Your Health Care May Decide The 2008 Election
Now we're in the presidential campaign's silly season. The primaries are over; the conventions yet to come. Americans are tuning out politics and dialing in baseball and the Olympics, vacations. and the price of gas.
Obama is traveling abroad, demonstrating that he really is a responsible driver. And McCain seems intent on running into every pothole in the road. This week, he published an op-ed in the New York Post slamming Obama for agreeing with the Iraqi Prime Minister that it is time to bring the troops home by 2010. Sure, McCain admitted, "Iraq's army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year," but it will still need a lot of help. "The Iraqi air force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover." Particularly not against the fearsome al Qaeda AIr Force. And McCain didn't even mention the need to build Iraq a blue water navy. The $3 trillion dollars Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz estimates we've squandered on the war -- about a billion a day in direct and indirect costs -- aren't nearly enough.
Americans will begin to tune into the election again around the conventions. And in the fall, they'll start to take a closer look at who the candidates are and what they believe. Issues matter less in this assessment than broad measures of the candidate's character and sense about whether he has a clue.
In this assessment, I suspect that one issue, seldom mentioned now, is going to matter a great deal by November. Iraq will be big no doubt; the economy bigger. But health care may just be the pothole that cracks up McCain's Straight Talk express.
People worry a lot about affording health care. Workers accept lower wages with employers that offer health care. They hang onto lousy jobs to keep their health care. Most labor negotiations and disputes center largely on the costs of health care. On this issue, attention is paid over kitchen tables across the country.
So this fall, Americans will discover an inconvenient truth about John McCain. He wants you to lose your employer-based health care. He thinks you aren't sufficiently conscious about the cost of your health care, and you are using too much of it.
His plan is designed -- with sugar and sticks -- to push you to negotiate on your own with the friendly insurance companies. He'll give you a tax credit -- $2500 for an individual; $5000 for a family -- to help you pay the price. And he'll revoke the tax exemption for any health benefits your employer provides. Under his plan, those benefits will be taxed as income. McCain says this will reduce our health care expenditures. He might be right. His preferred option -- health saving accounts -- generally feature low monthly payments and very high deductibles. People tend to insure themselves against catastrophe, and take a chance on routine health care.
On average, they'll work pretty well if you are young and healthy and lucky. But if you are sick, if you have suffered serious illnesses in the past, if you have what insurers call a "pre-existing condition," or if you are older and at higher risk, you're in trouble. For many, insurance won't be available at any price. That's why Elizabeth Edwards noted that, neither she nor McCain would be eligible for coverage since both have struggled with cancer. Many more will find adequate coverage unaffordable. Others will have to wrestle with choosing between paying to see a doctor or buying the weekly groceries. You'll be more "sensitive to price," but you might not think that a good thing.
McCain extols the benefits of private health insurance, but he's never had to negotiate with insurance companies. He's been on government provided health care virtually his entire life. He was raised on military health care, as the son of an admiral. He then went to the Naval Academy and to the military. A year after leaving the military, he was headed to the Congress and enjoying the best government supplied health care of all.
For the nine of ten voters that have some kind of health insurance at work, the contrast will be clear. Senator Obama will give them a choice between the health care they have and being able to buy into a public plan, something like Medicare. Senator McCain will tax their employer based health care, and give them a break to negotiate their own deal with the insurance companies. At the same time, he liberate the insurance companies from the state-based regulations that have provided some protection for consumers.
Invest in the Iraqi Air Force. Tax employer based health care. Liberate the insurance companies. Leave you on your own on health care. If this keeps up, voters may decide it is time to take the keys away from the Straight Talk Express.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
McCain is a complete disaster on the health care issue.
On the night he went over the top on delegates required to get the Republican nomination he declared in his victory speech that "the US has the best health care system in the world" (Check the speech transcript) What???????
He and his surrogates will use jingoistic-fear tactic term "socialized medicine" which he and his team have already done incessantly.
McCAIN IS VERY VULNERABLE ON THIS KEY ISSUE
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
1. Fund universal health care with money borrowed from the Chinese and let future generations worry about how to pay for it.
2. Outlaw birth control and abortion to ensure that we have plenty of people in the future to cover it.
Fine, stay the course and use that money borrowed from the Chinese to pay for the 100-year war in Iraq.
For another trillion of borrowed money, throw in Iran.
That might actually work, except liberals have been told that they are for abortion.
There will be many a Lexus and Mercedes heading north to carrying rich daddy’s little princess to Canada to get things "taken care of" there. If they each give a lift to a liberal that should take care of it. We shouldn't expect the government to solve all of our problems Liberalloons.
roflol... at least your plan makes sense! This way we'll have plenty of willing soldiers to send off to never ending wars, too!
I had follicular carcinoma (thyroid cancer). Fortunately at that time I had GOOD health insurance. But I lost my job in 2005, and when my COBRA end was in sight, I started shopping for health insurance. Even though the cancer was in 1999 and hasn't recurred, I'm not insurable. So I went to the OMIP-Oregon Medical Insurance Pool. They cover people like me. Except I can't afford the $1,200 PER MONTH premium it would cost for my husband and I. We made $21,000 last year. McSame's plan will help put more people in my position-more going without healthcare because they can't afford it or have some pre-existing condition.
Yea so lets force hardworking men and women to pick up your tab. Here's a hint, get a new job.
In general I find people that make comments like this have never been sick. Lucy you. I pay about $1400 a month here in Florida for insurance, and I have paid my whole life as I am self employed. If I want to leave Florida its impossible, as our preexisting conditions now would prevent us from ever getting insurance. My wife and I are very healthy and active, workout and are slim, but as you age some people are bound to get common ailments of middle aged people. Is it fair that we should work our whole life and pay so much for insurance, yet are now un-insurable, can't move, and could be canceled at any time?
I don't think so. This is the fundamental fact that most repubs like mcSame who have had government funded so called "socialized" insurance their whole life, just don't seem to get. I could never figure out any explanation, except that they are just plain stupid and uncaring.
Hard working men and women are already paying $$$$ to insurance companies who spend that money looking for ways NOT to pay for their health care.That same money could be put to good use in a Medicare type program that wold not use your money to keep you from being covered for services.
You'd better pray to that cartoon deity you believe in that you never get sick and have to change insurers -- or you'll be walking more than a mile in Deni's shoes.
liberalloons, your comment clearly shows the selfishness and sociopathic nature of your personality.
You have evidently been fortunate to be healthy in your life. So have I. But my wife has Type 1 diabetes and wears an insulin pump. Without employer paid (partially) health insurance, we would be ruined. When my son turned 23 and we had to take him off our policy, he tried to get insurance in the marketplace. No one would write him a policy. We tried Cobra.....$7000 a year and only temporarily. With McCain's policy anyone with a health condition in their family will be rejected as a risk and thus left with no coverage. This issue, above all others, will cause everyone in our family to vote for someone other than McCain. And as to your comment about "hardworking men and women picking up the tab." we are hardworking men and women. A new job will not change my wife's diabetes. Personally I don't care what you call nationalized health insurance. We need it because there are millions of people just like us who would be ruined by McCain's policy.
McCain is certainly out of touch with the needs of America's citizens in many ways. But I don't trust Obama to keep any of his campaign promises. .. . . . There is NO sucker in this house !!!
I don't know what CherMoe has against the Canadian plan - works for me! Deni, people in this country don't get in your situation - nor in the situation of the person earlier who had to declare bankruptcy to cover med expenses for a child.
I certainly hope the voters are smart enough and aware enough to see the difference and understand what the stakes are on this issue (and others.) However, I won't hold my breath. The media does a fine job keeping people distracted with fist bumps and sexuality issues. And the people do a fine job confining their attention to the sports page and celebrity gossip columns.
People often vote against themselves on key issues. I'll just keep my fingers crossed on this one. And there is also the group of people who are always into haggling and doing all the legwork themselves. They want to deregulate everything so that they can constantly shop around and change services. Who are these masochists? I don't know...but they must love spending all day on the phone with providers.
They have 'People' to spend all day on the phone with providers.
loril = your very wise. ..
And yet this gets no coverage about him wanting to do away with employer health insurance.. and not replacing it with a single payer system.
You get to buy your insurance and if you can aford and if you pay taxes (and have a job ), you would get a tax credit. The credit only does you some good if you make over 35K... And the credit pays less than 1/3 the cost of the health insurance cost of about the 14-18K we pay at our company on average for an employees/family heathcare insurance.
No coverage of this. Now in reality employer health insurance is going a way and what still exist (now under 60 percent) , the employees are picking up mucjh more of the tab....
But the solution is a single payer healthcare system like the rest of the world!
Regards
Regards
The people got together and built municipalities, infrustructure of all types, sewage treatement and water reclamation facilities, energy grids, schools, courts, public transportation, libraries, ports, bridges, roads, dams, national park systems, a massive massive defense apparatus and on and on.
We did this as a society because it is so basic and essential to our way of life and we are so much better off because of it. The East Indians, for example, cannot come together to finance public works so their cities smell like sewers, their running out of potable water, their rivers are pea soup green, etc.
Why is it so hard to not understand that if we pool our resources and of course, manage it carefully, we can take care of ourselves without having to worry about one of our most basic needs? Isn't it worth it....just like clean air, clean water and strong national defense?
Who are the "East Indians"? Would these be the people known to the rest of the world as "Indians"? You do know that the place isn't run by the East India Company any more, don't you?
Here in the USA we must continue to call "India's residents" "East Indians" because stupid Europeans who stole this land named the indigenous former owners "Indians" calling everyone "Indians" would be somewhat confusing don't you think? Or should we call the ones in the east "India Indians" and the ones in the USA "Stateside Indians" Then we have to deal with the Central and South American indigenous folk also occasionally referred to as "Indians"
On question I have for all the pro socialized health care people would be this:
Would you be for allowing people to choose whether they want in on the government system or not?
Along with that, the system could not run a deficit meaning those that use the services actually have to pay for them.
Do we also have the option of not funding other government programs with which we don't agree - say the occupation of Iraq? Or perhaps we don't want own tax dollars bailing out Bear Stearns or Fannie Mae or the airlines - can we opt out of that? A lot of us don't live in hurricane or tornado or earthquake prone areas - can we choose not to have our money going to federal grants for those people who are devasted in those areas?
As it stands now, the health care system is paid for by both people who do and do not use it, but may need to use it at some point. Should that mean that one shouldn't have to pay a health insurance premium until s/he is in the emergency room with a heart attack or having been struck by lightning?
So in other words, no?
It was a simple question, the things you mentioned are all negative therefore why do you want to add another to the long list of wasted money?
BTW, fannie & freddie are arms of government, started by government and always 100% backed by government which allowed them to be very irresponsible.
Would this socialized program be like socialized education, socialzed roads, socialized police and fire service, socialized libraries?
Or would it be like the socialized welfare programs for big corporations?
I'm having trouble figuring out which "principle" would apply.
How about the middle road of a national health insurance program with doctors still in the private sector? A lot of people think it's either 1 or 0 when it comes to this issue.
Yes. Same as they do in Spain. As a matter of fact, I think the Spanish model is the one we should use here in the US.
I wouldn't mind if people wanted to get their own insurance, but I think you would see that a single payer system is much more afordable than one purchased on your own. What could work, however, is a basic system for all and then you can improve your coverage with a supplemental policy. With a single payer system health care would be provided with the needs of the sick in mind rather than for profit. Have you been in a hospital lately? Everything is based upon profit and not the needs of the patient. Even the top hospitals have cut back services to the patient. But there is always top heavy administration and the profits of the companies running the institutions are high.
A multi-millionaire doesn't care about such things, ask Phil Gramm.
Unfair.
He sure does.
You'd better bet that Brother Phil is very careful about his medical care and coverage.
Hell, he gets the best health care for free, paid by our taxes, but thinks the rest of us aren't entitled.
There is definitely an ilitist attitude in D.C., with no conscience what-so-ever. They serve one term and are covered for life in retirement and medical benefits. ONE term!
It's no wonder they don't care about Social Security or healthcare---they've already covered their butts for life and take care of themselves.
We are just the worker bees who work till death to take care of the main hive.
That about sums it up--think about that. Work till death to pay their way while receiving no benefits.
Take away their benefits and I guarantee they would fix the problems facing SS and Insurance.
Just goes to show you - Republicans care about you before you're born, after you die, and nowhere in between. To Republicans, "pro-life" doesn't include health care for the sick, but it does include the death penalty and war mongering. Until Republicans start to care about people, they will never have a coherent plan for health care.
Republicans also believe that grown people shold be able to take some accountablity and provide for themselves along with their families. The creation of the welfare and entitlement state no longer sends that message.
I for one do not have a strong opinion either way on abortion or social issues like gay marriage.
That's the problem. Alot of people would love to provide for their families but due to downsizing and taking pay cuts alot of people don't have the money to do it. Many people are working two jobs just to make ends meet whereas before they could survive from the salary of one job. If the Republicans wanted people to take responsibility for their lives and families they shouldn't have screwed up the economy as bad they did and deregulated things that never should have been deregulated. They've benefited, the Phil Gramm's, McCains, Bush's, but nobody else did and things have gotten worse which is why Obama is so popular with conservatives now.
Republicans believe in "accountability?" I LMAO whenever I hear that! Republicans love to lecture other about accountability, yet exhibit great skill at evading accountability for their own actions. When I begin to see government officials held accountable for the Iraq Debacle, I'll take you seriously.
It may be more precise to say that Republicans claim to believe that grown people ..
As for "grown" corporations, well that is quite a different story
If you want to read more on why I am anti-entitlement or welafare handouts, read this story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92592545
Tell me if you feel sorry about not paying for someone who never has a day in their lives and lives off the government.
Nope, I don't feel sorry for not paying for people who live off the government. Likewise, I don't feel sorry for not paying for no-bid Defense contracts and the invasion of Iraq. However, I don't mind paying them for the privilege of living in the United States.
What about those of us who DO work every single day and don't live off the government and still don't have health insurance? Do you honestly believe that we should be left destitute by something like an inflamed appendix or a broken ankle?
Yes, obviously you do. You have yours so screw everyone else.
Okay, I'll bite again: It sounds like a desperate situation to me. They are living on $739 a month . . . it doesn't exactly sound like living high on the hog to me . . . depending on your locale (40 miles south of Toledo? There's nothing there), getting to work w/o a car might be impossible, and on that budget the nursing school option seems pretty out of reach, to say the least . . . what exactly, would you have them do in this situation?
FWIW if they have a VOA nearby, they might be able to get a donated car . . .
Anyone can always come up with individual anecdotal examples to disprove ANY point. It is the oldest debating tactic in the book (albeit an intellectually deficit and invalid one).
What counts is not being able to come up with one example of what the situation was with one family, but an ENTIRE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM that works BEST for ALL Americans in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
The current health care system (with its fundamental flaw of being driven by private, for-profit health INSURANCE companies) does not accomplish that.
Period. No matter the handful of examples you, "UnbiasView", trot out to try to disprove the assertion that the health care system in this country is dysfunctional, becoming more dysfunctional every day, and needs a major overhaul.
Instead of your little anecdotal examples, why don't YOU enlighten us as to how YOU would fix the health care system. Hmmmm?
Or is it that you're in the crowd that actually thinks that our health care system DOESN'T need fixing?
Tell us.
What you seem to miss is that you are not paying just for someone else... you and your family will also benefit.
What an unfair statement!
What makes you think that Republicans actually care about you at all?
Is your name Eric Prince, David Lesar?
I bet not.
One of the biggest problems in the medical coverage costs these days is the prescription drug companies. They spend billions on marketing on TV and now more than ever people are requesting drugs that see on TV instead of a doctor suggesting them.
Ask your provider what their costs are these days compared to 15 years ago.
We're in perfect agreement here.
I know, I'm as shocked as you are....
Why would I be shocked? It's common sense, the drug companies are driving demand through massive advertising and have told people they need these things.
I guess I don’t see how if people are not insurable at rates that make sense financially for an insurance company they become financially viable for the taxpayer. Could someone explain how the numbers change when the government becomes the insurer? How are the extra costs that the private companies can’t charge are paid for? Are the benefits unlimited or would they have the rules that a private insurer uses to determine group rates?
It will be like Fannie & Freddie . . . the system has no budget then and if it does, that means rationing. In other words, your care will be determined by a government number.
So are you saying at an articfically controlled lower price the government would be willing to pay what would happen is health care providers that reduce the amount of services supplied for that lower price resulting in a shortage of health care in various areas?
I remember something like that in high school Economics where at price = 5 the market supplies 4 widgets but at price=4 the market supplies 3 widgets. Price controls supply of labor.
Is that what you mean?
Nice little anti-government talking point. And that's all it is.
WE ARE THE ONLY FIRST WORLD COUNTRY WITH INADEQUATE HEALTH CARE. PEOPLE ARE SICK AND DYING BECAUSE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE ABUSING THE SYSTEM.
If it really concerns you what the nit picky details are, you obviously HAVE health insurance!!! I am watching my mother fall apart before my eyes because she can't afford health insurance, AND SHE IS A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE!!!
Since you are so curious, freaking Google how it has been done (for a while, quite successfully) in many, many countries.
I would actually question our supposed First World status at this point.
Well, to start with, the government isn't required to turn a profit.
But it isn't just a question of price. It's about fellow Americans--friends and neighbors--who don't have any insurance at all, and go without care.
If someone you love needs health care, you get them care. You don't tell them it's too expensive.
"If someone you love needs health care, you get them care. You don't tell them it's too expensive"
LOL, name me another universal health care system that doesn't ration care and we'll talk.
Universal health care isn't going to give everyone ground breaking treatment for everything . . . each life will be assigned a dollar amount and if it costs more than that you won't be getting the treatment.
Cost is a factor.
Well, you could look at a plan such as Medicare for part of the answer: much lower administrative costs for one thing. Plus any health care plan offered via taxpayer dollars would not be trying to make a profit. IMO, that certain people "are not insurable . . . financially" is exactly the problem with entrusting all this to private insurers. FWIW, I am SE and paying through the nose for individual coverage -- it is more than we can afford, and we are healthy.
Yeah, medicare is in great shape . . . open your eyes:
Social Security is $3.7 trillion short of what it will need for benefits over the next 75 years, under the latest federal projections. Medicare, the health care program for the elderly, must find an estimated $27.8 trillion.
I can believe it. I'm an insurance agent. I can't how much premiums have gone up in the last year or so. Believe it or not, agents don't make that much off of policies which would make the policies even more expensive if we did. The CEO's of insurance companies make insane amount of money in bonuses and such and it's shameful. $78 million to the CEO of Anthem Blue Blue Shield a few years back just for a bonus. If you have a preexisting condition, no matter how minor, then you're really screwed. If you're a woman of 50 years or more, your screwed. Men's rates are alot lower.
If you eliminate the insurance companies, you save the cost of the middlemen. Their paper-shuffling ("administrative expenses") costs the system one third of the burden. ONE THIRD. Do the math. Single-payer systems have minimal paper-shuffling.
Based on some other benefits/perks (i.e., company cars), I guess I'm surprised taxing the insurance costs as income didn't happen before now. I would agree there is a lot of abuse against medical insurance coverage that is simply given to employees. Recently worked for a Blue Cross company and also know they claim to be "not for profit" but behave quite differently....the highest paid are given huge annual bonuses from the "profits" of the money they refused to pay to members for medical procedures, or use to lower premiums. It's a miserable situation no matter which side of the table you're on. I spoke to some of my Australian friends....Universal Health CARE is best, but what Obama wants to provide is ACCESS to Universal Health INSURANCE. Big, big difference.
Let's all be honest, the government isn't going to overhaul or take over the health care system. Right now, this country can't afford it and it is being held out there as another political issue like social security, abortion or banning guns that will never change but will be used as a scare tactic until the next election.
Unbias -- sniff. This country is DESPERATE for the health care they hear other countries have. The Obama presidency WILL change the health care delivery for the better, and people know that the McSame folks WON'T.
You are going to be disappointed if you have that high of hopes. Listen to me again, this country can't afford it now and if they want to take on another trillion dollars of spending a year they are going to have to make some serious cuts to everything and jack up taxes big time.
It's not just a scare tactic. That's just what YOU would like for it to be.
It is a real issue (that our health care system sucks). Only, unfortunately for all of us, one aspect of what you say is true. It has indeed evolved over the last 30 years into such a massively dysfunctional system and therefore is such a big problem to solve that despite the arguments those of us on MY side of the issue make, it is true that it probably is incapable of being solved by ANYone, much less our government.
And so we will all just continue to suffer.
Hope you're happy about that, UnbiasView. I, for one, am not.
unbiasView...
"the government isn't going to overhaul or take over the health care system"
I agree, but McCain's plan WILL make a bad system EVEN worse. If he were to win, that would be fitting Karma for all those who vote for him. Unfortunately, we would all reap the rewards.
$5000/year for a family for private insurance? My family would never be able to find coverage at that price. Three sets of pre-existing conditions, and two of us over 50 would leave us out of the market and/or bankrupt almost instantly.
Yep... this would be absolutely worthless for most people.
Employer-provided coverage is the main thing that gives people some bargaining power against insurance companies that have the perverse incentive to cover people as little as possible. Big Mac? He wants to toss 'em all to the HMO wolves.
Wake up, America! Universal health care works. Do you even realize that people around the industrialized world are horrified at the thought of people without health insurance, and feel sorry for Americans for this reason? Outside the United States there is no ideological divide over the efficacy of state-run universal health insurance. It's a moral issue, not a partisan one.
"Wake up, America! Universal health care works"
Please show me a case study on this one because I believe that a lot of the universal health care programs are running into some major walls all over the world.
"It's a moral issue, not a partisan one"
It becomes partisan when you ask me to pay for other people's health care when I take care of myself and don't see why I should pay for those that don't.
Ummm.... Because a lot of people can't pay for health insurance, and someday YOU may be one of them.
Or because it's the right thing to do.
Or because you have a little sympathy for those less fortunate.
If basic moral values are partisan, that's fine. But it's really, really sad.
You believe a lot of universal health care programs are running into major walls, or do you have facts? Personal experience: I come from a country that has universal health insurance (Korea), and health care is cheap both in terms of premiums and co-pays, you are never denied coverage for necessary procedures, and no citizen goes uninsured.
Sure, there are problems. One huge problem is the undercompensation of doctors, which leads to the perverse incentive for the best medical students to go into areas not covered by health insurance, most notably plastic surgery. That part of the system needs an overhaul, and we can fix that.
Thing is, and this is something the most dedicated partisans don't understand, there are always problems in any system. I would not want to live in a society where my fellow citizens have to go without health insurance or lose their homes because HMOs are allowed to deny them coverage.
As for paying for other people's health care, news flash! You already do. You pay for Medicare, Medicaid, Congressional health care, soldiers and veterans' health care, and probably more. News flash two: You can get basic health insurance a lot cheaper under a government system, with much less wasted on administrative fees than the HMOs spend. Sure, you'll cover the risk for others as well, but you'll still spend less.
And if you object to paying less for health care because other people will benefit as well, I don't quite know what to say to that. I like saving money, personally, but maybe it's not worth it for you if it means anyone else might benefit. But why it's okay for you to pay for the HMO's record profits is beyond me.
"I take care of myself and don't see why I should pay for those that don't."
Clearly, the moral argument won't work on some people.
We'll mark you down for a permanent "no" on the "health care for other Americans" question.
It's okay. Democracies don't need unanimity. 51% will get us there.
You have the idea that people without health insurance are somehow - what? lazy?- for not "taking care of themselves". I'm one of those 47 million people without it. If I were poorer, I'd be covered by state or federal insurance, but in taking care of myself, and my children, I earn too much for that. Instead I have 3 jobs, none of which offer insurance for me. Perhaps I should quit one or two of them so that you really will spend your tax dollars to take care of me. Is that a better, more acceptable, solution to you?? Or maybe I can discover a lump in my breast that requires treatment, but since I have no insurance there will be no one to pay for it except for YOU - through higher hospital & doctor costs passed on to insurance companies & then to YOU in the form of higher premiums.
As for countries where it works - Japan, France, Austria, Thailand.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
