama promised several things when he was running for senator". Frankly, it sounds very much as though you are simply restating a sound bite from your party. I am, however, quite willing to listen to what you have to say if you'll be sufficiently specific to allow me to understand the facts.

Unhappily, I am as guilty as the next guy of making sweeping statements that are not actually subject to demonstration. The unfortunate result is that there is more heat than light shown on the matter when I do that.

Finally, why is it that you are telling us about broken alleged promises when the subject at hand is health care? I would not be so bold as to suggest that you have not the right to express your opinion, but it would be more useful to all of us if we could stick to one subject per thread. If you would care to do so, I'll participate in any thread you want to start dealing with alleged broken promises. I started this thread, however, to talk about health care. I assume that you agree that it is an important subject.

[Pixsurguy]

Ms. Squirt, I understand what you say, but don't you think that the entire health care situation for ALL of us, including children who don't get covered by the parents' health plans will suffer (or continue to suffer)?

I'm not directly affected by a great deal of what is dealt with by the legislatures, but that does not mean that those matters are unimportant. For eight years we have put no money into national infrastructure. Is that a big deal for me personally? No, but I'll bet the survivors of the dead in the Minnesota bridge collapse would have a different view.

I don't want to lecture you or anyone else. I'm not remotely qualified to do so. But it does seem to me that we should be pushing for the greatest good for the greatest number.

Dealing specifically with what you noted - that since you are unemployed you are not covered by any plan - I am not aware of any politician who has the political muscle to even attempt to deal with that. You know as well as I do that if the Dems. tried to address that the first thing that the Repubs would scream from the rooftops is "SOCIALISM" OMG THEY ARE GONNA SOCIALIZE MEDICINE", ad nauseum.

In fact, the closest that any U.S. state has come to universal application of insurance for its citizens was done in Hawaii some years ago with regard to Workers' Compensation. True, workers' comp. is not health care insurance, but the basic mechanism is the same. The size of the risk pool directly affects the cost.

Hawaii, like every other state in the nation, required WC only for "larger" employers. Small businesses were not required to have it. I have no idea how they got it thru their legislature, but somehow about ten years ago they mandated that ALL employers had to offer workers' comp. insurance. The immediate result was that the pool of insureds had a sudden and massive increase. They also required that insurers had to bid on the business, tho they did not require that one company write all the policies. In any event, because of the larger risk pool, the costs went waaay down. I cannot say that I know precisely how much.

I think that experience is a good model for what could be done in health insurance if we could get the so-called "conservatives" off their Neanderthal asses and join the human race.

[squirt]

I realized my post seemed a bit selfish, that's why I deleted it lol