McCain's Radical Health Plan, Once Ignored, Now Hotly Debated

Growing voter concerns over the financial crisis are closely connected to worries about health care. The latest Institute for America's Future Op Ed ad in Tuesday's NY Times links the two issues directly, with the headline: WILL WE LET CONSERVATIVES DO TO HEALTH CARE WHAT THEY DID TO BANKING? As voters feel the economy go into a tailspin, they join the millions of Americans already fearful they will lose their jobs and their health coverage.

Conservatives generally ignore health care, but now all politicians are forced to say something. In just the last few several weeks, the national media have finally started to cover the stark differences between John McCain and Barack Obama on health care. And it took some active education to get them to report the story.

In early September, I started to give reporters and columnists a heads up that an important new analysis by four prominent economists was to be published September 16 in the journal Health Affairs demonstrating that John McCain's proposed cure for the health crisis might actually worsen the disease. As NY Times columnist Bob Herbert summarized, in a piece published that day and widely syndicated, "A study from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan."

After a health care event at Democratic Convention, I introduced Health Care for America Now Executive Director, Richard Kirsch, to Paul Krugman (columnist, blogger and now this year's Nobel Laureate in economics). Shortly thereafter Richard came across an unnoticed McCain quote and shared it with Krugman, who on September 19 shared it with the world on his blog:

A correspondent directs me to John McCain's article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this. Here's what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:

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. So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago -- and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!

In late September the EPI Policy Center produced a new report, by economists Josh Bivens and Elise Gould, which used a new methodology to confirm that 19-20 million people nationwide would be dropped from coverage by employers if the McCain plan were passed. Then, in early October, Health Care for America Now! (with the help of AFSCME, SEIU and the Center for American Progress Action Fund), released state-level versions of the EPI report in most states, generating press coverage and grass-roots public discusion. A sample headline: Under McCain Health Plan 344,991 People in Colorado Would Lose Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage. To see the numbers for your state, click here.

After a lot of work on the part of a growing health care movement, the country is now debating John McCain's radical agenda -- and progressive alternatives. The global financial crash of the past few weeks has hammered home what should be common sense: a free market needs reasonable rules that safeguard the public interest. When you unshackle corporations and put the cops who would police them in handcuffs, ultimately everyone loses in the ensuing chaos.

As IAF's Tuesday, October 14 Op Ed ad in the New York Times points out, despite their spectacular "free market" economic failure, conservatives are still trying to use that recipe for disaster to reform an already failing health-care system. 116 million Americans are either uninsured, or underinsured, or financially vulnerable to unexpected medical costs --now the #1 cause of family bankruptcies. Those who have insurance are paying higher costs for policies that often have gaping holes in coverage. And insurance companies flat-out refuse to sell coverage to those already sick. And businesses, large and small, are burdened with rising costs.

Politicians are now debating solutions. But conservatives have taken their ideas off the shelf of right wing think tanks. Instead of working to guarantee health care for those without insurance, they want to tax the health benefits of the 160 million people who get insurance on the job -- even though they acknowledge this would gradually dismantle the employer-based health care system. The EPI Policy Center and other experts calculate 20 million would lose coverage pretty quickly. These conservatives actually believe that group health insurance, provided by employers, encourages people to use too much medical care, driving up costs. Instead, they want all of us to buy insurance policies directly from private insurance companies. And they believe in this theory so strongly, they would also let those companies sell policies across state lines, effectively wiping out the minimal state regulations which require companies to do things like cover pregnancies and certain tests -- or, in the best states, to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Imagine a health-care system in which businesses decide to opt out of providing policies for their employees. Workers would instead search for policies in an environment in which costs aren't constrained by the bargaining power of employers and in which insurance companies would do just what banks have done -- set up shop in the states that would allow them to operate with the fewest constraints.

For most people, this sounds like more of the same. US health care has never been heavily regulated, compared with other countries. But dismantling the one part of our insurance system that sort of works forcing everyone to buy health insurance on their own hardly seems a step forward for most people.

So what's the alternative? We believe that quality, affordable health care should be a right. A person's ability to get health care should not dependent on their ability to bargain in the free market, where only the strong survive. As we say in the ad, we need clear rules requiring private insurance companies to cover everyone -- even those with pre-existing conditions. And we need the security of knowing we can keep our current health plan, or we can choose a public plan like Medicare, so we're not at the mercy of the same profit-driven companies that got us into this mess!

The United States spends more for health care, and gets less for its money, than any industrialized nation. Our enormously wasteful and chaotically organized system is a drag on our global competitiveness as well as a drain on our wallets. Still, the millions of dollars the insurance and pharmaceutical industries spend on lobbying and political contributions have only served to prop up a failing system and drown out the voices for change. The silver lining in the economic shock we've experienced is that the country may be more ready than ever to contrast the false promise of an unregulated market with a bold, progressive approach that extends health care to every American.

The Institute for America's Future is a member of Health Care for America Now, the nation-wide campaign for health care for all. IAF's ad invites everyone to join the debate about health care. We are challenging the misguided power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. And we are building a people's movement to shape a health care system that works for all of us. We invite you to join us.

Comments

[GBGB]

I think the author was mistaken when he wrote that he believes that affordable health care should be a "right." A "right" is something that the government cannot infringe upon or take away, but the government does not have a duty to provide the people with access to such "rights." For example, my "right" to free speech means the government can't infringe upon my speech, but the government does not have to provide me with a medium through which I can speak to the masses.
I think what the author meant to say is that he thinks that affordable health care should be an "entitlement." Which is fine if that is what he believes, but there is a difference. It is intellectually dishonest to say that health care should be a "right" (no one thinks that the government should be able to prevent people from getting health care?) when what you really mean is that health care should be an "entitlement."
For example, at the last debate, Tom Brokaw asked the candidates if they thought that health care coverage was a "right" or a "privilege." But these terms are not mutually exclusive. I think what he meant was "do you think health care coverage is a 'privilege' or an 'entitlement'" or, even more accurately "Do you believe that the federal government has a duty (or should have a duty) to provide people with health care coverage?"

[GBGB]

The argument by this author (as well as Obama and his supporters) is essentially that if you tax the health plan that is being offered by employers, many employers will drop employees from their health plans in order to save money. So McCain's $5,000.00 tax refund is worth little because many of the people who are going to receive that tax refund won't have employer-sponsored healthcare anymore.
Makes sense. But doesn't this same argument apply to Obama's tax plan, only more so. In other words, if Obama significantly increases the taxes on corporations and small businesses in order to pay for (1) the tax cuts being given to 95% of individuals, and (2) all of the new spending Obama wants to do, won't those corporations and small businesses lay off a bunch of employees in order to save money? So, Obama's tax cuts to the middle and lower classes will be worth little because many of the people who are going to get that tax cut won't have a job anymore.

[RobinSeattle]

McCain's health plan obviously does not include keeping the VA on the straight and narrow:
http://www.vawatchdog.org/08/nf08/nfoct08/nf101308-1.htm

Where is the outrage McCain? These are your fellow veterans we're talking about.

Oh wait, your health plan is: marry a beer heiress. Well never mind then.

[ScottishJohn]

I live in a country where universal health care is free and is a right.
It is incredible that the most powerful nation on earth, which spends $10billion a month on its war machine, even has to think twice about doing the same.
Rather than spending time stoking up hatred, America's leadres should address this disgraceful state of affairs.

[TrooAmerican]

Yes. Tax Workers and Employers, while giving the top 10% huge cash influxes again a'la' bushy.

I think they actually go down a list at GOP headquarters, of items they can scruuuw over the american public with, to provide a higher net income to the biggest tax cheats in world history, the ultra rich segment of Republican domination.

[sposton]

We are so screwed up that nobody can propose a real health care reform. We can't even honestly talk about the issue. They are all gimmicks. The best proposals I've read about was contained in an excellent book by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel - "Healthcare, Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America". Rational analysis and systemic change that can deliver results.

Anyone who says we cannot afford a better health care is plain wrong. What we cannot afford is to continue with what we've got presently.

[jgravelle]

"WILL WE LET CONSERVATIVES DO TO HEALTH CARE WHAT THEY DID TO BANKING?"

Over-regulate it into submission and then allow Democrats to force the industry to give money to people who couldn't pay it back?

I certainly hope not...

-jjg
DailyScoff.com

[artistbb]

Let's not forget the externalities that exist in this climate, the hidden costs associated with the attitude many other departments have developed about regulations. The FDA, who is supposed to insure that our foods and drugs are safe, consider their clients to be the pharmaceutical companies and the corporate food producers, not us. They have loosened regulations and we have seen those results in the increasing number of drugs that have been fatally flawed, the negative tests buried, and ultimately pushed onto the market; the increasing numbers of infected foods allowed to find their way into fast food restaurants and our supermarkets. Is this part of the republican social service strategy? Reduce the numbers needing it?

Okay, now on to the EPA. Loosening environmental regulations will decrease the public health in more ways than I can list in this post. There are now increasing numbers of children with asthma due to air pollution; more diabetes and heart disease connected to the use of plastics and pesticides deemed "safe"; the list is endless. All due to lax oversight, deregulation and favors made to republican campaign coffers.

[cindyward]

McCain's health care "plan" is fine as long as you don't actually need any health care. The minute you do, you are SCREWED. My husband (41) and I (52) are MANY years away from being covered by Medicare, and we both have serious pre-existing medical conditions that would have private health care insurers running in the other direction if we tried to acquire coverage on our own. I lay awake many nights worrying about what we'll do if (God(dess) forbid!) McCain/Palin actually get elected.

[GBGB]

From your post, it sounds like you currently have health insurance coverage (probably through your work or your husband's work). You should be able to keep paying for your health care coverage even if you and/or your husband leave your respective employers. So long as you do not let your health care coverage lapse, you shouldn't be in a position of having to worry about the issue of being turned down by a private health care company for a pre-existing condition.
Also, I am not sure why you worry about what you will do if McCain is elected. McCain is not proposing any changes to the current system that would negatively affect you.
As for Obama, he wants to make changes to the health care system that might benefit you, but there is no guarantee that he will actually be able to implement those changes. Also, it is not clear whether those changes would benefit the country, benefit the quality of health care provided, etc.

[JPHR]

McCain delivers the health care insurers wet-dream: all those individual citizens with no real collective negotiation position to prey upon....
Bullshit free to choose ideology instead of access to basic health care as a human right.

[deliriousgod]

thats because mcCain knows the best way to stimulate the economy is to cut taxes, so he's going to tax health benefits so he can then cut the the level of taxation on the benefits to repair the damage that taxing the benefits will cause. duh. the second plank in his plan involves crushing every insured american under a huge stone and then rescuing them by lifting the weight off of them. Think of how grateful you'll be to have the stone off of you! With McCain's plan, the insured will envy the uninsured; everything is relative. In a mcCain world, you may find yourself lucky to have two matching shoes.

[boophus]

We would have to drop our health insurance because besides paying the premiums, copays and deductibles under McCain we would have to pay more taxes. Golly the last time a republican (under Reagan) cut taxes on the richest our taxes DOUBLED. So we would have to go without medical coverage just when we can no longer go out to work. Reagans Trickle down was being made a pee-on. McCain would just increase the golden shower.

[rowzeer]

The only reason I stay at my crappy job with crappy pay IS because of the health care...my husband makes alot more money than I but doesn't have health care with his employer. Could you imagine being taxed for that. And McCain is supposed to be a tax cutter. Oh, I forgot that's only for the wealthiest among us.

McCain and Palin's health care is covered by the taxpayers. That's why they don't know the REAL cost of health care in America today!!!!!!

[separatingwheatfromchaff]

He doesn't know and doesn't care.He wants to be president and will say anything to get elected.Maybe we should have two plans,one for Republicans and one for Democrats.It's a safe bet the Democrat rolls would swell overnight.

[syryn22]

That's not a bad idea. Have all the Republicans follow that sorry excuse for a health plan that their leader is proposing. All he is offering is a tax credit? He can take that tax credit, fire it up and smoke it. I work in the insurance industry and let me tell you, John McCain's plan sucks. We would no longer be able to reap the large discounts for having group health care. Instead, we will pay for individual policies, which is not cheap. A 5k tax credit will pay for a fraction of the medical premium costs that you will have to absorb, now that your employer is no longer paying their share. Many people do not file taxes (right or wrong), so what the hell is a tax credit going to do for these people? Is this a *guaranteed* tax credit -- meaning no other liens can garnish it? Or, what about the folks who owe back taxes? Rich people do not have to bother dealing with issues like health care, but we do. Wake up America. The issue of health care alone is a reason not to vote for McCain. McCain is clearly out of touch with the basic needs of the vast majority of American citizens. And shame on the people who vote for him.

[GBGB]

Your argument is that McCain's plan for a tax credit to use toward health care costs won't benefit those people who have not been paying their taxes? Good one.

[wandering girl]

thanks for this. healthcare is my number one priority issue in this, or any, year. I was so thrilled when, during the second debate, Barack Obama stated his belief that health care was a *right* of all Americans. if, as John McCain *pretended* to say, American workers are the "fundamentals" of our economy, then why in the world would we put them at risk by not universally ensuring the health of each and every one of them - since it is well-known that not *all* employers can afford to provide or underwrite affordable health care?

John McCain's "plan" - and I use the term loosely - would wreak havoc on the American people while lining the pockets of the various health care organizations, which, after all, are run *at a profit* not for the good of all. Barack Obama's plan would extend health care to those who now are not able to be covered by already-existing sources of free or affordable care.

John McCain has enjoyed subsidized health care all his life - from childhood as a military dependent, to active duty service military coverage, to the congressional plan, and now with Medicare as a senior citizen. how the hell does he know what the average American goes through to find affordable coverage for him/herself and family?