I am sure this is 100th diary of health care debate but still...
There have been some debunking/fact-checking of health care proposals going on around in the blogger world after the VP debate and Biden zinger of "Ultimate bridge to no-where".
-- replace a $12,000 plan with a $5,000 check you just give to the insurance company. I call that the "Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere."
I have located couple of links and tried to put some semblance of common sense into these arguments.
More below.
UPDATED: With NY Times Link Below...
The first link I found is in
Mising 7K dollars in the Atlantic.
The conclusion of what happened to missing $7,000 is that:
But the critique Biden offered last night is possibly the most common, probably the most damning, and certainly the most flatly untrue.
To which my answer was...
With the opinion of missing $7k dollars going as a pay rise to the employees, I am not willing to believe its going to happen 100%. Its naive to assume that companies will increase salaries by 7K (or some average there of) as if there bound to, it only servers to increase their bottom lines. If employers provides this 7K as health care benefit its going to be taxed, if they do not provide its going to be taxed as salary.
It is a lose-lose situation with government leeching from the tax payers. The people most hurt would again be middle class - 50K - 150K.
I am not astounded that insurance companies wrote this proposal - I am not shocked that republicans always look for interests of insurance lobby - I am astounded they don't really care about the people on the road trying to get relief in the health care costs.
Even w/o considering the people with pre-conditions - if employers stop negotiating with insurance companies for affordable health care and leave the employees to mercy of insurance companies, the insurance companies will leave normal people high and dry. They will bump the insurance costs w/o any regulation. It gives me jitters and a rolling sensation in my stomach(almost to puke) to imagine a situation where people are not able to get proper medical care.
Republicans could have thought of more decent proposal than this. Again, I get the feeling they don't bother about people and their health. They just want to fill the coffers of their friends in the insurance industry.
As far as tax center's analysis of both plans is considered,you can find ithere.
Here is the paragraph regarding health care plans:
As noted below, important details of both plans are not known, so we made assumptions that might or might not be consistent with the final plans proposed by each campaign. Under our assumptions, if the plans took effect in 2009, the McCain plan would cost about $1.3 trillion over ten years and the Obama plan would cost about $1.6 trillion...
Under our assumptions, Senator Obama’s plan would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by about 18 million in 2009 , and 34 million in 2018. Almost all children would have coverage because the law would require it, but nearly 33 million adults would still lack coverage in 2018. Senator McCain’s plan would have far more modest effects, reducing the number of uninsured by just over 1 million in 2009, rising to a maximum of almost 5 million in 2013, after which the number of uninsured would creep upward because the tax credits grow more slowly than premiums.
Both plans are highly progressive, although Senator Obama’s plan targets subsidies more toward low- and middle-income households and is thus significantly more progressive than Senator McCain’s proposal.
Here are my arguments:
- These are assumptions but can be baselined.
- Neither plan is universal but Obama's comes closest. There is absolutely no socialization of health care. Insurance companies still remain. There is government intervention in both proposals. Whereas Obama's plan make it a subsidy and argues for reduction in health care costs, McCain's plan just gives the money over on a bolier plate and does not make any demands in the reduction of costs(The assumption is that free market will reduce the costs).
- There is immediate difference of 17 million people who would not otherwise be insured. Biden's figure may be bit higher - but it is not flatly untrue.
- Since health care is not mostly affordable for low and middle income household, those are the people who need it. And Obama's plan is geared towards them.
- The cost difference is only $300 billion over 10 years - which I think considering the bailout amount is far more effectively utilized in making American people healthier.
CNN has a fact check on what McCain tax credit would cost to the people from this proposal.
Another debunking of Government Intervention...
Paul Krugman from NYTimes joins...