Let's talk health care!

Okay, obviously these are just the proposed plans and if elected they would still have to make it through all the channels to actually be voted in and executed so either plan will not likely be implemented as is. So, to me it’s the ideas presented that are important.

First off, both plans are too expensive (Over ten years, Obama = $1.6 trillion, McCain = $1.3 trillion). Since they are both equally outrageous in cost we’ll go ahead and give them negative marks there and that’s about all I can say about the cost.

I think McCain has more flaws in his thinking than Obama. While he is protecting the [b]business[/b] of insurance, he is not protecting the requirement of accessible insurance to all Americans. The real issue, however, is that all Americans deserve quality health care – insurance, as it stands is just a means to an end. I think a better focus for either party would be to focus on accessible health care, not the payment plans.

McCain’s entire premise is basically to privatize health insurance. He would get rid of tax benefits to employers that provided health insurance plans [i]and[/i] tax employees on the value of their health coverage (basically the value of your health coverage would be treated as additional income and would therefore be taxed). This would be countered with a tax credit intended to help people pay for private sector health insurance (up to you whether you get insurance or a big screen). Great for the young and healthy but no so great for the sick and elderly who would have trouble finding a good policy. You see, the problem with thinking that competition will create better health insurance is that the focus is on the wrong area. Competition in health [i]care[/i] would help to create better medical care. Obviously someone would prefer to go to a hospital known for excellent care, experienced doctors, etc. Hospitals and other care providers make bigger profits the better their coverage is because more people choose them. Health [i]insurance[/i] companies make more money the [i]less[/i] they end up covering. Think about it, it makes perfect sense. If insurance companies paid for all the procedures requested they would lose money because the money made from premiums wouldn’t outweigh the money required for care. So, based on capitalistic principals it makes perfect sense that insurance companies would make it easier for the young and healthy [read as: less likely to need costly care] to be covered than the sick or elderly [read as: expensive to insure]. So, with this type of plan that basically says employers do not need to cover you and the government will stay as out of it, there is only one conclusion, stay healthy. In addition, McCain does not support regulations on health insurance agencies, you know the type off things that would require them to cover the sick and the elderly, the kind of things that would require them to cover replacing both fingers instead of just one, the kind of things that would outline baseline, ethical, coverage that all agencies must offer if they want to sell health insurance. This is where the economic tangent comes in. If you have been paying attention, you may know that we are in a bit of an economic crisis. Well credit default swaps* have been identified as a major cause of the finance, mortgage and insurance agencies troubles. Why? How did these irresponsible crazy debt investments get so out of control??? Phil Gramm, McCain’s good friend and economic advisor (until he called us a “nation of whiners” due to our “mental recession”). Gramm, with the help of lobbyists, slipped legislation into a must-pass spending bill eight years ago. This legislation protected credit default swaps from government regulation. Eight years later these un-regulated bundles of high-risk debt have created one of the biggest economic failures in our history. [end tangent] Yes, government should stay out of the private sector for the most part, but certain things that affect close to all Americans (like finance, health insurance, education) need a minimum level of regulation to ensure all Americans at least have a chance. McCain’s plan would basically put health insurance in the same situation as the current financial giants (and some insurance companies). It is estimated that McCain’s plan would insure an additional 1-5 million Americans.

Obama’s plan addresses the issue that those that need insurance the most are the most likely to be denied by a strictly private insurance sector. So his idea of expanding government insurance options will help to address these people that can’t get it in the private sector. His first “universal” coverage would be for children (and since he is proposing to get rid of taxes altogether for the elderly making less than $50K I think he’s now covered at least addressing two of the most vulnerable Americans…). Obama would create regulations to ensure insurance companies cover everyone and at least a minimum of conditions. It is estimated Obama’s plan would insure an additional 34 million Americans.

So, as far as intent I think it is clear (at least to me) that Obama’s head is in the right place and he wants to help Americans. McCain is stuck in his party’s firm anti-regulation stance and is only looking out for insurance companies and big business. McCain’s stance would be fine if this was an economic issue but this is not. This is an issue of everyone’s right to see a doctor.


*Credit default swaps are basically insurance policies that cover the losses on investments, and they have been at the heart of the subprime meltdown because they have enabled large financial institutions to turn risky loans into risky securities that could be packaged and sold to other institutions