Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

McCain-Palin Health Plan Relies on the Very Marketplace Strategy That's Crippling Our Economy

By Bob Herbert, The New York Times. Posted September 18, 2008.


The Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and AIG fiascos show just how well the unfettered marketplace has been working.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Bob Herbert

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Talk about a shock to the system. Has anyone bothered to notice the radical changes that John McCain and Sarah Palin are planning for the nation's health insurance system?

These are changes that will set in motion nothing less than the dismantling of the employer-based coverage that protects most American families.

A recent 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.

There is nothing secret about Senator McCain's far-reaching proposals, but they haven't gotten much attention because the chatter in this campaign has mostly been about nonsense -- lipstick, celebrities and "Drill, baby, drill!"

For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.

"It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to have to pay taxes on that money," said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just completed an independent joint study of the plan. Their findings are being published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs.

According to the study: "The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system -- the nongroup market -- where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now."

The net effect of the plan, the study said, "almost certainly will be to increase family costs for medical care."

Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan) employees who continue to receive employer-paid health benefits would look at their pay stubs each week or each month and find that additional money had been withheld to cover the taxes on the value of their benefits.

While there might be less money in the paycheck, that would not be anything to worry about, according to Senator McCain. That's because the government would be offering all taxpayers a refundable tax credit -- $2,500 for a single worker and $5,000 per family -- to be used "to help pay for your health care."

You may think this is a good move or a bad one -- but it's a monumental change in the way health coverage would be provided to scores of millions of Americans. Why not more attention?

The whole idea of the McCain plan is to get families out of employer-paid health coverage and into the health insurance marketplace, where naked competition is supposed to take care of all ills. (We're seeing in the Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch fiascos just how well the unfettered marketplace has been working.)

Taxing employer-paid health benefits is the first step in this transition, the equivalent of injecting poison into the system. It's the beginning of the end.

When younger, healthier workers start seeing additional taxes taken out of their paychecks, some (perhaps many) will opt out of the employer-based plans -- either to buy cheaper insurance on their own or to go without coverage.

That will leave employers with a pool of older, less healthy workers to cover. That coverage will necessarily be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employers to give up on the idea of providing coverage at all.

The upshot is that many more Americans -- millions more -- will find themselves on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace. As Senator McCain has said: "I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves."

Yet another radical element of McCain's plan is his proposal to undermine state health insurance regulations by allowing consumers to buy insurance from sellers anywhere in the country. So a requirement in one state that insurers cover, for example, vaccinations, or annual physicals, or breast examinations, would essentially be meaningless.

In a refrain we've heard many times in recent years, Mr. McCain said he is committed to ridding the market of these "needless and costly" insurance regulations.

This entire McCain health insurance transformation is right out of the right-wing Republicans' ideological playbook: fewer regulations; let the market decide; and send unsophisticated consumers into the crucible alone.

You would think that with some of the most venerable houses on Wall Street crumbling like sand castles right before our eyes, we'd be a little wary about spreading this toxic formula even further into the health care system.

But we're not even paying much attention.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: health, health care, mccain, merrill lynch, health coverage, fannie mae, freddie mac, financial crisis, palin, lehman brothers, bear sterns

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
New rule.
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Sep 18, 2008 1:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever John McCain wants to do, we should do just the opposite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: New rule. Posted by: leTerrassier
» RE: New rule. Posted by: Karl.Ben
The Immorality of the Marketplace Model in Health Care
Posted by: drricklippin on Sep 18, 2008 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We just have to decide as a nation if trading in human flesh and human souls is moral

I think not

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
ralippin@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The worst of the bad!
Posted by: Karl.Ben on Sep 18, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still can't imagine what McCain is thinking regarding healthcare.. I'm not necessarily for a government run plan but it seems McCains plan is throwing us to the wolves. We get a rebate..Thank you - now, what will you do to limit the health insurances co's premiums? answer.._NOTHING!

OBAMA's plan? what will YOU do do reduce health care cost? still an open question.. at least Obama has a better structure for small business owners!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The worst of the bad! Posted by: Old Skeptic
There is no free market. It's just government and Wall $treet churning taxpayer money back and forth
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT on Sep 18, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Face it. We're all losers. Anyone who actually tries to help the taxpayer will likely face hostile responses from corrupt pols and injustices and even likely assassination attempts. Just ask Huey Lang ! We're going to have to unite and reform first. Weaken the monied forces on all levels of government and then a truly representative democracy will actually exist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Looking for other opinions
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Sep 18, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Initially, my impression was that the McCain plan is a big mistake. Although I consider myself Libertarian leaning, this idea of pushing people into the marketplace seemed too risky for older/sicker people.

Then I had a conversation with my very Liberal brother about Obama's plan and it scares me as well.

My brother is a free-lancer, so he is all too familiar with the private healthcare market. His persepctive, as someone who is not an employee but an independent contractor, is that Obama's plan to force companies that provide no health-care benefits to pay a higher pay-roll tax to fund a government plan will push companies to move to a completely idependent contractor model.

It could work like this:

Company A has 10,000 employees and offers no health insurance. Under Obama's plan they now have to choose between offering health insurance (which they don't want to do becuase they fear that the costs outpace inflation etc etc) or paying the new payroll tax.

But what if another Company (called PayMaster) gave them a third option. PayMaster would hire all of Comapny A's employees and handle all the taxes and for a fee (which would be all the payroll tax costs plus a profit margin for PayMaster) contract them back to Company A.

Company A likes this because they can now write-off all the payroll expenses as a business expense instead of taxes and actually end up saving some money. Also, they don't need to deal with thousands of individual contractors, just write one big check to PayMaster every month. Plus, now they reduce their stated number of employees to say a hundred managers and administrative staff, falling below the size where they would be required to either offer health-care or pay the new taxes on the remaining staff.

You may say "So what? We all now have healthcare" which would be true, but at what cost? Any concept of (already dwindling) paid vacation, severance, pension, seniority would be lost. Your ability to pursue wrongful termination or harassment issues would be virtually non-existent.

Am I missing something about the Obama plan, or is this a real risk with what he is proposing? What do other people think about this?

Also (and I really do not like the McCain plan either) do people really believe McCain's scheme it will have the effect everyone says? Will people react to those new taxes in their paycheck by leaving the employer based insurance behind? I have a hard time believing that. The thing about new taxes is that its like the death of a thousand cuts, you just get used to it after a while and it doesn't really change behavior. I think the real problem with the McCain plan is not that it will kill employe based insurance, but that it will just be a tax-hike that doesn't fix anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dipconsult
Posted by: dipconsult on Sep 18, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We in Europe - in our vast majority - want to see regulation (new up to date regulation) restored in the US capitalist system for our own sake as much as America's. That's one big reason why Obama, who wants just this, would win by a huge majority if we had the vote.

One huge area is, of course, health insurance, which we enjoy in some states such as France, more effectively than in others. Here all are covered with greater or lesser efficiency under wholly government or government controlled schemes partly involving controlled private insurance. .

Quite obviously it is absurd to rely on 'the market' and it's 'invisible hand' when private insurance companies are in grave disarray precisely because of the deregulation.

Where insurance companies participate in health insurance there must be regulation or the honest companies paying up where due, will go to the wall.

As much of the rest of the 'the developed world' shows - government organisation of health insurance is less costly and far more efficient for the patient than in the US.

This is not a question of "left" versus "right" - outdated terms today - but in favour of using the state where the state does best, and using where properly regulated capitalist companies where they cna perform a useful role. companies.

We note now that most Americans agree that the state should provide the framework and regulation for capitalism to prosper - and that the state has a major role to play over the public's health .

Let us hope that American voters overcome lamentable racism and laissez-faire ideology and elect Obama who has made it clear that he understands all this - which surely is "elementary, my dear Watson"!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And that's why America deserves a BOLD AND POWERFUL PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL INDEPENDENT ! RALPH NADER !!
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 18, 2008 5:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
votenader.org !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Herbert Misses A Big Point
Posted by: pauldd on Sep 18, 2008 9:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bob failed to note that if an employer must include the cost of health coverage as compensation to their employees, that means the employer can no longer include the cost of providing the coverage as a tax write off. In effect they will lose the tax benefit of offering medical plans to their employees and are therefore more likely to eliminate medical benefits.

Brilliant plan McCain!

Funny how he never mentions that he's been covered under a government sponsored plan for his entire life (except while a POW). Maybe he thinks we deserve better?

America gets what it deserves. I hope we're all paying attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We're Already Paying for it. Why Shouldn't We Have It!!
Posted by: yellow on Sep 19, 2008 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A 2002 Report published by two Harvard Medical School professors revealed that of the roughly $2 trillion spent annually in the US on health care, 60% of it, or about $1.2 trillion, is spent by the government. This figure is also close to half of the $3.5 trillion in total taxes collected by the US federal, state and local governments in that 2006. The government spent this enormous sum on Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, the Indian Health Service, health coverage for all government employees and their immediate families plus for many private sector employees who work for government contractors, tax deductions for employer paid health insurance plus other health related tax deductions as well as on free public hospitals such as Cook County Hospital in Chicago.

The remaining $800 billion that is spent in the private sector through private insurance and out of pocket copayments of various types could easily and cheaply be socialized along with the rest of the system and taken over to provide health care for all by eliminating hundreds of billions in redundant administrative costs, excessive CEO salaries in private health care corporations, much of the costs of the rampant financial delinquency and finally, by offering to pay private hospitals for a high volume of services in return for significant fee caps on medical care and services rendered to those who require government health coverage. If after this a small amount of funding would need to be added, an additional 1% hike in the Social Security payroll tax as a replacement for all private health coverage from individuals and employers would easily leave more money in everyone's pocket and cheapen the system for the entire country creating incredible cost efficiencies in health care delivery, extending care to everyone and even stimulating the economy in the process. In the end, all financial delinquency would be eliminated and the system would be even more not less solvent. Finally, cutting the military budget and spending on war could provide enough funding for this system to make it solvent for years without increasing operating costs.

The numbers add up. There is no reason not to create a cost efficient, universal health care system in the US now to cover all Americans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]