Is McCain really willing to be as radical as his health care plan?

I'm self employed and a parent. My plan eats a sizable hole in my pocket.
I'm also no expert, but when my GP recommended an MRI on my shoulder, I got a second (out of network - ouch!) opinion. After a more economical x-ray, he solved the problem.
Out of network is more expensive but an MRI is thousands. I'm looking for a new GP.
Does McCain recommend trial and error as the way for all Americans to become healthcare experts?
I got lucky.
There is no real Consumer Reports for doctors.

Great, balanced post (and not because you quoted me ;) ).

...elective laser eye surgery is a particular favorite of libertarian health wonks.

Heh. Not for long.

Excellent post, Justin Fox.

Would you mind terribly elaborating on one statement and clarifying another, please?

This [proposed a $5,000-per-family credit] would put downward pressure on health care spending, which would seem to be a good thing.

I'm sorry, why would that seem to be a good thing?
Is spending the real problem with health care inflation, or are costs, period? Is it your contention that if spending were reduced, there would be less demand for health care, and therefore a downward pressure exerted on its prices? What I'm asking is whether or not it seems to you that purely an increase in demand has lead to the kind of inflation rates we have seen with respect to health care costs. Obviously if increasing demand isn't the primary factor in skyrocketing inflation rates with respect to the cost of health care, then simply reducing demand (by increasing the net price to individual consumers) wouldn't necessarily seem to be a "good thing", would it not?

It would of course do so by giving people less money to spend on health care, which isn't going to be popular.

Do you mean that it might not be popular because health care consumers may be priced out of good health, and may therefore confront sickness and death, or is there some other reason you mean that a poverty of health care would be unpopular with Americans?

Thanks so much in advance for reading this, Justin Fox.

But if universal health care is going to keep costs in check then it too would have to include limits on spending.

Can you support this with some evidence, please, Justin? I mean, beyond saying that the universal plan would set reimbursement rates for procedures and so forth? Universal single payer coverage is cheaper per capita, but not because there are "limits on spending" by consumers.

Justin,

I think that I've got agree with Stuart and Jay here. My sister finished med school not long ago before I finished law school. And school costs were what I would call huge $150k for Baylor College of Medicine. Law school was much cheaper. Now that we have tort reform those pesky law suits have been cut by 60%. The problem is that the healthcare costs have kept going up...they just haven't gone down.

To me, this plan sounds like Reagan's Voodoo economics...in this case "reverse trickle down economics." If we force industry to deal with people that have less money, they will be forced to lower prices. Since when has artificially reduced demand ever brought about a reduction in prices. All this is going to force doctors, pharmacists, nurses and our high tech medical device companies to do is go make a better living in another country!!

That giant sucking sound you here is Doctors and nurses making a better living in Canada, South America or China. Granted, this is probably over the top.
-Bryan

@stuart_zechman and jayackroyd: I just meant that, if you reduce the tax subsidy for something, you'd think that would reduce demand and thus both spending and prices. But there are a lot of caveats there: Given that lots of people get no employer-provided health care today and thus little or no tax break, I'm not sure the overall tax subsidy would decrease under the McCain plan. Plus, health-care economics are weird.

As for universal care having limits on spending, I was thinking both of reimbursement rates for procedures and limits on what kinds of procedures are reimbursed. Private insurance has those, too, but my sense is that most universal health care systems around the world are stingier on those fronts than the better U.S. corporate plans.

And finally, as for jayackroyd's question:
"Do you mean that it might not be popular because health care consumers may be priced out of good health, and may therefore confront sickness and death, or is there some other reason you mean that a poverty of health care would be unpopular with Americans?" I hadn't really thought that through, I guess. But I do think many people would be ticked off if previously cheap/available medicines and procedures suddenly became expensive/unavailable, even if this had no perceptible impact on health outcomes.

It would seem to me to be a ripe opportunity for a controlled scientific experiment. Anyone voting republican in November gets moved onto Mccain plan for the next 8 years. Anyone else stays on current setup for next 8. Compare and contrast results in 8 years.

Would involve a little loss of privacy regarding voting, but well worth it i'm sure.

Justin: unrelated link for you
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/dying_newspaper_trend_buys?utm_source=onion_rss_daily