Thread: Obama/McCain Health Care Comparison

According to this Economic Policy Institute/Tax Policy Center study, Obama and McCain's health care plans will have very similar overall costs (1.6trillion for Obama and 1.3trillion for McCain) but very different results. Obama's will insure a much larger percent of the uninsured with longer lasting effects, resulting in a much lower cost/insured ratio than McCain's. Goes against the idea that Obama's plan will be absurdly expensive and unrealistic (or maybe some may say it still is, but McCain's doesn't sound any better).

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/pm126

This chart shows how much each plan will cost relative to the number of newly insured. Obama's clearly is more efficient from this perspective.



From this chart, you can see that Obama's plan has a more consistent cost per year, while McCain's has a high initial cost, but drops over time (I think the drop is partially due to the depreciating worth of his tax incentive as health care costs increase).



Obama's plan will cover more of the uninsured, and significantly. McCain's effectiveness diminishes over time.



"Without a policy change, the uninsured population is forecasted by the TPC to increase by 15 million, from roughly 52 million in 2009 to 67 million in 2018 (which also implies a rise in the rate of uninsurance from 17% to 20% over this time period). Given this forecast:

On average, the McCain plan covers just over 5% of the uninsured population forecast for this time period. After a peak coverage rate of 7.8% in 2012, his plan begins covering a smaller share, falling eventually to less than 3% of the forecast uninsured in 2018.

On average, the Obama plan covers just over 47% of the forecast uninsured population. The coverage under the Obama plan improves over time, and by 2018, more than half of the uninsured population would be covered."

jt, thanks for the post and info... still can't figure you out??? :squinty eyed look:

Hmmmm........

Originally Posted by timvwcom

jt, thanks for the post and info... still can't figure you out??? :squinty eyed look:

I just like good discussion. I have my own opinions, and neither candidate actually fits into my perspective. Though, if I was stuck picking between the two, I find Obama to be much more palatable. If Colorado is really close when November rolls around, I will possibly vote for Obama, but if it looks like he's gonna take it, I'm going for a 3rd route.

I don't want politicians diddling with my health care. I especially don't want socialist politicians diddling with my health care.
To help working families, all health care costs should be fully deductable if a family makes under x, health care costs should be deductable at a rate greater than 100%.

Originally Posted by mrw

I don't want politicians diddling with my health care. I especially don't want socialist politicians diddling with my health care.

Like everything else in the election, there's another side to this argument. We live in the most prosperous and technically advanced country in the history of the world. Yet 42 percent of the adult population cannot afford/is not eligible for/does not receive adequate health care. Because the so-called free market place to deliver this service is not working. And it's not about to self-correct and fix itself. Continuing to go forward with > 40% of the population being ignored by the health care system is not an alternative. I'm just saying.

Source.

Originally Posted by mrw

I don't want politicians diddling with my health care. I especially don't want socialist politicians diddling with my health care.
To help working families, all health care costs should be fully deductable if a family makes under x, health care costs should be deductable at a rate greater than 100%.

That makes sense, and that's one of the reason Obama's plan will let you just get your health care the way you always have. His big focus is getting uninsured people insured. Now if this ends up affecting you indirectly, I'm not sure we can know that for sure until we try it.

The big problem right now is that fewer employers are providing workers health insurance (pre-tax in the traditional way). Employer supported health care has been in decline for the last 7 years. The other options are often too expensive for the average person to manage.

I like your idea of tax deductible health care costs, but what happens when your costs are more than your withheld taxes? Also, will the deduction be for preventative care as well? Solid preventative care is one of the most effective ways to keep long term costs low as you will not get sick as often in the long run, and when you do get sick you take care of it before it becomes overly expensive and painful to deal with.

One of the big problems with McCain's plan is the taxing of benefits, which could lead to an even greater decrease in employer sponsored plans, as the tax deferred nature of health insurance is what has made it so enticing and encouraged employers to offer it. Also, his 5,000$ annual deduction will lose value as health costs continue to rise in time. (health costs rise at a greater rate than most other costs in our economy).

Frequently Asked Questions

What is EPI's mission?
To inform people and empower them to seek solutions that will ensure broadly shared prosperity and opportunity.

What are EPI's Values?

Helping Working People — Economic policy should focus on improving conditions for working people.
Truth and Accuracy Matter — EPI research should be honest and rigorous.
Dignified, Remunerative Work — People must be provided with the capacity and opportunity for dignified, remunerative work for personal as well as societal benefit.
Strong, Effective Labor Movement — A strong, effective labor movement is essential for democracy and to ensure an equitable sharing of income and wealth.
Government For the People — Government should set standards and rules for markets, and should ensure the efficient provision of public goods and investments.
When was EPI established, and why?
EPI was established in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers. Today, with global competition expanding, wage inequality rising, and the methods and nature of work changing in fundamental ways, it is as crucial as ever that people who work for a living have a voice in the economic debate.

Who founded EPI?
EPI was founded by a group of economic policy experts that includes Jeff Faux, EPI's first president; economist Barry Bluestone of Northeastern University; Robert Kuttner, columnist for Business Week and Newsweek and editor of The American Prospect; Ray Marshall, former U.S. Secretary of Labor and professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas-Austin; Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor and professor at Brandeis University; and economist Lester Thurow of the MIT Sloan School of Management.

What makes EPI unique?
EPI was the first — and remains the premier — organization to focus on the economic condition of low- and middle-income Americans and their families. Furthermore, it adheres to strict standards of sound, objective research and analysis, and couples its findings with outreach and popular education.

You're right - since they have a vested interest in whose plan is better they must be lying.

Moron.

It's a fair guess that the MIT Business School economist probably wouldn't be signing on to a scary socialist dis-information campaign- but maybe he's been co-opted.

I tried to find another actual analysis of each respective plan but could not. EPI seems pretty fair and non-biased in their wording and research. They are basically explaining Tax Policy Center data. If you can find some other analysis of the two plans side by side or even individually (and not from the respective candidate's website), post it up.

no shit sherlock?

Originally Posted by Nobody Famous

Because the so-called free market place to deliver this service is not working.

No the government needs to get out of the health care business, and stop catering to the drug lobby and let free markets work. Then HC will be affordable. For example look at LASIK eye surgery, the government dose not pay for LASIK eye surgery yet the cost have come way down and the technology has gotten way better.


Both plans are going to way too much money. These freaks should run on the same ticket with Nancy Pelosi.


NPR sums up the two plans here.

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Both plans are going to way too much money. These freaks should run on the same ticket with Nancy Pelosi.


NPR sums up the two plans here.

Thanks for the NPR link. I agree they are going to be expensive, but our health care system continues to fall short compared to other countries on both quality and cost. Look here for the 2008 "Health System Scorecard". I personally have little faith in markets helping out in areas of health care, education, housing, etc. as the sole instigator for growth and reform. I agree competition can help, but when the goal is based on profits, human health, environmental health, and quality of life are often overlooked. Just look to the energy extraction and production industry, the early days of the industrial revolution, etc. We fixed a lot of problems from working conditions to environmental quality (though it could go further IMO) with regulations. It needs to be intelligent, and done with just a bit of nudging and not pandering to corporate lobbying, though. One of the biggest problems that makes our government less effective is the massive amount of corporate influence.

I think Obama has a more worthwhile plan if you have to pick one of the two. I like that he is mandating health care for all children. I like that he is letting you keep your current health insurance for those that the system is working for. And, it looks likely to be more effective in insuring more of the uninsured, especially looking at the benefit per cost (see above). McCain's 5,000$ tax credit falls far short of the average 13,000$ that Americans pay every year (from the NPR article), and if the credit doesn't increase over time, it's value will decrease as health care costs continue to increase.

Good resources:
www.health08.org
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/

The way I understand McCain's plan, you would have to pay federal income tax on the $13K of "additional income" that the average family gets in annual health insurance benefits. At a 20% marginal tax rate, the average family would owe an additional $2,600 in income tax. Then this same family gets a $5,000 credit to offset this higher tax. This creates a net after-tax benefit of $2,400 per year for said family.

Now, health insurance for a family costs our company $1,550/month, and the company pays the entire premium. That means under McCain's plan, each of our employees with a family would have $18,600 of additonal income, and an additional federal tax bite of $3,700 before the $5K credit.

I'm having a hard time seeing how this deck chair re-arranging helps our bloated health care delivery system. Not that I'm currently wild about Obama's plan - I'm concerned that his plan creates an incentive for employers to drop their coverage and let employees sign up for the federal employee plan.

I am just curious.....
who publishes figures using excel's default colors??


(this should go in the pet peeve thread in the padded room)

All I know is that I should not have to pay for someone else's healthcare costs in any way, shape, or form, period. When did [taxpayer subsidized] healthcare become a right?

Originally Posted by AstroPax

All I know is that I should not have to pay for someone else's healthcare costs in any way, shape, or form, period. When did [taxpayer subsidized] healthcare become a right?

And I shouldn't have to pay for the military, but I'm willing to (to an extent) because I realize I'm part of a society, and this society has needful infrastructure to maintain the health of it, for everyone in it, regardless of their ability or inclination to support me and my self interest.

Originally Posted by Rasputin

And I shouldn't have to pay for the military, but I'm willing to (to an extent) because I realize I'm part of a society, and this society has needful infrastructure to maintain the health of it, for everyone in it, regardless of their ability or inclination to support me and my self interest.

Providing for the "Common Defense" is in the preamble to the constitution.

Providing for the "Defense Against the Common Cold" ain't.

Sorry, but I should not have to subsidize the medical bill for some 250 lb. obese dumbfuck's coronary artery bypass just because he ate too many Quarter Pounders with cheese over his short life.

If you want to pay for someone else's healthcare, well, that's what charities are for, not taxes!

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Providing for the "Common Defense" is in the preamble to the constitution.

Providing for the "Defense Against the Common Cold" ain't.

Sorry, but I should not have to subsidize the medical bill for some 250 lb. obese dumbfuck's coronary artery bypass just because he ate too many Quarter Pounders with cheese over his short life.

If you want to pay for someone else's healthcare, well, that's what charities are for, not taxes!

The Preamble also includes the clause, "promote the general Welfare".

I too am generally skeptical when it comes to government-run programs. However, our current health care system is a mess. In 2005 (last series I studied) Americans spent an average of about $6400 per head on health care, compared to $3,000-3500 in the "socialist" countries like Sweden, France, Canada, UK, and Germany. Yet, by most reasonable measures of health - life expectancy, cancer rates, diabetes incidence, etc - we are below average. See http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,33..._37407,00.html

And I don't buy the "gotta wait forever to get care in other countries" argument. My business partner in rural Ontario blew up his ACL (playing hockey) one day after I blew up my rotator cuff two years ago. His elapsed time from 1st call for Dr appt. to surgery was about five weeks less than the 2.5 months I went through. And his plan didn't cut off payments for PT when he only had about half the expected range of motion. I ended up forking out about $600 on my own while I fought with my carrier. And I am told I have a really good medical plan - he has no private insurance. A year earlier I had to wait three weeks just to get an MRI to prove that I needed cervical spine surgery.

Euromags and Canuckistanis - chime in with your experience waiting for health care.

Maybe we can learn something from countries that seem to do a better job delivering health care than we do.

Originally Posted by telebobski

Maybe we can learn something from countries that seem to do a better job delivering health care than we do.

Yes, we can. Not only do we pay the most for care per capita, but we pay the most taxes for health care. That includes countries with socialized health care!

The fact is it would be cheaper in every way, in taxes AND out of pocket expenses, to implement a universal health care system. Not to mention the economic and social benefits of better health if people don't put off preventative care, and the huge expense to employers of providing a health plan is gone. Remember, if an employer pays taxes, they're already paying more taxes than necessary to fund a socialized health care system.

Originally Posted by mrw

I don't want politicians diddling with my health care. I especially don't want socialist politicians diddling with my health care.
To help working families, all health care costs should be fully deductable if a family makes under x, health care costs should be deductable at a rate greater than 100%.

that sounds great and all, but what good are tax deductions if they can't afford to pay the bill in the first place?

no receipt, no deduction.

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Providing for the "Common Defense" is in the preamble to the constitution.

Providing for the "Defense Against the Common Cold" ain't.

Sorry, but I should not have to subsidize the medical bill for some 250 lb. obese dumbfuck's coronary artery bypass just because he ate too many Quarter Pounders with cheese over his short life.

If you want to pay for someone else's healthcare, well, that's what charities are for, not taxes!

just to remind you, veterans' health benefits are subsidized by tax dollars (rightfully so).

Originally Posted by telebobski

The Preamble also includes the clause, "promote the general Welfare".

Health is not the same as welfare. Relative to the constitution, the "promotion of the general welfare" is referring to prosperity. So the government is supposed to promote my prosperity, not demote it through excessive taxation and income redistribution.

Originally Posted by telebobski

Yet, by most reasonable measures of health - life expectancy, cancer rates, diabetes incidence, etc - we are below average.

As far as life expectancy goes, we are 46 out of 223:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

Average for the US is 78.14 years of age, whereas, the world-wide average life expectancy is something like 64.3 years of age. The US is far from "below average", at least as far as life expectancy is concerned.

Originally Posted by 13

just to remind you, veterans' health benefits are subsidized by tax dollars (rightfully so).

Sure, however, VA benefits fall under the constitutional framework of "common defense", so yeah, no problem there.

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Health is not the same as welfare. Relative to the constitution, the "promotion of the general welfare" is referring to prosperity. So the government is supposed to promote my prosperity, not demote it through excessive taxation and income redistribution..

I disagree with your interpretation. The meaning of the word Welfare in the Constitution is different from its current usage. The constitutional meaning of welfare is: 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well]