Obama Seeks $634 Billion for Health Care

[Teejay32]

Candidate McCain's plan was to add the value of one's health benefits to their gross income, collect taxes on that gross income, and then offer a tax credit when filing income taxes. The tax credit was $5000 per family, $2500 individual.

you're right, my bad. I'll put it another way: McCain's plan would have resulted in a tax increase on higher-income, or better-compensated, employees. The accompanying tax credit would have offset the tax burden for a lot of people, and would have helped currently uninsured people to become insured. Secondary benefits were intended: providing an incentive to buy health insurance, shoring up private insurance markets and reducing our dependence on employer-sponsored plans.

The Democratic version, so far, will result in a tax increase on higher-income, or better-compensated, employees. That's it.

So a) they aren't really the same plans, and b)there is plenty of room for debate on whether or not McCain's idea was good, but besides all that: I'm a little confused by the refusal of some Democrats to consider either one of them. Those who get the most in benefits will pay more than others, isn't this a well-established idea?

 

[minnie61650]

Candidate McCain's plan was to add the value of one's health benefits to their gross income, collect taxes on that gross income, and then offer a tax credit when filing income taxes. The tax credit was $5000 per family, $2500 individual.

This was posted in the WSJ:

Sen. McCain, who constantly repeats his no-new-taxes promise on the campaign trail, proposes a big tax hike as the solution to our health-care crisis. His plan would raise taxes on workers who receive health benefits, with the idea of encouraging their employers to drop coverage. A study conducted by University of Michigan economist Tom Buchmueller and colleagues published in the journal Health Affairs suggests that the McCain tax hike will lead employers to drop coverage for over 20 million Americans.

What would happen to these people? Mr. McCain will give them a small tax credit, $5,000 for a family and $2,500 for an individual, and tell them to navigate the individual insurance market on their own.

For middle- and lower-income people, the credits are way too small. They are less than half the cost of policies today ($12,000 on average for a family), and are far below the 75% that most employers offering coverage contribute. Further, their value would erode over time, as the credit increases less rapidly than average premiums.

Those already sick are completely out of luck, as individual insurers are free to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Mr. McCain has proposed a high-risk pool for the very sick, but has not put forward the money to make it work.

Even for those healthy enough to gain coverage in the individual insurance market, the screening, marketing and individual underwriting that insurers do to separate healthy from sick boosts premiums by 17% relative to employer-provided insurance, well beyond the help offered by the McCain tax credit.

The immediate consequences of the McCain plan are even worse. The McCain plan is a big tax increase on employers and workers. With the economy in recession, that's the last thing America's businesses need.

Finally, Mr. McCain does nothing to bend the curve of rising health-care costs downward. He does not fund investments in learning, rewarding and preventing. Eliminating state coverage requirements will slash preventive service availability.

The high cost-sharing plans he envisions will similarly discourage preventive care. And as he does nothing about the hidden costs of the uncovered -- expensive ER visits, recurring conditions resulting from inadequate follow-up care.

Link;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152292213639569.html

 

[TLSnell1981]

I know that our CEO is a VERY big fan of universal health care. If we didn't have to spend so much on health care, we could hire more people-or pay the people we have more $$.

Welcome Tenncare-part 2.

Our grandchildren were already going to pay for the nonsense that took place before Obama became the POTUS

So, keep porkin' it up. Tit for tat.

This post goes back to one of what I see as the main difference between liberals and conservatives: The way we view our fellow citizens.

I believe that there are more good people in America than bad people, and if I have to subsidize the minority of people who aren't responsible in order to make sure that the good people get the help they need-then that's a risk I'm willing to take.

I know liberals think they have cornered the market on caring. It doesn't make it true.

Handing our healthcare system to the government to control..IS NOT a good thing. We've beaten this to death. It may sound like a good idea, but that's about it. Reality is a different story.

One of the reasons healthcare is so expensive? Frivolous lawsuits. Doctors and hospitals must practice CYA healthcare. Malpractice insurance...through the roof..even if you have no claims. Another reason? Lack of education. Too many Americans go to the emergency room for routine healthcare. Neighborhood clinics can provide this care at a fraction of the cost.

Do we need reform? Of course. Government control isn't the answer. This is the difference between Demorats and Republicans.

I'm not surprised. The bottom 95% feel the top 5% should subsidize the rest of the country. Eventually, they are going to run out of money. What next?

 

[Teejay32]

His plan would raise taxes on workers who receive health benefits, with the idea of encouraging their employers to drop coverage.

I must have missed that. Does anyone have a cite for McCain's "idea of encouraging their employers to drop coverage"?

 

[minnie61650]

I must have missed that. Does anyone have a cite for McCain's "idea of encouraging their employers to drop coverage"?

McCain Health Plan Could Mean Higher Tax

By KEVIN SACK and MICHAEL COOPER
Published: May 1, 2008
ALLENTOWN, Pa. — Though Senator John McCain has promised to not raise taxes, his campaign acknowledged Wednesday that the health plan he outlined this week would have the effect of increasing tax payments for some workers, primarily those with high incomes and expensive health plans.<SNIP>

The campaign cannot yet project how many taxpayers might see their taxes go up, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mr. McCain’s top domestic policy adviser. But Mr. Holtz-Eakin said in an interview that for some, Mr. McCain’s health care tax credits would not be large enough to compensate for his proposal to eliminate the tax breaks afforded to workers with employer-provided health benefits.

On stops in Florida and Pennsylvania this week, Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has emphasized a free-market approach that he said would lower health care costs and make insurance affordable.

To do so he is proposing a major tax change that he hopes will make the insurance marketplace more competitive and less expensive in part by encouraging more people to buy health insurance on their own instead of receiving it from their employers. <SNIP>

Link to full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01mccain.html?_r=1

 

[j's m]

you're right, my bad. I'll put it another way: McCain's plan would have resulted in a tax increase on higher-income, or better-compensated, employees. The accompanying tax credit would have offset the tax burden for a lot of people, and would have helped currently uninsured people to become insured. Secondary benefits were intended: providing an incentive to buy health insurance, shoring up private insurance markets and reducing our dependence on employer-sponsored plans.

The Democratic version, so far, will result in a tax increase on higher-income, or better-compensated, employees. That's it.
So a) they aren't really the same plans, and b)there is plenty of room for debate on whether or not McCain's idea was good, but besides all that: I'm a little confused by the refusal of some Democrats to consider either one of them. Those who get the most in benefits will pay more than others, isn't this a well-established idea?

But isn't there a difference between better compensated (a way better health plan) and a health plan that is so **** expensive because of older people and pre-existing conditions? We have been getting up to 25% annual increases in our group health insurance every year, also because it's a small group of 2.

My DS has a pre-existing condition that would keep us from changing insurance companies, not that they would be any cheaper. And raising the deductible would be too prohibitive with pre-existing conditions.

 

[KarenC]

Right now the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the tax burden in this country. The top 2% pay 60%. The top 50% pay 95%!

And the top 1% of the country holds more than 39% of the wealth--seems fair to me.

 

[luvmy3]

And the top 1% of the country holds more than 39% of the wealth--seems fair to me.

UUhhgg
God forbid anyone work hard and succeed when there are those who don't. Boo-Hoo its so unfair

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

And the top 1% of the country holds more than 39% of the wealth--seems fair to me.

Fair? What the heck does the word fair have to do with it? Luck has more to do with it than anything else. Are we going to start banning luck? Shut down the lotteries. It isn't fair that someone might winn tens of millions of dollars if everyone isn't going to. And every house should be the same, and every salary the same, and every car the same. Fair?

It is pretty sad when we become so greedy that we look at someone else's wallet and demand some of their money in the name of "fairness"...

 

[luvmy3]

It is pretty sad when we become so greedy that we look at someone else's wallet and demand some of their money in the name of "fairness"...

 

[Nie0214]

It is pretty sad when we become so greedy that we look at someone else's wallet and demand some of their money in the name of "fairness"...

Oh the flames that will be incoming!

*puts on her full armor-flame-suit stolen from a wealthier person in the name of "spreading the wealth"*

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Oh the flames that will be incoming!

*puts on her full armor-flame-suit stolen from a wealthier person in the name of "spreading the wealth"*

The sad thing, I pay a ton in taxes and don't mind it one bit. And I will gladly pay more if it is necessary for our country's security. But I don't want my money going into the pockets of people who make less than me in the name of "fairness". In all honesty, I can't even imagine how anyone could believe that this is "right"...

 

[sanfran22]

I don't think that Americans understand that with socialized medicine you are trading once set of problems for another.

In socialized medicine, it is not free. Everyone is forced to pay for it in taxes, here at least you can chose the type of coverage that suits you.

Because it is not free people other than physicians make medical decisions based on economic reasoning and not medical reasoning. This means that MRI's, CT scans, ultrasounds are no longer routine for diagnostic purposes. Surgeries such as Hip and knee replacements are based on quotas and not individual needs.

Medically necessary treatments can take more that a year.

Getting life saving cancer treatments in a timely fashion can be very difficult. Getting life saving transplants depend on whether a team deems it cost effective.

Medicines that are superior to treat diseases are no longer available as there are cheaper, albeit not as effective, versions that are preferable to the govt.

Physicians are no longer going into medicine because it is not worth their time, energy, intellect or money to pursue.

If you think I am joking, I assure you that I am not. I have plenty of experience working in both healthcare systems.

Many years ago when Canada switched to socialized medicine, the best and brightest of our medical field fled to the states. Nowadays there is a shortage of physicians in all but the largest cities.

In England, many of their best and brightest are also choosing not to go into medicine because the rewards are few and the problems are huge. They are importing physicians from foreign countries to cover the gap. These Drs are not always up to the standards of education that we presently demand in medicine.

If you are so sure that you think that socialized medicine works so well I implore you to REALLY look into what you are giving up in quality of care and timeliness in treatment. Don't be basing your opinion on movies that are propaganda at best.

Nothing in life is free so what are you willing to pay?

This pretty much does a good job of summing it up. Well said!!

 

[Brier Rose]

Not if you have pre-existing conditions.

And for those of you that haven't dealt with this lately... pre-existing does not mean you currently have a serious disease or have had one recently.You have to list every doctor/hospital visit you've ever had.

This year my company dropped Kaiser.

My wife has RSD... and even though its in remission she gets quarterly treatments.

I was going to pay the $10K / year out of my own pocket so she could keep her doctors.

She was declined... even though she was currently with Kaiser and had been for 10 years.

I am forced to always work for a company that provides healthcare which is ridicules.

THANK YOU!!
I think far too many people just want to pretend that this is not the way it is. They think that anyone who is willing to pay can get some type of coverage. Surely the only reason they don't have health care is because they just don't want to pay extra high premiums..maybe they should have thought about that before becoming self-employed..blah..blah..blah.

The truth is there are MANY of us who absolutely cannot get coverage..period. My DH has Type 2 diabetes. He is not fat, nor lazy BTW , it was just simply hereditary.
I am just plain overweight. Both of us have been denied coverage more times that I can count now.

I have been trying really hard to lose weight so that maybe at least I can get a policy and decrease our risk by half. Better than nothing right??

Well for the last 2 months, I have just not been feeling well at all. Guess what...I am too afraid to go to the doctor for the simple reason that if there is something wrong..even if it not a huge deal..it will most likely keep me from being able to get the insurance that I need even if I am successful at losing the weight.

Orrr..they may be oh so kind to go ahead and finally issue a policy with a HUGE premium that I now would struggle to pay due to the HUGE loss our business has taken in the last 6 months.
So round and round it goes...

A friend of DH's just told him 2 days ago that his wife was diagnosed with cancer. They are also self-employed, and were unable to obtain insurance due to pre-existing conditions. They were told at the hospital that they would not treat his wife unless they were able to pay $50,000 up front to start..just to start.

They just don't have that kind of money. They called the American Cancer Society who put them in touch with a program that may be able to help, but they have to go through this whole long process,etc..
Meanwhile the cancer is spreading, and he told DH he believes his wife will most likely die.

Ironically enough this week there was an article in our paper titled "Go Directly to Jail, Get Medical Care."

In the article it talks about prisoners getting Lear-Jet transportation for out-of-state treatment, expensive pain management and $2,500- per-hour doctors.

It also states that inmates are the only subpopulation in the United States that have a constitutional right to healthcare, based on the 1976 U.S Supreme Court Case Estelle v. Gamble.

So convicted felons, rapists, murderers, child molesters, THEY have a RIGHT to healthcare. And not only just healthcare, but the BEST OF THE BEST healthcare, while my husband, and myself, and people like us do not????

 

[Brier Rose]

BTW..the article if anyone is interested..

http://www.metrospirit.com/index.php?cat=1211101074307265&ShowArticle_ID=11012402093122317

 

[ntsammy5]

The sad thing, I pay a ton in taxes and don't mind it one bit. And I will gladly pay more if it is necessary for our country's security. But I don't want my money going into the pockets of people who make less than me in the name of "fairness". In all honesty, I can't even imagine how anyone could believe that this is "right"...

Elect different people then - that's what I plan on doing. We're out numbered though.

One of the things I haven't seen mentioned is that once these programs are instituted, they'll never, ever go away.

Eventually we will have universal health care in this country, like it or not. It's inevitable!

 

[Dr_Finkelstein]

Universal health care has a basic and fatal flaw, you can’t simultaneously reduce the cost of a service and increase access to it. If you have universal access, you have to find a way of paying for people to get that access, which raises costs. If you want to keep costs down you can only economize so far before you have to restrict access. Universal health care is a bit like a perpetual motion machine—it would be wonderful in theory, but it can’t actually exist in reality.

What inevitably ends up happening is that governments cut costs first—which requires them to cut off access. This is how Britain’s NHS and the Canadian system work. You end up either waiting in line or having a government bureaucrat deny your request for treatment. That’s why the healthcare systems in those countries are having such trouble managing costs without drastically cutting back on services—and why both are more and more turning to private agencies to provide services they cannot.

Corporations love it because it passes on the costs to the federal government—turning it into a corporate welfare transfer payment. Bureaucrats love it because it gives them more power, as it would with politicians.

I don't think that Americans understand that with socialized medicine you are trading once set of problems for another.

In socialized medicine, it is not free. Everyone is forced to pay for it in taxes, here at least you can chose the type of coverage that suits you.

Because it is not free people other than physicians make medical decisions based on economic reasoning and not medical reasoning. This means that MRI's, CT scans, ultrasounds are no longer routine for diagnostic purposes. Surgeries such as Hip and knee replacements are based on quotas and not individual needs.

Medically necessary treatments can take more that a year.

Getting life saving cancer treatments in a timely fashion can be very difficult. Getting life saving transplants depend on whether a team deems it cost effective.

Medicines that are superior to treat diseases are no longer available as there are cheaper, albeit not as effective, versions that are preferable to the govt.

Physicians are no longer going into medicine because it is not worth their time, energy, intellect or money to pursue.

If you think I am joking, I assure you that I am not. I have plenty of experience working in both healthcare systems.

Many years ago when Canada switched to socialized medicine, the best and brightest of our medical field fled to the states. Nowadays there is a shortage of physicians in all but the largest cities.

In England, many of their best and brightest are also choosing not to go into medicine because the rewards are few and the problems are huge. They are importing physicians from foreign countries to cover the gap. These Drs are not always up to the standards of education that we presently demand in medicine.

If you are so sure that you think that socialized medicine works so well I implore you to REALLY look into what you are giving up in quality of care and timeliness in treatment. Don't be basing your opinion on movies that are propaganda at best.

Nothing in life is free so what are you willing to pay?

I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but as a UK citizen I just have to point out a few flaws in the above quotes.

Yes, the NHS is not perfect - the main problem being the government of the 80's tried to turn it into a business. Healthcare is not and never will be profitable - that's why the US insurance companies have to keep putting up premiums and not insuring those with pre-existing conditions.

I bolded the comments I want to address specifically, then realised I should have bolded the entire comment. I can't speak for Canada, but can for the NHS.

MRIs etc are used for diagnostic purposes. I work for the Family Planning Service and we routinely send patients for bone density scans if they have been on injectable contraceptives for 5+yrs. No problem getting those scans at all.

My FIL was recently diagnosed with Ca, he had umpteen scans - again no problem.

Transplants are done on a priority basis - not on a cost effective basis! If your condition deteriorates you are moved higher up the list! If transplants were done on a 'cost effective' basis only I can assure you there would be an absolute uproar!!!!

The Gold Standard of Care in the NHS means that if cancer is suspected in a patient they MUST be referred immediately. From seeing GP to diagnostic scans to being seen by a specialist should all be done within 2 weeks (most of the time it is done within a few days).

I can assure you that there is still many people who want to become Drs in the UK, we have applicants from foreign countries because the NHS is seen as one of the best health systems in the world. Is it perfect, no it is not, and we have never pretended otherwise.

Yes, there are waiting list for 'elective' procedures, but every year we work at reducing these. Private Healthcare over here tends to be used primarily for minor elective procedures.

The British public would never tolerate the thought of getting rid of the NHS - we moan about it (but that's really just a national pastime over here, we love a good moan over our cuppa ), but there would be riots in the streets to protect the NHS.

Every UK government/political party knows this and their policies reflect this.

I can't imagine worrying about money just because I or my family became ill, that's the last thing you should have to think about then!

Di x

 

[TLSnell1981]

THANK YOU!!
I'll think far too many people just want to pretend that this is not the way it is. They think that anyone who is willing to pay can get some type of coverage. Surely the only reason they don't have health care is because they just don't want to pay extra high premiums..maybe they should have thought about that before becoming self-employed..blah..blah..blah.

The truth is there are MANY of us who absolutely cannot get coverage..period.

I say this...one more time. This was tried with TennCare aka Hillarycare. This was a disastrous experiment with universal health care coverage. It was to cover the working poor, those who were medicaid eligible or uninsurable.

The TennCare experiment has lowered the quality of health care statewide. There have been hospital closures and many doctors and health care professionals have left the state. It has been a burden on the taxpayers and the state budget.

As a result, many qualified Tennesseans were removed from the roles. No explanation...no reason as to "why". Now, Cluster-Daniels is set to "evaluate" all enrollees. This is an effort to furthur reduce the roles. This has opened another can of worms. Many more residents will be left without healthcare coverage.

A little over ten years after it's inception, Governor Bredesan-D released the following:

Governor Bredesen announced that he was making a strong effort to preserve some vestiges of the TennCare program, but that doing so would require removing adult Uninsured and Uninsurable persons who were currently on the rolls, as well as closing the non-pregnant adult Medically Needy categories. Children were to be protected. Some benefit restrictions for adults were also proposed.

It sounded like a good idea. Problem is...it doesn't work. Handing our healthcare system over to the government... a really bad idea.

 

[minnie61650]

I say this...one more time. This was tried with TennCare aka Hillarycare. This was a disastrous experiment with universal health care coverage. It was to cover the working poor, those who were medicaid eligible or uninsurable.

TennCare may very well be one of the main resasons that President Obama DOES NOT want a universal health care plan.

Barack Obama will make health insurance affordable and accessible to all:
The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing healthcare system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan.

Obama will lower health care costs:
The Obama plan will lower health care costs by $2,500 for a typical family by investing in health information technology, prevention and care coordination.

Promote public health:
Obama and Biden will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and will increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

 

[Carpenters]

I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but as a UK citizen I just have to point out a few flaws in the above quotes.

Yes, the NHS is not perfect - the main problem being the government of the 80's tried to turn it into a business. Healthcare is not and never will be profitable - that's why the US insurance companies have to keep putting up premiums and not insuring those with pre-existing conditions.

I bolded the comments I want to address specifically, then realised I should have bolded the entire comment. I can't speak for Canada, but can for the NHS.

MRIs etc are used for diagnostic purposes. I work for the Family Planning Service and we routinely send patients for bone density scans if they have been on injectable contraceptives for 5+yrs. No problem getting those scans at all.

My FIL was recently diagnosed with Ca, he had umpteen scans - again no problem.

Transplants are done on a priority basis - not on a cost effective basis! If your condition deteriorates you are moved higher up the list! If transplants were done on a 'cost effective' basis only I can assure you there would be an absolute uproar!!!!

The Gold Standard of Care in the NHS means that if cancer is suspected in a patient they MUST be referred immediately. From seeing GP to diagnostic scans to being seen by a specialist should all be done within 2 weeks (most of the time it is done within a few days).

I can assure you that there is still many people who want to become Drs in the UK, we have applicants from foreign countries because the NHS is seen as one of the best health systems in the world. Is it perfect, no it is not, and we have never pretended otherwise.

Yes, there are waiting list for 'elective' procedures, but every year we work at reducing these. Private Healthcare over here tends to be used primarily for minor elective procedures.

The British public would never tolerate the thought of getting rid of the NHS - we moan about it (but that's really just a national pastime over here, we love a good moan over our cuppa ), but there would be riots in the streets to protect the NHS.

Every UK government/political party knows this and their policies reflect this.

I can't imagine worrying about money just because I or my family became ill, that's the last thing you should have to think about then!

Di x

Thanks so much for your perspective! It's nice to get information from someone who lives with this type of healthcare system and has positive things to say about it.