McCain Health Plan would strip millions of coverage
my2hands
Posts: 17,117
The McCain Health Plan: Millions Lose Coverage, Health Costs Worsen,
and Insurance and Drug Industries Win
By Roger Hickey
Campaign for America's Future
Tuesday 29 April 2008
Today Arizona Sen. John McCain will deliver what his handlers are hyping as a major address on health care. McCain's plan is a dangerous fraud.
He wants voters to think he is going after health care cost inflation. In reality, he wants to dismantle the employer-provided system that now covers over 60 percent (or about 158 million) of non-elderly Americans, forcing millions of us who now get fairly decent health insurance on the job to instead buy whatever they can find on the individual market controlled by unregulated and predatory insurance companies. And he would drive health care costs upward, not downward.
This is truly amazing: McCain and his handlers knew they had to say something about health care. So they turned to their friends (and financial supporters) in the health care industry and the conservative think tanks. And they have adopted the most extreme right-wing ideological approach, premised on the idea that the big problem in health care is that Americans have too much insurance - in their words, we don't have enough "skin in the game" - and that only when we have to buy health care with money that comes directly out of our own pockets will consumers force doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to become more efficient.
So that's the theory. But it is contradicted by the facts. Most of us already pay part of our premiums out of our own pockets, and we increasingly have to shell out for co-pays in order to get to see a doctor. The result - in practice - is that most people, even those with good insurance, now think twice or three times about even getting regular preventive health checkups. Having lots of "skin in the game" has meant that millions of Americans don't get health care they need - and that's one of the big problems in U.S. health care driving costs up, not down.
But McCain, like George Bush, pays more attention to ultra-conservative theory than he does to the facts. So McCain wants to tax workers' health care premiums that are paid for by employers. Ask any expert, conservative or liberal, and they will tell you the result will be companies will stop providing health care as an employee benefit. Fortune Magazine quotes one of their experts on the impact of McCain's plan: "I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years," says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers.
Now keep this in mind: McCain and his corporate advisers don't dispute this. The massive upheaval that would result - millions of families losing their health coverage on the job and then having to try to find an insurance company that would sell them a new policy that would cover their families - that's not an unintended consequence of his proposal. That chaotic loss of health security is exactly what McCain intends to happen. He wants us all to buy insurance not as part of a group - like an employee group or a co-op - that can negotiate for better coverage at lower premiums, but as individuals, at the mercy of the private insurance companies.
And get this: McCain wants to abolish the regulations that currently exist in most states that require companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, provide benefits that don't exclude some medical conditions, and prevent them from charging huge premiums for crumby benefits. How would he do this? By "giving people the freedom" to buy insurance in other states with weaker regulations. You can bet that most of the big insurance companies are now shopping around for the state that wants to become the corporate headquarters state for the new deregulated health insurance industry - if President McCain wins. Delaware? Mississippi? Arizona?
But, but, but ... I can hear some people saying, McCain does give people refundable tax credits to help pay for health insurance. And that is part of his package. But his whole philosophy is that too many millions of American's are getting health care benefits that are too rich, and you certainly can't say that about the level of tax subsidy he would provide - $2,500 per year for individuals and $5,000 for a family, according to the McCain for President website. Last year the average yearly cost of the most popular type of insurance plan offered by employers hit $11,765, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study. So the average person with a family would end up paying $11,765 minus the $5,000 tax credit, or $6,765 - about double the $3,226 Kaiser tells us the average employee paid for his or her share of premiums.
Again, this is NOT unintentional. McCain and his corporate advisers think it is good for individuals and families to pay more because it makes them think twice before seeking health care, and - in theory - they will shop around for cheaper care. And if they can't cover the costs of real health insurance with McCain's tax credit, the insurance industry will sell you lower-cost plans with big holes in coverage or costly co-pays - that is, if you are not already sick and you aren't too old for them to see you as profitable.
And McCain will be glad to help you invest your tax credit in a Health Savings Account - a savings account coupled with an insurance plan cooked up by his friends in the insurance industry with such high deductibles that it only applies for catastrophic health costs. For those normal trips to the doctor, you just take money out of the savings account until there is nothing left - and then you really reduce health care costs by forgoing the trip to the doctor altogether.
The ultra-conservatives have a name for this combination of tax credits and HSAs. They call it "consumer-directed health care." A better name is "high-cost health care" - or "insurance company-directed health care." And although they promote it as saving money for individuals, for our economy and our society, the available evidence shows that it does nothing to reduce health care costs - but it will leave millions of people with worse coverage, more chronic health problems, and higher levels of health cost-driven bankruptcies. And, perhaps most importantly for McCain's financial backers, it would leave the insurance industry and the drug industry even more in control of America's health care system than ever before.
The release of this McCain health care plan is an important test for the mainstream media. Health care experts who are "reality-based" will, if asked to comment, tell reporters that there is no evidence that McCain's proposals will do anything to reduce health care costs, but will the media fall for the McCain spin?
Here's the story they would like major media to report:
"While Democrats Obama and Clinton, stuck in an endless primary contest, fight with each other over who would cover more of the uninsured, John McCain has been using the luxury of uncontested time to develop a thoughtful plan for bringing down health care costs - the issue voters care most about when it comes to their own family budget worries. And McCain's plan would attack the health cost spiral by unleashing the power of individual consumers and families in a more competitive health care marketplace, not by using the power of the federal government to either provide health care and not by dictating health insurance arrangements between workers and employers. Expanding consumer choice - and encouraging health care consumers to be wise purchasers of health care, said McCain, is the best way to force the health care system to become more efficient and reduce the burden of health care costs."
Most honest reporters will note that the McCain will not improve the lot of America's 47 million uninsured, but they may give McCain credit for focusing more on controlling prices than Obama and Clinton. That might sound "fair and balanced" - but it would be wrong.
The reality is, McCain's proposals would greatly increase the number of uninsured Americans, while also doing nothing about health care costs except increasing the number of people who can't afford good quality health care for themselves and their families. Let's see if the media gets both parts of the story right.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mccain-health-plan-millions-lose-coverage-health-costs-worsen-and-insurance-and-drug-indu
and Insurance and Drug Industries Win
By Roger Hickey
Campaign for America's Future
Tuesday 29 April 2008
Today Arizona Sen. John McCain will deliver what his handlers are hyping as a major address on health care. McCain's plan is a dangerous fraud.
He wants voters to think he is going after health care cost inflation. In reality, he wants to dismantle the employer-provided system that now covers over 60 percent (or about 158 million) of non-elderly Americans, forcing millions of us who now get fairly decent health insurance on the job to instead buy whatever they can find on the individual market controlled by unregulated and predatory insurance companies. And he would drive health care costs upward, not downward.
This is truly amazing: McCain and his handlers knew they had to say something about health care. So they turned to their friends (and financial supporters) in the health care industry and the conservative think tanks. And they have adopted the most extreme right-wing ideological approach, premised on the idea that the big problem in health care is that Americans have too much insurance - in their words, we don't have enough "skin in the game" - and that only when we have to buy health care with money that comes directly out of our own pockets will consumers force doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to become more efficient.
So that's the theory. But it is contradicted by the facts. Most of us already pay part of our premiums out of our own pockets, and we increasingly have to shell out for co-pays in order to get to see a doctor. The result - in practice - is that most people, even those with good insurance, now think twice or three times about even getting regular preventive health checkups. Having lots of "skin in the game" has meant that millions of Americans don't get health care they need - and that's one of the big problems in U.S. health care driving costs up, not down.
But McCain, like George Bush, pays more attention to ultra-conservative theory than he does to the facts. So McCain wants to tax workers' health care premiums that are paid for by employers. Ask any expert, conservative or liberal, and they will tell you the result will be companies will stop providing health care as an employee benefit. Fortune Magazine quotes one of their experts on the impact of McCain's plan: "I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years," says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers.
Now keep this in mind: McCain and his corporate advisers don't dispute this. The massive upheaval that would result - millions of families losing their health coverage on the job and then having to try to find an insurance company that would sell them a new policy that would cover their families - that's not an unintended consequence of his proposal. That chaotic loss of health security is exactly what McCain intends to happen. He wants us all to buy insurance not as part of a group - like an employee group or a co-op - that can negotiate for better coverage at lower premiums, but as individuals, at the mercy of the private insurance companies.
And get this: McCain wants to abolish the regulations that currently exist in most states that require companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, provide benefits that don't exclude some medical conditions, and prevent them from charging huge premiums for crumby benefits. How would he do this? By "giving people the freedom" to buy insurance in other states with weaker regulations. You can bet that most of the big insurance companies are now shopping around for the state that wants to become the corporate headquarters state for the new deregulated health insurance industry - if President McCain wins. Delaware? Mississippi? Arizona?
But, but, but ... I can hear some people saying, McCain does give people refundable tax credits to help pay for health insurance. And that is part of his package. But his whole philosophy is that too many millions of American's are getting health care benefits that are too rich, and you certainly can't say that about the level of tax subsidy he would provide - $2,500 per year for individuals and $5,000 for a family, according to the McCain for President website. Last year the average yearly cost of the most popular type of insurance plan offered by employers hit $11,765, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study. So the average person with a family would end up paying $11,765 minus the $5,000 tax credit, or $6,765 - about double the $3,226 Kaiser tells us the average employee paid for his or her share of premiums.
Again, this is NOT unintentional. McCain and his corporate advisers think it is good for individuals and families to pay more because it makes them think twice before seeking health care, and - in theory - they will shop around for cheaper care. And if they can't cover the costs of real health insurance with McCain's tax credit, the insurance industry will sell you lower-cost plans with big holes in coverage or costly co-pays - that is, if you are not already sick and you aren't too old for them to see you as profitable.
And McCain will be glad to help you invest your tax credit in a Health Savings Account - a savings account coupled with an insurance plan cooked up by his friends in the insurance industry with such high deductibles that it only applies for catastrophic health costs. For those normal trips to the doctor, you just take money out of the savings account until there is nothing left - and then you really reduce health care costs by forgoing the trip to the doctor altogether.
The ultra-conservatives have a name for this combination of tax credits and HSAs. They call it "consumer-directed health care." A better name is "high-cost health care" - or "insurance company-directed health care." And although they promote it as saving money for individuals, for our economy and our society, the available evidence shows that it does nothing to reduce health care costs - but it will leave millions of people with worse coverage, more chronic health problems, and higher levels of health cost-driven bankruptcies. And, perhaps most importantly for McCain's financial backers, it would leave the insurance industry and the drug industry even more in control of America's health care system than ever before.
The release of this McCain health care plan is an important test for the mainstream media. Health care experts who are "reality-based" will, if asked to comment, tell reporters that there is no evidence that McCain's proposals will do anything to reduce health care costs, but will the media fall for the McCain spin?
Here's the story they would like major media to report:
"While Democrats Obama and Clinton, stuck in an endless primary contest, fight with each other over who would cover more of the uninsured, John McCain has been using the luxury of uncontested time to develop a thoughtful plan for bringing down health care costs - the issue voters care most about when it comes to their own family budget worries. And McCain's plan would attack the health cost spiral by unleashing the power of individual consumers and families in a more competitive health care marketplace, not by using the power of the federal government to either provide health care and not by dictating health insurance arrangements between workers and employers. Expanding consumer choice - and encouraging health care consumers to be wise purchasers of health care, said McCain, is the best way to force the health care system to become more efficient and reduce the burden of health care costs."
Most honest reporters will note that the McCain will not improve the lot of America's 47 million uninsured, but they may give McCain credit for focusing more on controlling prices than Obama and Clinton. That might sound "fair and balanced" - but it would be wrong.
The reality is, McCain's proposals would greatly increase the number of uninsured Americans, while also doing nothing about health care costs except increasing the number of people who can't afford good quality health care for themselves and their families. Let's see if the media gets both parts of the story right.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mccain-health-plan-millions-lose-coverage-health-costs-worsen-and-insurance-and-drug-indu
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
By Michael D. Shear
The Washington Post
Tuesday 29 April 2008
Proposes tax credits for individuals; critics say poor would be left behind.
Tampa, Florida - Sen. John McCain on Tuesday rejected calls by his Democratic opponents for universal health coverage, instead offering a market-based solution with an approach similar to a proposal put forth by President Bush last year.
McCain's belief in the power of the free market to meet the nation's health-care needs sets up a stark choice for voters this fall in terms of the care they could receive, the role the government would play and the importance they place on the issue.
Democratic Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) have vowed government action to fulfill what they cast as a moral right for Americans to have health insurance. They favor mandates for coverage; McCain (R-Ariz.) proposes tax incentives. Obama and Clinton would impose new regulations on insurers; McCain's plan is designed to avoid direct regulation. The Democrats would build on the current employer-based system; McCain would shift to a more individual approach.
In a speech at a cancer research center here, McCain dismissed his rivals' proposals for universal health care as riddled with "inefficiency, irrationality and uncontrolled costs." He said the 47 million uninsured Americans will get coverage only when they are freed from the shackles of the current employer-dominated system.
Ending Employer-Based Care
McCain's prescription would seek to lure workers away from their company health plans with a $5,000 family tax credit and a promise that, left to their own devices, they would be able to find cheaper insurance that is more tailored to their health-care needs and not tied to a particular job.
Under McCain's plan, $3.6 trillion worth of tax breaks over a decade that would have gone to businesses for coverage of their employees would be redirected to individuals, regardless of whether they are covered by a company plan.
"Insurance companies could no longer take your business for granted, offering narrow plans with escalating costs," McCain said. "It would help change the whole dynamic of the current system, putting individuals and families back in charge, and forcing companies to respond with better service at lower cost."
Health experts predict a robust debate in the general-election campaign as anxiety about the cost of health care grows against the backdrop of a worsening economy, higher gasoline prices and rising unemployment.
"Health will increasingly become reframed as part of the broader pocketbook and economic concerns," said Drew Altman, president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health research group. "The real health reform debate hasn't really begun - the debate between the Democrats and the Republicans about the fundamental differences in how to reform health care."
Similar to Bush Proposal
Altman's group released a poll Tuesday showing that nearly 30 percent of Americans have faced a serious problem in paying for medical care or insurance in the past year. The survey also found that 25 percent of workers made job decisions based primarily on health-coverage considerations.
McCain's proposal is similar to one that Bush put forth in his 2007 State of the Union address. That plan, which would have replaced employer tax breaks for health insurance with a $15,000 tax deduction for married couples, flopped in Congress, failing to get even a committee hearing.
McCain's plan is aimed primarily at giving individuals the power to make health-care decisions by granting the same tax breaks for insurance whether workers get a policy from an employer or on their own. Aides call it a "radical" rethinking of health care that would drive costs down and give people more choice.
But it also leaves McCain open to criticism that he is not doing enough for the poor and sick, who could face steep premiums and limited choices as they search for an insurance company willing to cover them. Critics of McCain's plan said it would do little to help people already struggling with health-care costs.
Critics: "We'll Still Be Feeling the Pain"
Unlike his Democratic opponents, for instance, McCain would not mandate coverage for people with preexisting conditions who have not already been covered by a company health insurance plan. Critics say that would leave millions of people without coverage.
"Our next president has to get health-care costs under control. But like President Bush, John McCain won't stop rising health-care costs," asserts the Service Employees International Union, which has endorsed Obama, in a new television ad running in the swing state of Ohio. "When it comes to making health care affordable ... we'll still be feeling the pain."
McCain sought to answer those charges Tuesday by saying he would create what he called a guaranteed access plan, or GAP, to help provide coverage of last resort for the sick and other "high-risk" people until the marketplace has matured enough to take care of them.
He gave few details of how such a program would work, who would run it or how it would be financed. He said it might be operated by a nonprofit organization with funds from the federal and state governments. And he said he would work with governors to solicit ideas from their experiences with similar state-run programs.
McCain advisers said such a program could cost as much as $7 billion a year. But McCain vowed not to "create another entitlement program that Washington will let get out of control." He added: "Nor will I saddle states with another unfunded mandate."
Democrats Pounce
In a statement, Clinton said McCain's plan has "fundamental flaws" and charged that it would abandon millions of Americans to expensive, high-risk insurance arrangements. "Older Americans or those with pre-existing conditions would be allowed to get only one type of coverage in a high risk GAP pool," Clinton said. "That kind of arrangement does more to help insurers than individuals."
Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said, "John McCain is recycling the same failed policies that didn't work when George Bush first proposed them and won't work now."
McCain also promised to fight for health savings accounts, a centerpiece of Bush's health-care efforts, and to lobby insurance companies for better coverage of preventive care. And he said he would provide incentives for doctors and hospitals to use cutting-edge technology to reduce medical costs.
In his own television commercial, which began running Tuesday across Iowa, McCain says, "I can characterize my approach on health care by choice and competition, affordability and availability."
The discussion about health care has for months centered on the debate between Obama and Clinton. But by highlighting his plan now, McCain is refusing to cede the issue to the Democrats.
Aides said he is driven by a belief that his rivals' approach would drive up costs and make health care less accessible.
"Clinton and Obama would put the government in charge of the choices you have to make," said Carly Fiorina, a top adviser. "John McCain's plan puts the choice, the power, the decision in the hands of the individual and the family."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24377998/
Insurance is what is wrong with the healthcare system we have.
Our company's insurance rates went up 25% this year. That is on top of about 15% last year.
If you look at it objectively, we are all currently paying for healthcare AND THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Let's face it, the insurance industry exists to pay our healthcare AND TO MAKE A PROFIT. We are the ones giving them that profit.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Were we only voting for a healthcare plan, John McCain would get my vote. Too bad we're voting for president.
The difference is that we (or at least I) wouldn't stand in your way if you wanted to go in a shared-risk direction. All I'm asking for, in terms of healthcare, is to be able to find my preferred option in the market and not be forced to pay for other people's healthcare. If you dislike that approach and want to be part of a shared-risk system, I certainly have no desire or right to stop you.
What if the market decides it favors insurance?
maybe we should let you decide. you seem to have it all figured out
Who thinks that? "What's best for the consumer" is a meaningless term, since consumers (plural) have disparate goals, standards, and opinions.
If you dislike the market, I completely support your right not to use it.
how's that oil "market" working out for us...
and no, i dont have it all figured out. is that ll you have now when you disagree wit me? i know you can do better then that jlew
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Me too. But it should certainly be an option for those who wish to buy or sell it.
Universal Heatlh Care is very easily attainable, especially in the US. Meanmwhile we are ranked outside of Nambia and some other third world countires.
What do we say about the families that couldn't afford to save their daughters and sons, here in this 'free' country.
maybe you expect and demand doctors work for free? or maybe all the companies who manufacture medical equipment to give it away for free? after all, its human lives we are talking about.
The motivation for new medical technologies is profit at this point. That could/should change.
what should be the motivation then? helping people? sounds lovely but that doesnt put food in your stomach or a roof over your head.
With a strong sense of community-take Cuba for example-the motivation for helping one another becomes evident. Cuba has more trained doctors operating around the world than any other country, over 20,000. Think they are working to make a profit? Are they helping people?
To be a part of something bigger than the individual holds a strong motivating capacity.
hence my support for Obama...
I agree. helping people is a huge motivating factor. but people still need to make money to live.
health professionals in single payer systems in europe are doing just fine...
I'm sure they are. they get paychecks
right, so whats your point? doctors are still making more then enough in single payer systems...people are not working for free in health care fields in single payer systems... so whats your point about putting food on the table?
:rolleyes:
I'll respect statements like the above when you've trained to become a doctor on your dime and give away your services for nothing. If you don't like for-profit doctors or health care providers, don't use them.
And ranked ahead of many nations that have UHC (Cuba, S Korea, etc).
"Free" does not equate to getting whatever you need at any time.
Yet Cuba trails the US in the very same health index you used above to support UHC.
Hey, that mindset certainly worked for slavery, or the crusades, or suicide bombings!
so ... hypothetically ... say - you opt out of any insurance plan and you get into an accident where you need medical help - and you don't have enough money to pay for your life-saving situation ... what should the "public" do?
Yet Cuba has more trained doctors operating around the world than the US.
Yeah, and in each case the authority involved the minority making decisions for the majority.
you havent been paying attention to our conversation. go away
Whatever the "public" wants. The "public" doesn't owe me shit in your above hypothetical.