The Difference on Health Care
The differences between McCain’s and Obama’s health care plans are significant.
In a newly released report, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concludes that Senator John McCain’s health care plan would add only 2 million uninsured to the ranks of the insured, whereas that of Senator Barack Obama would add 34 million.
Furthermore, Obama’s plan would cost the American taxpayer $1.6 trillion over 10 years while McCain’s plan would cost almost the same; $1.3 trillion over the same period.
Neither campaigns are credited for reducing the costs of health care.
Among the main benefits of McCain’s plan are, the Center says, ‘less government regulation, a more generous tax break and, for many, more flexibility and choice in where to buy coverage.’
Having said that TPC points out that it could not do a full evaluation because details are sorely lacking.
Nonetheless, the center was able to come up with preliminary estimates for both plans.
Senator Obama’s plan would, despite all his promises, not offer universal coverage, the report says. He would, on the other hand, greatly reduce the amount of uninsured individuals.
Another review of both plans was published Tuesday in Health Affairs. The reviewers agree with most of the conclusions of the Center but have something to add.
Obama would give ‘consumers more options, but he would increase federal regulations,’ the article on his plan says.
‘He would create a new government-run plan as well as an “exchange” in which private companies would offer insurance to compete with the government plan. New rules would require that insurance companies provide coverage to everyone, at consistent prices, even those with existing ailments. Parents would be required to cover their children, and large employers would be required to cover their workers or pay a fine.’
Health experts Joseph Antos, Gail Wilensky and Hanns Kuttner write: “Each of these [new rules] extends the control of government over health insurance, imposing new requirements that will drive up the cost of insurance.”
McCain, on the other hand, ‘would reduce both state and federal regulations and give consumers more choices about where to buy health insurance,’ the authors write. ‘The McCain plan would give a refundable tax credit to all who find coverage: $2,500 per person or $5,000 per family. In trade, workers would pay income taxes on the value of health insurance as part of their compensation.’
Although less costly than Obama’s plan, McCain’s plan would be more costly than George W. Bush’s because, Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center explained, ‘health benefits still would be exempt from the payroll tax paid by workers and employers.’
The new system would result in some people leaving the ‘employer-sponsored system, especially young and healthy people who can get a better deal on their own.’
All in all, 20 million individuals are estimated to leave the system, while 21 others would join it. That’s a net increase of 1, tops 2, million. Not something to write home about.
“Many employers would be quick to drop health benefits in response to a major policy change, such as the McCain plan, that greatly altered the business case for offering benefits,” the article concludes.
Why does a so called "maverick" like John McCain need to embrace the tactics of distortion, of outright lies in the current political race that looks as if it has become as down and dirty as any election in recent years? Doesn’t a maverick refuse to join the herd, to march to a different drummer? If John McCain has already employed the tactics of the last eight years of the Bush administration (lies and deceit as in Iraq’s WMD or that Iraq was responsible for 9/11), hasn’t McCain already shown that his administration (should he win the election) will simply be a continuation of the untruths and distortions that are a hallmark of George Bush and Company?
An added question you have to ask is, what plan do they have a chance of accomplishing if elected?
First off, there is no magical way to reduce health care costs, but there are ways to increase health care efficiency, and they probably don’t include the free market because of a few complications that distort normal free market practices.
For example. We already have a form of universal coverage. You right now can walk into any emergency room and receive treatment regardless of your ability to pay. Some people do end up paying, but the poorest segments of society pass their costs on to the rest of us. If we are to remain consistent with are terminology, this is universal ER care. This is especially relevant because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that ER visits are significantly more expensive than other forms of care. This means that there IS a significant efficiency to be gained by moving care from the ER to other health care settings.
Obviously, a gun shot or a broken arm will still need an ER visit, however there are a large number of non-emergency ER visits. The easiest group of non-emergency ER visits to move to other settings is the poor uninsured. They cannot get normal health care appointments, so they get their care the only the way they can, the ER. If they are offered options, they are likely to act like all other insured people and most often rely on secheduled appointments outside of the ER for non-emergency needs. The poor are also the ones who’s health care costs gets subsidized by the rest of us.
This means that any plan which doesn’t focus on coverage for the lowest income brackets isn’t being as efficient as possible. Obama’s plan doesn’t quite hit this mark, but does have direct considerations for low income individuals. McCain’s plan however is centered around tax rebates. Which is fine, as long as you are paying taxes. The poor are, by definition, not paying much in taxes, and therefore are left out of tax-break based ideas.
So, on this issue of efficiency, while neither candidate is perfect, Obama’s plan certainly seems to have a better chance of decreasing health care costs.
Bu. wa? Don’t the experts conclude the opposite?
I’m waiting to see a non-universal plan that does something about pre-existing conditions. I have yet to really look into health plans, but it’s made tough on someone like me since so many insurers don’t cover pre-existing conditions.
I have two. That require a significant amount of medication, and regular check-ups. Essentially making me a drag on their system, meaning they either won’t accept me or will make me pay more.
I could be wrong, though. Maybe there are some decent plans out there that accept pre-existing conditions that are decently priced.
Can’t automatically cover pre-existing without major cost increases or universal coverage. The big prize in mandatory-purchase universal-coverage schemes is the healthy uninsured. On them rests the entire price scaling concept. A good half of the uninsured are voluntarily uninsured. They tend to be young and healthy, and don’t want to pay a major chink of their income for something they don’t (yet) use. Only by forcing them into the system do you get a major cash infusion to offset the high-cost patients who use more than they pay.
Cold equations.