pvolcko wrote:Why are you so blatantly and purposely neglecting to mention the $5000 tax credit for health care he's also proposing as part of his health care cost reduction and reform package?
Because we all know that a $5000.00 tax credit would not pay for most middle class family's annual health care costs......& John McCain knows it! (just more of his deception) How much was your family's total health insurance cost last year? (employer & employee portion combined)
Will you please stop cherry picking and start making a logical argument? First you pull just the one part of the plan out and castigate it, then you take the second part and castigate it, both times without acknowledging they are a pair and have a combined effect of either washing out or benefiting the middle class family at tax time and in general. Lets say a family's health insurance costs $10,000 a year, combined employer and employee cost. This plan says the employee pays tax on the employer contribution (because it is in fact part of the employee's salary, just hidden from view). The employer doesn't stop paying for the insurance, all that is done is the true value of things is exposed within the context of that employee/employer relationship. So, if we assume a 28% tax bracket for the middle class family (probably on the high side, plus this doesn't include child tax credits and deductions and whatnot which lower the effective tax rate such a family sees) that's an additional $2800 in tax the family will pay. However, there is the $5000 tax credit applied against this tax increase, resulting in a net $2200 tax credit to the family. This tax credit get paid out as an additional $2200 refund to the family (assuming they don't owe more than witholding for some other reason). That's $2200 to cover co-pays, buy clothes and supplies, or pay down credit card debt or what have you.
Now, separately, lets consider the middle class family without insurance who does not already qualify for free SCHIP or medicaid or some other health services coverage. Chances are they can get cost reduced insurance through SCHIP or some state specific program. Not free, but significantly reduced from purchasing on the open market. The $5000 credit is very likely to pay for that low cost plan or at least make it $5000 more affordable per year. If we assume a worst case scenario, they make too much money to qualify for subsidized coverage of any kind and not enough to can't scrape together $10000/yr, then they still have a $5000 tax credit that will make that $10000/yr plan on the open market effectively a $5000/yr plan. Most all of this group of people will be able to come up with $5000/yr ($417/mo).
Will there be some relative few who still will not be covered? Yes. But the uninsured will be far fewer, those who are newly insured will have the dignity associated with paying for it, at least in part, themselves. By keeping the system largely privately funded, by breaking down some asinine rules that prevent competition among the insurance providers over state lines, and by making people directly aware of what the cost of their employer provided coverage is, a new degree of competition will be introduced into the system which will drive cost containment, high levels of service competition and health services availability, and ultimately lower premiums and overall health care costs compared to what will happen due to the significantly increased govermnent level participation in the system under the Obama plan.
That all said, I'm not a fan of either plan. Given only a choice between the two I'd choose McCain's, but (and not to get offtopic) I think they both fundamentally accept the notion that we are all entitled to far too many types and degrees of medical services. Emergency services for all, pre and post natal care, general health care for children until reaching the age of majority, these I can agree with. But free or heavily subsidized general health services for people 18 and older, I'm not down with that. We've strayed way too far from the notions of personal responsibility and the fact that the choices we make have consequences. What jobs I choose to do and which I choose not to do impact where I can live. Where I choose to live impacts my cost of living and what jobs I can find. What job I choose impacts what my income is, what my benefits are. The benefits I have impacts what I need to buy and how much I have for the rest. etc. It seems we are on a perpetual slide toward European style socialism where the government goes far too far in attempting to even out (to the point of negating) the impacts of these choices and and the natural results of our individuality, be they good or bad.