PRINT
EMAIL
DIGG
DEL.ICIO.US
HEALTH CARE
OBAMA wants to require large employers to offer insurance or else pay fees to help finance subsidies for low-income earners. He'd bar insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, expand Medicaid and require that all children be provided with coverage. Obama also has proposed $6 billion a year in tax credits to help small businesses that offer insurance to their workers.
McCAIN would move away from employer-based plans and give individuals and families more control over their health care through tax credits of $5000 per family. However, he would tax any health benefits provided by employers. He also wants to lower costs by cutting back on Medicare spending and reducing malpractice lawsuits. Democrats would oppose central elements of his plan.
McCAIN'S plan could increase employer costs if he applies the payroll tax to health benefits as well as the income tax. That tax is split in half by employers and employees. McCAIN hasn't been specifc about his plan, but his aides have suggested that's what he has in mind.
7 Comments
Leave a comment
ISSUES AT A GLANCE
MORE POLITICAL COVERAGE FROM KIPLINGER
OUR FAVORITE SITES
- The Hotline Blog
- Political Wire
- PollingReport.com
- New York Times Election Guide 2008
- P2008 (George Washington University)
- Pollster.Com
- The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
- FactCheck.Org
- US Politics Guide.com
- First Read (MSNBC)
- The Note (ABC News)
- Politico.com
- National Review: The Corner
- The Huffington Post
- Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal)
- Mark Shields
- David Brooks (New York Times)
I like McCain's plan on this better than Obama's. It better accomodates part time workers and retired people without health insurance. Obama seems to just want to go after large employers of low income individuals, but those employers will just make those individuals part time or reclassify them as independant contractors if they really want to avoid the healthcare law. McCain's plan of tax credits is actually closer to a single payer plan as the government is paying for a big chunk of everybody's insurance no matter what they earn, how much they work, or who they work for.
Also, for people who haven't been insured their whole life and have a preexisting condition, you can't just force an insurance company to take on their higher costs and charge them the same premium they charge everybody else. They will have to raise everybody's premium to account for that and that isn't fair. Those people should pay an appropriate premium based on their condition. You can mandate people have basic insurance from the day they're born so this situation becomes moot in the future, but for the implementation stage of these health insurance programs making sure those with preexisting conditions pay the appropriate premium, keeping everybody else's premium low is pretty critical.
Bill: (1) Just like small employers, large employers employ people at all income levels. They don't just employ "low income individuals." (2) What do you suppose happens when someone who can't get or afford health insurance because of a pre-existing health condition gets sick? They aren't refused service when they go to the emergency room and the taxpayers end up paying for the medical services they receive. It's better if those with pre-existing health conditions do have insurance because then they won't have to go to the emergency room every time they need medical care. This will save the rest of us money because and a regular doctor visit is less expensive than an emergency room visit.
I'm very disappointed you only included two parties in this article. This country sorely needs a viable third party. Why don't you consider including some other candidate's health care plans?
Obama has it right; we all need health care and it shouldn't cost more for one than it does for another. The only exclusions I would make are for drug, alcohol and smoking addictions. Those
are personal choices people make (unless your
born with an addiction because of a parent). BTW
most of us are 'low income' earners but what Obama
is talking about is minimum wage earners. At any
rate most of us earn less than $250k which is the
bar he consistantly sets for income.
Jon... your whole premise in general is flawed. Think about the cause of the problem you state. Either way you look at it (whether its the taxpayer or the premium payer) its costing us money. Did you ever consider that it's not fair to the taxpayer in the first place to foot the bill for those who show up to the emergency room without healthcare? The problem is that nobody should be forcibly subsidized to pay for others healthcare. You want to set up a charity to help the poor with healthcare costs fine. but don't force the taxpayer or the insurance company (which translates into higher premiums for those of us paying them) to foot the bill.
Linda... you and Obama have it dead wrong! Healthcare isn't a God-given nor especially a constitutionally granted right. You and Obama seek to further people's dependence on the government. And where you wouldn't have the government (tax payers really) foot the bill, you'd have the government force employers to foot the bill.
Why shouldn't health care cost more for one than another? If it will cost more for an insurer to provide insurance to someone with a certain condition, then that person should pay his/her proportionate share of a premium. Healthcare should be treated no differently than any other goods and services available to people.
no matter which way we go it will cost.
while healthcare is not "god-given" it IS necessary.
a 5000 tax credit will do nothing.
people without healthcare should do what?
some SHOULD have to provide care
Linda,
you mentioned drug, alcohol, and smoking addictions. did you purposely exclude sexually transmitted diseases, diseases that come from tatoos and body piercings, and by far the most important obese people that cannot put down a spoon?
i would rather not pay for the poor health choices of others.