The Curious Capitalist, Justin Fox, Economy, Markets, Business, TIME

May 1, 2008 5:42

Wyden-Bennett vs. McCain on health care

Posted by Justin Fox | Comments (6) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

With all the talk here and on Swampland over the past couple of days about John McCain's health-care plan, it's worth remembering that there's already a bipartisan bill in Congress that would do pretty much what McCain says he wants to do as far as taking health insurance out of the hands of employers, yet actually addresses many of the hard questions about making coverage universal and keeping costs down that McCain so far has not.

That would be the Healthy Americans Act, sponsored in the Senate by Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden and Utah Republican Bob Bennett (although it's really Wyden's baby). And today the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation came out with an analysis that says the bill would, over time, "tend to become more than self-financing and thereby would reduce future budget deficits or increase future surpluses." Bloggeth Ezra Klein: "In other words, we can cover the 47 million uninsured without spending more money. As a talking point, this is huge."

Both Wyden-Bennett and McCain would remove the existing tax subsidy for employer-provided health insurance--in which companies get to deduct the cost of that insurance from their income taxes, but employees aren't taxed on the value of the health insurance they receive--with an across the board break for individual taxpayers. In McCain's case it's a $5,000-per-family tax credit; with Wyden-Bennett it's a $15,210 per family (of three) tax deduction that begins to phase out at an annual income of $125,000 for joint returns or $62,500 for individuals.

But while McCain pretty much stops there and leaves the rest to the market (apart from some not-very-well-developed thoughts about special programs for the hard-to-insure), Wyden-Bennett includes subsidies for the lower-middle class, new state Health Help Agencies to coordinate the purchase of insurance, a universal coverage requirement, and a tax on employers to help pay for it all. It's all so health-wonkish I can barely bear it, but it's clearly a far more thought-out plan than McCain's--and is both more sweeping and farther along the road to becoming reality than Clinton's or Obama's. So, uh, maybe it is what we all ought to be discussing.

I'm not saying it hasn't been discussed at all. Joe Klein gushed about it in the pages of Time last summer. Ruth Marcus wrote a column about it in February. The CBO report is getting a smattering of coverage. But nothing like the McCain plan. Funny that, huh?

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

Reader Comments (6)

SpotWeld:

From what I have been reading the key difference in philosphy between the McCain plan and the Obama/Clinton plans is the application of government oversight/control on freedom of choice (choice of insurance provider, choice of practitioner, choice in specific care options....) as seen by the consumer.

Right now, in the housing and loan market, we're seeing the fallout of an industry where it was assumed consumers will be in the best position to find a product that best suits their needs with little government involvement in the interaction between buyer and seller. Is there any lesson that can be taken away from how this market boomed and then (dramatically) busted? Can that lesson be applied to possible highly privatized medical care market? (Am I nuts for thinking there is a parallel here?)

Posted by SpotWeld | May 2, 2008 12:30 PM

Memekiller

Yeah... McCain's plan is definitely meant to provide cover so he can sink the real healthcare plans. No Republican wants the government to do anything with regard the healthcare but justify tax cuts or protect insurers from lawsuits, or they would have been booted out.

If you want healthcare, then the only serious effort will come from the Democratic side, and anything the GOP offers up will only be an effort to perry.

The real healthcare debate has been between Krugman and Obama regarding mandating coverage like car insurance.

Posted by Memekiller | May 2, 2008 12:44 PM

Memekiller

And thanks for this post.

Posted by Memekiller | May 2, 2008 12:44 PM

Memekiller

And thanks for posting this.

Posted by Memekiller | May 2, 2008 12:45 PM

Mheengan:

Why are you promoting a wind fall profits plan for the insurance companies by using private pay methods to provide health care? That's the problem with the system now. BCBS of MI (non-profit company) just got legislation pushed through that would allow them to keep up to 30% of all monies received over and above actual provider costs. Do you and I earn 30% tax free over and above our actual expenses?

This is just creating another boondoggle like the oil companies where the costs and company profits never stop going higher. This is just pushing families deeper and deeper into debt because they are unable to sufficiently control energy usage.

If you want real health care reform, go for HR 676 sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, Jr. with many co-sponsors. It's "The United States National Health Insurance Act" or "Expanded & Improved Medicare for All". It is a privately delivered non-profit health care system with everybody in, nobody out.

Since my employer changed my retiree insurance by entering into an agreement with BCBS to take over the management of my medicare insurance (Med Sup Plan), my deductible has gone from $200 per year to $1,000 per year as compared to a $135 deductible for Medicare. What did I get? SHAFTED!

KEEP THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OUT OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

Posted by Mheengan | May 2, 2008 2:01 PM

nice air force ones:

Very helpful, thanks!!

air force 1 sneakers | air jordans shoes | nike air force ones shoes

Posted by nice air force ones | May 15, 2008 2:01 PM