Why McCain has the best health-care plan

[AzX5]

Who has the best plan? Both have huge flaws, but on balance McCain's is better.
McCain's main pillar is the elimination of a tax break that employees receive if their employer provides their health care. That may not sound like a shocker, but it is. The exclusion dates from World War II, when the federal government imposed controls on wages, but allowed companies to compete for workers by offering tax-free health benefits in lieu of pay. The law is largely responsible for the nightmarish patchwork of corporate-provided medical plans we enjoy so much today. Employees and their unions demanded richer and richer packages, and employers complied, since they could buy far more benefits for their employees than workers could buy with after-tax dollars on their own. Americans have paid a steep price, however, by sacrificing their raises as corporate insurance bills exploded, never more so than now.
McCain suggests that we junk all that. Say you're earning $100,000 a year and your company provides about $9,000 toward your $12,000 family premium, which is about average. Today you're taxed only on the $100,000. Under McCain's plan, you'd also pay on the $9,000. That could mean an extra $3,000 or so in federal taxes alone. To compensate for the extra levy, McCain would provide a $2,500 federal tax rebate for individuals and $5,000 per family, meaning a family would simply subtract $5,000 from its tax bill, the equivalent of a big cash payment.
Here's where it gets interesting. Employers would no longer be able to buy more health care with $9,000 of their employees' money than the workers could buy on their own. The raison d'être for corporate health benefits would vanish. Employers have another compelling reason to pass the ball to the employee: While wages are rising around 3% ayear, their health-care costs are growing at three times that rate. "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. Hence, an employer that pays $9,000 for your benefits would simply pack an extra $9,000 a year into your paycheck. (Why? Because in a competitive labor market, companies would have to hand over that cash to employees or risk losing them.) So you'd have $6,000 after tax, plus the $5,000 family credit, to buy insurance. That's $11,000 in new cash that employees can set aside for health care.



http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/news...tune/index.htm

[Eric5273]

That article discusses nothing at all about the health care itself, and only about paying for it. The main issue at hand is increasing the quality of the care itself. What does his "plan" do to address that?

Also, what does McCain's issue do to help the 45 million people who do not get offered health insurance by their employers?

[MrLabGuy]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

That article discusses nothing at all about the health care itself, and only about paying for it. The main issue at hand is increasing the quality of the care itself. What does his "plan" do to address that?

Also, what does McCain's issue do to help the 45 million people who do not get offered health insurance by their employers?

OK Eric...How can you possibly believe that the Government can do a better job of managing health care than private industry? Really...Look at everything the government runs and tell me with a straight face that you believe they can do a good job for less money.

My experience with the federal government is they do a worse job at everything they do for 4X the price.

Next...For those without a job...Get a job. The unemployment rate is 5% and many of those are on government assistance (insured). The rest don't qualify because they are able bodied and should be working.

[Wagner]

As an employer, we pay too much in health care costs already...can't wait till the dumb @sses try to 'mitigate problems' by pushing the buck to the employer. One thing no body discusses in great detail is where they get the money for heath care 'upgrades'. And if that reported 45M without health care are anything like my neighbor (who doesn't have health care for him and his family..there are 3 of that 45M) they don't deserve any help. He makes more then enough money, chooses not to have it.

And all that "we'll make it better" is horse...t. How, how do you guarantee it would be better? You can't...you can only make it cheaper or easier to get. It is its own industry, and since the religious zealots like to pop in every now and again and tell scientists what they can/can't do...that even weakens progress more...just smoke blowing by the politicians to look like they have a purpose. And for Hill and Bar, it is there only difference..so they have to make it even more apparent.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

OK Eric...How can you possibly believe that the Government can do a better job of managing health care than private industry?

Because just about every other industrialized country in the world has a government run health care system, and almost all of them produce better results than our health care system.

For example, what can we do to lower our infant mortality rate from 6.37 per 1,000 live births, which is a rate similar to many third world countries, to a number similar to more industrialized countries like France (4.31), Sweden (2.77), Germany (4.20), Spain (4.48), or Japan (3.28)?

Why do so many American babies die before their first birthday compared to babies born in these other countries? Do you really believe we are not capable of improving our health care system so that American babies can have a similar survival rate after being born as babies born in Europe or Japan?

This is just one of many areas that our health care system lags behind most of the industrialized world. The key word in "Health Care System" is Health. The measure of how good a health care system is, is how healthy its people are.

The problem is that we do not really have a "health care system" in this country. What we have is a "medical care system". Keeping people healthy is simply not a priority for the American health care system. The priority is to make money, and unfortunately, a healthy populace would not yield very much profit for an industry that profits from treating the sick. The current system gives no incentive to keep people healthy. The incentive is to keep people sick and alive, so they can continue to need treatment for whatever illness they may have.

[Wagner]

Hmm, you pull this number out:

For example, what can we do to lower our infant mortality rate from 6.37 per 1,000 live births, which is a rate similar to many third world countries, to a number similar to more industrialized countries like France (4.31), Sweden (2.77), Germany (4.20), Spain (4.48), or Japan (3.28)?

How many births were there nationally in these places? I'm betting there were considerably more births in the US, which in turn raises risk, so it's apples/oranges IMO.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by Wagner

How many births were there nationally in these places? I'm betting there were considerably more births in the US, which in turn raises risk, so it's apples/oranges IMO.

Why does more total births raise risk?

The statistics quoted are proportional to the population. They are a percentage, not a total.

[Wagner]

Why does total raise risk....ahhh obviously the more some times something is attempted the more likely hood of something going wrong.

[Boston X5 4.4]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Why does total raise risk....ahhh obviously the more some times something is attempted the more likely hood of something going wrong.

- or the better you get at it?


'practice makes perfect'

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Boston X5 4.4

- or the better you get at it?


'practice makes perfect'

not quite. If 100 people enter a lottery your chances are pretty high, if 100,000,000 enter it, you plummeted.