Despite John McCain's promise not to raise any taxes, his health care proposal - a $2500 tax credit for people who buy their own insurance - would raise taxes on some people at the top, because his proposal would also eliminate the tax exclusion for income employees pay toward their health insurance.

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

It's not clear what benefit exactly McCain's proposal is really supposed to have. I heard the suggestion that it's supposed to encourage individuals to buy their own insurance rather than going through their employer - but that goes counter to the ability to negotiate for a bulk discount (e.g. an employeer with 100,000 employees can negotiate with a health provider for deals). Individuals don't have so much negotiating power, other than their ability to choose plans. I don't quite see how this is going to affect huge annual increases in health care costs (not insurance costs).

I buy my own health insurance being self-employed (and I can already all my health insurance costs from my taxes), so it's not clear what impact if any his proposal would have on me, either. It seems like none or perhaps a negative. As far as having choices, the truth is, there are no cheap choices. They are all kinda pricey. I don't feel like I have any particular influence on the health insurance market with my ability to choose insurance providers.

Andrew

There is another downside to encouraging people to buy their own insurance; namely, that the law on policy cancellations is WAY different for individuals.

If you get really sick, have been really sick, or maybe just might be sick, they can and will play all kinds of games to cancel you.

That does not happen with employer insurance.

Excellent point. And it's something that needs to be fixed.

Right and what about things like pre-existing conditions? As it is today, if you have employer-based health insurance, you cannot be denied coverage. Period. If as a private individual, you have a pre-existing condition (type I diabetes for example), they can deny you coverage (or insure you only with a waiver: no coverage for anything related to the condition).

So someone needs to ask Senator McCain whether he supports banning this screening of the insured based on a pre-existing condition? (Oh, I know: let the free market take care of it!)

Andrew

The other issue with employer-provided insurance - no matter how much it costs, it's all pre-tax dollars. None of this 'get a credit when you file your tax return' nonsense, like some of the other things out there (Health Savings Accounts, IRAs, paying for higher education while you have a job and a tax liability, etc.).

The health insurance issue is much like the energy issue. Politicians are throwing out band aids that might help some a little, but don't solve the problem. No politician has come up with anything that actually solves the problem.

Andrew, there's a sizable difference between deducting your health insurance premiums and in getting a tax credit. One is 100% and the other is whatever you tax rate is in savings. McCain's $2500 tax credit is actually handing you $200 per month to apply to your premiums. It's a government hand out.

Actually, many ideas have been floated, but the GOP who is in control of veto's and filibusters won't let it the ideas be heard. Once we have a Democratic president and larger majorities in both houses, our ideas will be heard and hopefully implemented.

The company I work for sends us a year end snapshot of all of our compensation, including how much they pay for our health insurance. My dental/vision/health plan costs $6000/yr for me. It's just myself on the plan and I pay $0 out of pocket monthly for it.

So if John McCain has his way, my employer would dump my coverage, then I'd get a $200 monthly payment to cover a $500 monthly health plan? No thanks John! I don't want my plan tinkered with, but I do want people who can't afford health insurance to have some sort of minimal plan available to them, and I also think costs need to be kept in check. Someone's getting stinking rich off the sick and that ain't right.

"but the GOP who is in control of veto's and filibusters won't let it the ideas be heard"

What a bunch of crap. If the Democrats had an idea they can't get through Congress (which they don't), they can go to the liberal media for publicity and force the issue. The silence is deafening.

Of course, to accept your explanation, Deane, one has to believe in the "liberal media" which is like believing in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. So you'll forgive me for dismissing your latest bunch of hot air.

I'm sorry you don't quite understand the concept of a filibuster, but it means that 60 Senators votes are required to end a debate to get a bill passed in the Senate. Republicans have repeatedly used this tactic (more than the Democrats did) to block bills they don't like. Even when they can get something past a filibuster, Bush vetos it as he did with SCHIP.

Andrew

Here's an example of a Democrat pushing an idea that shows great signs of working.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4YpCY3r3vbVzdLoj7oSpM5dEFxAD90D3RBG0

Meanwhile, John McCain wants to shift the burden of paying for insurance from companies to individuals under the guise of tax benefits. No thanks Mr. McCain!

"What a bunch of crap. If the Democrats had an idea they can't get through Congress (which they don't), they can go to the liberal media for publicity and force the issue. The silence is deafening."

No, Deane, on this one you are misguided. It is the Bush veto that is the deafening silence hanging over Congress. You are totally wrong. You don't even get a "nice try" on this one. Uh Uh.

Bush couldn't get by vetoing something worthwhile the American people wanted. And, don't forget, these bills are coming out totally stuffed with ear marks which force his veto.

The Dems are always going to solve something if we'll just elect them, then when they don't, it's the Republicans fault.

Good ideas and good plans can't be held down.

The American people wanted stem cell research. Bush veto'd it.

No he didn't. He vetoed Federal funding for it.

And, while I'm for it, I don't know if the majority of the American people are or are not.

What you mean is that the earmarks are not the ones Bush and the GOP want.

"What you mean is that the earmarks are not the ones Bush and the GOP want."

That would be your opinion, but not necessarily true.

If you mean not the whole picture, I'll grant you that. However, it (Bush veto) is the major impediment, not the lack of ideas in Congress.

Andy, there is always a reason for a veto. Bush's detractors always want to pull out reasons out of context. It is more often than not because Congressmen are tacking on unrelated things that Bush has indicated he will veto. They feel if they attach them to another bill, he'll have to sign it. They always get surprised. He even tells them in advance if they load the bill he'll veto it no matter what it's for.

It would serve you well to understand the entire picture.

I DO understand the "entire picture." What you are in denial over is simple, earmarks and the veto have been around a long time. When it is used, as you are inferring, it is always a give and take amongst Dems and Repubs in earmark support (you support me on this and I'll support you on that) just to cut off debate and get a vote. When Congress puts a bill on the President's desk it obviously represents some kind of consensus. Bush vetoes items because he is not willing to give anything out of his precious warmonger budget. He's an ass. A bumbling excuse for a president that will remembered as such. Don't point your finger at me and say I don't know what is going on. Rubbish. What makes you think (one of your underlying themes for months now) that you are the only one that understands politics in Washington? Horseshit! You aren't the only one with some brains around here. Your inability to process opposing views is your problem, not mine.

McCain's $2500 tax credit is actually handing you $200 per month to apply to your premiums. It's a government hand out.

By a Republican??? HOLY CRAP!

"By a Republican??? HOLY CRAP!"

McCain's not really a Republican. Judging from his fur markings, he more resembles a Democrat.

Then WHY would you vote for him. That would mean that your an IGNORANT person if your going to vote for a Republican that isn't really one....

Who said I was going to vote for him? Trixter, you're so cranky when you wake up from your nap.

NO SHIT I am.
At least I get one. YOUR still slaving away at work I'm sure. Putting in what 16 hours a day at what 2 jobs? The Chevron job ends at what??? 10pm 2night?
Think I'll go up to Pumpkin Ridge and hit a bucket of balls in 20 minutes.