Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Obama and McCain's Health Care Plans: The Story Mainstream Press Won't Tell

By Trudy Lieberman , Columbia Journalism Review. Posted September 22, 2008.


Health policy talk means little if it's not placed in the context of real people's lives.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Trudy Lieberman

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This is the second in a series examining how the candidates' health care proposals will affect ordinary people and how the press could cover that angle. Part I is archived here.

James Bell III and James Bell IV

Father and son walked into the Dr. Vesudevan Wellness Center, a Delta Area Health Education Center jointly funded by the state of Arkansas and the federal government. The elder James, age sixty-two, looked healthy; his son, age forty-three, did not. James Bell IV was a diabetic and had been for eleven years. He had trouble breathing, and it was almost hard for him to talk. He said he hadn't seen an eye doctor in years; his feet were numb and often swollen, making it hard to stand or walk,or hold a job. He had thought about applying for a job at Wal-Mart, but a worker there told him the company might not hire him because he was so sick. His HBA1C level, a marker of how well the disease is controlled, registered a nine -- too high, and he knew it, but he had no insurance or money to buy the insulin and the test strips needed to monitor and control his blood sugars.

The Bells had been to a health clinic in another town, but it had no insulin to give out and wasn't much help otherwise. "They'll give you a meter (to test your blood) but not the strips," said James the younger. Strips cost eighty dollars for a supply of 100. A doctor's visit costs thirty dollars, but to someone without money, it might as well be thirty million.

His father, who works two jobs as the county's head jailer and as a grill cook on the night shift at McDonalds, was trying to help, but his own income is only about $30,000 a year before taxes. At least he has health coverage -- a 70 percent, 30 percent arrangement. The insurer pays 70 percent of a bill; he pays 30 percent, along with copayments for doctors' visits and premiums totaling $480 a month. (Add to that another $30 for blood pressure medication.) His wife of forty-four years has no coverage, as he can't afford to add her to the policy.

The health center helped the younger Bell apply for assistance from a drug company that makes medicines available to the very poor; he qualified for both insulin and test strips. Abbott Laboratories was willing to give him free strips as long as he applied for Medicaid and was rejected. He was. In Arkansas, single men without children generally don't qualify for Medicaid. Getting to a doctor regularly, though, is problematic. "I don't have any money to take him," says his father. "I'm just broke." What spare cash he once had, he used to send his youngest daughter to college. Still, he was planning to use eighty dollars from the $570 paycheck he would get the next day to buy test strips for his son to tide him over until Abbott's supply arrived.

How they would fare under McCain.

Neither father nor son would fare well under McCain's proposals. Bell the elder would have to pay taxes on the value of his health insurance benefits. Economists argue that removing the tax exclusion for employer-provided benefits is a move toward equity, since the exclusion now favors highly paid people who get rich benefits. Equity or not, Bell would have to find the money to pay the extra taxes on an income that hardly covers the essentials. In exchange, he would get a $2500 tax credit to buy his own coverage, as an incentive to leave the county's health plan.

The flat tax credit would favor younger people, enabling them to buy more coverage; policies in the individual market cost less if you are young. Using the credit, Bell might be able to spend less on premiums for an Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield policy with a $1000 deductible and 20 percent coinsurance -- if the carrier would insure him at all and if it didn't tack on a 50 percent surcharge for having high blood pressure and being overweight (as measured by the insurer). Under McCain's scheme, insurers would not have to cover people who are already sick.

Bell the younger would have the same problem. Even with the $2500 tax credit and additional federal subsidies, most likely he would still be uninsured. His diabetes makes him uninsurable. McCain proposes putting people like him in a special high risk pool for the sickest of the sick, where premiums would be sky-high and benefits may be limited. Without an income to pay the premiums required by the high risk pool, or very generous subsidies, it's hard to see how this would be much of an option. Bottom line: James Bell IV would still have troubled getting needed care.

How they would fare under Obama.

Neither father nor son would be required to buy insurance. The elder Bell could keep his coverage, which will probably get more expensive. Although Obama has promised that he would lower the cost of premiums by $2500 for the typical family, health analysts dispute whether this is achievable. Obama talks of a public plan option: Medicare-like coverage that people could choose instead of buying from commercial carriers. Whether this option will be cheaper depends on who provides the coverage.

If the government offers the benefits, as it does for Medicare, it's possible that Bell's premiums and other out-of-pocket expenses could be lower. There would also be a uniform comprehensive benefit package. If private insurers, with their high marketing and administrative costs, offer the benefits, then it's not clear which option would be preferable. Too much is unknown, and, as the Democratic Party's platform notes, all this will be thrashed out in the legislative process anyway.

Bell the younger has a shot at getting the consistent, ongoing care so necessary for diabetics. Under an Obama plan, he might be able to choose coverage in the public plan, assuming subsidies that are high enough to cover the premiums. If by some chance the legislative sausage grinder turns out a provision for automatic enrollment in existing public plans, like Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), he would qualify, giving him fairly comprehensive benefits and a way to pay for care. All this assumes, of course, he can still pay the modest copayments that would likely be required, and that the federal government offers the states enough funding to provide additional coverage for currently ineligible people like Bell the younger.

If a public program doesn't come out of the legislative give and take, or if insurers are successful at maintaining their ability to turn away bad risks like Bell, he might remain uninsured, relying on his dad to pay the doctors and Abbott Laboratories to give him the test strips.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: health, obama, health care, mccain

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:
How Obama can defeat McCain without attacking his "health care" plan
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Sep 22, 2008 1:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain's Achilles heel is old age, not his flawed health care plan.

In an article published in June 2008 by Military.com, former POW Phillip Butler, a Navy pilot and U.S. Naval Academy graduate who spent more than eight years in North Vietnam as a prisoner of war, explained why he would not support McCain for the presidency.

"Most of us who survived that experience [being a POW] are now in our late 60’s and 70’s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (71) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for four or more years."

There are many Republicans who share Butler's concerns, as do white Democrats who won't vote for Obama because he's black. But no matter how well he argues his case, those people will NEVER support him. So Barack must get them to vote AGAINST McCain or not vote at all.

That goal can be accomplished with a simple slogan: "John McCain -- OLD ideas, OLD solutions."

Notice I never mentioned his age (72), but the message comes through loud and clear. And should the GOP complain about the inference, it will only bolster suspicions that McCain's best days are behind him.

If you agree with my assessment, tell your friends and family members while there's still time to defeat McCain -- a pandering politician who truly has old ideas, old solutions.

John McCain --OLD ideas, OLD solutions

One more thing, If you think the slogan would be effective, contact the Democratic National Committee with this link -- Contact DNC -- then copy & paste the bold text below into the Question box. NOTE: the link works slowly.

To help Senator Obama win in November, please use the following slogan in his TV ads: "John McCain -- OLD ideas, OLD solutions"

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

» Vulnerabilities Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: Vulnerabilities Posted by: Karl.Ben
» RE: Vulnerabilities Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
If we can "afford" a war in Iraq and a $700 Billion bailout
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 22, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can obviously afford the same health care deal the Canadians get.
See: 10 Myths About Canadian Healthcare, Busted
By Sara Robinson, TomPaine.com. Posted February 5, 2008.
http://www.alternet.org/
healthwellness/76032/10_
myths_about_canadian_
health_care%2C_busted/
Getting past a pile of disinformation.
See also:
http://www.alternet.org/
workplace/96354/america
%27s_invisible_rich/
http://www.alternet.org/
election08/93057/america%
27s_richest_will_pay_more_
under_obama%27s_tax_plan/
http://www.irs.gov/
pub/irs-soi/06in01etr.xls

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

both plans are almost useless
Posted by: masthead on Sep 22, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd be curious to know how each candidate would define "universal health care".

In Europe there are a number of forms of "universal health care" I wish America would consider emulating. The system in The Netherlands seems to work well enough as long as you can pay the premiums which can run about a 100 euros or so per month per person. So far sounds like the America system but what's different here is that you can apply to any insurance company you want and they can't refuse you an insurance policy; pre-existing medical conditions do not matter. This is why I don't understand why so many Americans consider this sort of thing as part of the European socialist or welfare state.

In the US, of course, it's always been socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

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

» slight correction Posted by: bornxeyed
» Or....Fascism for the rich... Posted by: bthespoon
Neither Candidate Gets It
Posted by: drricklippin on Sep 22, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But no country on the planet has figured it all out either. With expensive technology and aging populations we must embrace prevention(both individual-health behaviors and institutional-public health)

People fear prevention for the same reasons politicians are terrified of it. They view it as a reduction of or witholding of treatment services.

To the contrary -prevention incrementally and compassionately implemented with free up more $ for those who really need treatment

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

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

» RE: Neither Candidate Gets It Posted by: Old Skeptic
Lilly
Posted by: Lilly on Sep 22, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PAYING OUT-OF-POCKET: Someone please teach me if I am wrong here, but my understanding of health care savings accounts is that the patient pays 100% of medical costs out-of-pocket until the deductible is reached, and that these "accounts" are linked to an insurance plan with a VERY high deductible---the figure I have usually seen is $5000 per year per person. If this is true, we can kiss preventive care goodbye because many will not have the money to pay for checkups, Pap smears (cervical cancer test), PSA (prostate cancer test), mammogram, colonoscopy, and other screenings. Just paying for emergencies will be bad enough. Drugs? I just heard yesterday from a friend who is going blind and has no medical insurance, so is paying out-of-pocket, and three prescriptions for her glaucoma eye drops came to $1300. A system like this would be a national disaster on the scale of 9-11.

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

» And just think... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Lilly Posted by: tmgibs
McCain Care = Dump The Problem on Workers
Posted by: FoonTheElder on Sep 22, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Obama's health care proposal is in no way a solution, McCain's is a giant step backwards, a big tax increase on middle class working people.

The McCain proposal is right from the extremist right wing think tanks. Their solution to the cost of health care to Corporate America is to dump the problem on the workers. There are no safe guards of affordable access to workers. This is just another sell out to insurance companies, who will make a fortune in inflated premiums and commissions.

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

dumb the insurance companies
Posted by: msalganik on Sep 22, 2008 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
universal health care NOW... dump the insurance companies...there is no point working with them...as soon as you turn your back they will be looking to rip people off again...people's health should not be a revenue source...take the 700 billion and instead of giving it as a free check to wall street, dumb all of the insurance companies and instate a universal government guaranteed, tax subsidized health care system...if we are going to create more national debt why don't we do it for our health care system and our energy infrastructure (solar and wind)... damn near every other western industrialized nation has done this...why are we so retarded?

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

Universal Health Care is a No-Brainer - imho you guys are getting screwed :.(
Posted by: stellabloo on Sep 22, 2008 12:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You will hear plenty of canadians dissing their health care system but the truth is, talk of dismantling or reducing the universal system is tantamount to political suicide in this country.

My husband's company pays for part of his benefits in a group plan, eliminating the "taxable benefits" disadvantage. He pays $250 monthly, with a pool of options to choose from at the start of each year - including pharmacare. Our $250/monthly covers FIVE people, INCLUDES DENTAL and alternative health services, such as chiropractic visits. Sure, we have to pay the chiropractor $30 a visit but when the receipt gets submitted to the insurer, full repayment is guaranteed with no questions. No exceptions. No deductibles.

He also gets accidental and long-term disability benefits (including coverage for off-the-job accidents)and we both have death and dismemberment insurance.

Even if we were both on welfare, we would still have medical coverage, with essential medications paid for. Sorry, no chiropractor or dentist but tooth extractions are considered surgery and are covered.

Yes, yes, we pay taxes for all that socialism - on the other hand canadians aren't exactly jumping into the St Lawrence en masse in order to illegally immigrate to New Jersey :.?

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

» RE: your question Posted by: stellabloo
Taxes On Military Healthcare?
Posted by: cherylholmes on Sep 22, 2008 6:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And under McCain, how much income tax would military active duty, retirees, and dependents have to pay? How much more in co-pays would they have to pay as well? cheryl

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

Social Security Income Tax on Medicare Benefits
Posted by: cherylholmes on Sep 22, 2008 6:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under McCain, how much income tax would seniors and disabled have to pay on their medicare benefits? Of course, premiums and copays would increase too on this group who can't afford medical care already.

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

Why Can't We Have Congressional Medical Insurance?
Posted by: cherylholmes on Sep 22, 2008 6:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like what they have..exactly what they have...and theirs is free too! cheryl

What makes us less entitled to quality affordable healthcare?

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

Cost & Independence Are Key
Posted by: Liberty G on Sep 23, 2008 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I've said before in these forums, nothing will really get better unless we can get out from under the heavy foot of the drug and high tech corporate fat cats. As long as costs are through the roof, who pays them is a cat fight.

As indicated by our friend from Canada, above, alternative treatments are included in the universal health plans in almost every other industrialized country - and even some developing ones. They are cheaper, effective if researched and chosen wisely, and result in far less iatrogenic illness (that caused by medical treatment).

I'm not holding my breath for us to be that sensible, because "Big Pharm" has a death grip on the American health care system - and on U.S. politicians.

Maybe the answer will eventually come through the, for now small, movement by some doctors and health practitioners offering their own "plans". This usually involves either a monthly fee which will cover whatever treatment is needed or a reasonably priced basic per service fee. Beats paying hundreds - or thousands - of dollars to insurance companies that may not even help you when the time comes.

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

Pay decrease and tax increase
Posted by: annekarina on Sep 23, 2008 3:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain's health care is a pay decrease for workers as well as the tax increase he says he is NOT giving us.

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

  • 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