John McCain's universal health care proposal

The Ozzman

Melted by feels
Sep 17, 2006
34,077
3,667
113
In My Kingdom Cold
Taken from Business Week

McCain's Health-Care Proposal
The idea: More competition among insurers, spurred by a tax credit that helps consumers buy their own insurance, would lead to universal coverage


Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the likely Republican Presidential nominee, stayed true to GOP principles Apr. 29 when he unveiled a health-care reform proposal that leans heavily on competition rather than government intervention. He also wants to see the states take a far greater role in fostering that competition and in forming risk pools that would insure coverage for the sickest citizens.

The last of the three remaining Presidential candidates to unveil a detailed health proposal, McCain's is also the least radical. He is against mandates, instead proposing universal coverage would emerge through the use of tax credits and a more competitive insurance marketplace. McCain wants to do away with the tax exemption on employer-provided insurance. Instead, he would give a $2,500 annual tax credit to individuals, and $5,000 to families, to purchase their own coverage.

McCain's plan is meant to encourage individuals to purchase their insurance and free companies from the heavy cost of providing coverage. His theory is that employees would take their tax credit and flock to the open market, where they could shop around for the plan that best meets their needs. Insurance companies would have to become more competitive to win their business.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey released last year found the average annual premium of an employer-based insurance policy is $12,000, of which employees pay about one-third.


Health care in America "should be available to all, and not limited by where you work or how much you make," McCain said in a speech delivered in Tampa at the University of South Florida's H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute. He wants to give control over the health-care system to patients. "When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions, less likely to choose the most expensive and often unnecessary options, and are more satisfied with their choices."

For the sickest Americans who would find it hard to buy affordable coverage in an open market, McCain wants the states to form risk pools, or what he calls Guaranteed Access Plans. He also said there would be "reasonable limits" on premiums, and federal assistance for those below a certain income level.

McCain's campaign staff said the proposal would cost about $10 billion a year in reduced federal tax revenues and subsidized coverage for the poor. The plan's costs would be offset, in theory, by reduced government payments through Medicare and Medicaid for emergency room use by the uninsured, increased use of information technology, and adoption of best-care practices for chronic illnesses. McCain also proposed malpractice reform.


The plan contrasts sharply with those proposed by the Democratic candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Both of them call for a national public insurance (BusinessWeek.com, 3/31/08) program that would cover everyone at the same rate regardless of their health status. Employers would either have to provide coverage for all employees or contribute to the public program. Clinton also wants a mandate that would require all Americans to get health insurance. Clinton's plan would cost an estimated $110 billion, offset partly by rolling back Bush Administration tax cuts. Obama's plan would cost $50 billion to $60 billion, with the same offset.

McCain dismissed the government-centered proposals of the Democratic candidates, saying that if enacted "we will replace the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly."

Both Democratic candidates were quick to criticize McCain's proposal, with Clinton calling it a radical approach that could lead to millions losing their employer-based insurance. "While people might have a 'choice' of getting such coverage, employers would have no incentive to provide it," she said in a prepared statement. Obama said in a statement that "John McCain is recycling the same failed policies that didn't work when George Bush first proposed them, and won't work now."

Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger, a proponent of consumer choice in health care and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, says McCain's plan is both "not enough and too much." That is, the tax credit is too high for healthy individuals and too low for those with chronic illnesses. She also feels the plan does little to address the high cost of health care.

Yeah, let's force employers to provide for everyone else (regarding Obama and Clinton) :rolleyes:

Anyway, I think one of the main problems with a health care plan like this is that McCain is assuming that the insurance companies will cooperate and lower rates. I think the length of implementation is needed to really figure out if this would benefit everyone. I think he's also assuming that insurance companies would cover EVERYONE and that certainly isn't the case now, so some intervention will probably have to happen anyway
 
I don't agree with universal health care. I think efforts should be made to restrict government intervention and allow patients more control over their health care decisions. We have programs currently in place to help the uninsured, but it's costing taxpayers unreasonable amounts of money. A true free market health care system would lower costs and relieve the burden on taxpayers. There are ways to keep our current system but ease the cost of health care. Universal health care isn't the anwer.

And I agree with Ozzman; forcing employers to pay for their employees' health care is a terrible solution. That's one of the worst things we can do for small business.
 
It's a tough issue, but I think anything that empowers people and helps them/makes them take responsibility for themselves is a healthy thing. I don't understand the democrat idea of controlling everything, providing everything, mandating everything, and holding everyone's hand to the point that they don't have to think. It's like they assume everyone is dumb and needs the government to do everything for them. They want to create a mindset of entitlement and dependancy that will create a nation that feels they need the gov to do everything for them. It's like having lower requirements for certain kids, or all these ideas that companies have to hire a certain ratio, racially. They are saying "you can't make it in the real world, so don't worry, we will help you". People start believing it and it breeds laziness and entitlement.

The Democratic mindset is a self-perpetuating lie.

The Republican mindset is more in line with equality, and empowering people to take care of themselves.
 
It's a tough issue, but I think anything that empowers people and helps them/makes them take responsibility for themselves is a healthy thing. I don't understand the democrat idea of controlling everything, providing everything, mandating everything, and holding everyone's hand to the point that they don't have to think. It's like they assume everyone is dumb and needs the government to do everything for them. They want to create a mindset of entitlement and dependancy that will create a nation that feels they need the gov to do everything for them. It's like having lower requirements for certain kids, or all these ideas that companies have to hire a certain ratio, racially. They are saying "you can't make it in the real world, so don't worry, we will help you". People start believing it and it breeds laziness and entitlement.

The Democratic mindset is a self-perpetuating lie.

The Republican mindset is more in line with equality, and empowering people to take care of themselves.

Thank you for perpetuating these archaic charicature-esque stereotypical evaluations of 'the Democratic mindset' and 'the Republican mindset,' both of which are not accurate to reality.
 
Wow, A health-care system I can feel proud to be apart of during our perpetual war on those damned terrorists.

SIGN ME UP!
 
Thank you for perpetuating these archaic charicature-esque stereotypical evaluations of 'the Democratic mindset' and 'the Republican mindset,' both of which are not accurate to reality.

Obviously they are broad generalizations that don't fit every person who places themselves in one of these groups. But this is what I have been noticing since I started paying more attention to politics. I am not parrtoing some "party line". I don't know any party lines.

@Oz
I know the Repubs are not all about equality, necessarily, but they are more about allowing people to take care of themselves (i.e. giving people some credit) than the Dems are.
 
I've generally been opposed to universal health care but as I've thought about it I've come to a conclusion that we need it. We do not need to make it the sole form of health care in this country. There should still be private and work based insurance that people will get but there are more than 35 million Americans without health coverage and that needs to be fixed. The purpose of a government is to help the people help themselves and well they can't help themselves if they're sick and dying without medical care.
 
@Mort

I agree with the latter part of your statement. However, I still don't think we need a universal health care plan. If we had a more free market based system, it would lessen the burden on taxpayers and make health care more affordable for everyone. More people would be able to afford it, and it would be easier to help those who still aren't insured. I'm all for helping those who can't afford health care, but I'm not for a policy that demands that wealth be spread out among the entire populace.

We should let those who are able to afford health care pay for their own. We should restrict government involvement and involvement by insurance companies, and allow patients more control over their decisions and personal time with their physicians. It's all about putting more money in people's pockets, and the more money people have in their pockets, the more they'll be able to help out those who have little.
 
Then what is it? I view government as an institution that is put in place to keep order and control and to help the people within it help themselves.
 
Well, if we're dealing with a free market-based economy, government should really have no say or part at all in the process. Governments are for national security and dealing with foreign issues, as well as maintaining order within the society, as you said. Governments should have no regulational authority in a free market economy.
 
Well, might as well go back to a time where child labor was unregulated and there was no minimum wage or 40 hour work week.
 
Canada's system isn't perfect but it works and is getting better.

The US healthcare system, on the other hand, is a disaster based on what I have observed, sure it is hyperbolized to the extreme with Michael Moore and such, but it is still pretty bad for a country that continually thinks of itself as the 'best' in the free world.

I'd say Privatization is not the answer, at least not exclusively, some sort of independent government run program should be implemented.

Edit:
America is a shitty place to be poor.

Not that I have spent an extended period of time there but it certainly seems that way.
 
I find it funny that we'll do EVERYTHING in our power to save the lives of 80+ year olds who will die in a few years anyways but the poor are so ignored.
 
Then what is it? I view government as an institution that is put in place to keep order and control and to help the people within it help themselves.

Well, if we're dealing with a free market-based economy, government should really have no say or part at all in the process. Governments are for national security and dealing with foreign issues, as well as maintaining order within the society, as you said. Governments should have no regulational authority in a free market economy.

.

Well, might as well go back to a time where child labor was unregulated and there was no minimum wage or 40 hour work week.

The government's job initially wasn't to provide welfare for people. The role of the government was to enforce and uphold contracts, whether that is a proprietary contract or a contract of someone's life (like murdering someone, for example). People who break the terms of those contracts are arrested by the police, tried in court and put in jail. I would say there is an implied contract that child labor would be breaking.

Unfortunately, it isn't like that now

Also, 40 hour work weeks? That's not really a standard work week by any means. I know people that have 60-70 hour work weeks. There's nothing that says 'You should only have to work 40 hour work weeks'.
 
The 40 hour work week is standard and anyone who works more than that is supposed to be payed overtime pay (time and a half.)
 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/usc_sec_29_00000207----000-.html

(2) No employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, and who in such workweek is brought within the purview of this subsection by the amendments made to this chapter by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966—
(A) for a workweek longer than forty-four hours during the first year from the effective date of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966,
(B) for a workweek longer than forty-two hours during the second year from such date, or
(C) for a workweek longer than forty hours after the expiration of the second year from such date,
unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.