Is anyone else sick of these “Woe is me, I’m a republican in Madison” articles?

For a more balanced discussion, read this argument against McCain’s health insurance proposal: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/opinion/06krugman.html?scp=9&sq=opinion%20mccain%20healthcare&st=cse

“the McCain plan makes no sense at all, unless you have faith that the magic of the marketplace can solve all problems. And Mr. McCain does: a much-quoted article published under his name declares that ‘Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.’

I agree: the McCain plan would do for health care what deregulation has done for banking. And I’m terrified.”

I’m not about to support his proposal because he has not adequately enlightened us as to what his “other fixes,” as Ms. Nix puts it, are to make sure his health insurance market wouldn’t favor the rich and healthy.

Dear Katie,

Thank you for a very smart discussion that is based on a serious, important issue. Please allow me to explain the side of the story that I see — I explain this not to discount your good arguments, but just to give you another point of view.

My husband and I a young, working couple living on a “student” income in one of the wealthier blue-state big cities in this country. An enormous number of our friends do not have health insurance. I get it through my place of work; my husband does not. Sometimes we buy health insurance for him; sometimes we look at our finances and agree to “risk” letting his coverage lapse because the $5,000 per year we would “save” seems worth it.

So, when I read your idea that we’d all get to “pick” our health insurance, what I know is that Americans would not buy what they “need”; they would buy what they can afford. Think about it — a young, healthy couple buys the cheapest insurance they can find, because they only get $80,000 per year, maybe $87,000 per year with a McCain tax cut — but they’re trying to buy (or keep) a house and they just “don’t have” the $12,000 to buy insurance. If they get a tax cut, they will not use it for “better” insurance — they will use it for gas, a car, a mortgage payment. They buy as little health insurance as they can — or none at all.

Here is where a proper and good conservative argument would be: “Well, this is their choice — and I don’t want government interfering in my life.” And I can see that point of view.

But what if that couple has an unexpected baby? And the baby has some unexpected heart problems? They had no insurance when she became pregnant, and they lose what little financial assets they had. In some cases, people lose their homes and go bankrupt.

Then what happens, and who suffers? Many of us are blessing with friends, family, and other networks that give us a safety net. If this happened to me and my husband, our families (and our Faith) would be there for us. But there are plenty of people whose families and circles are less fortunate. There are people who slip entirely between the cracks — and if that happens to enough families, if enough children don’t go to school, if enough homes are foreclosed — then the whole country falls apart, slowly but surely.

So, I admit that my argument is based in part on compassion. I feel compassion for those whose families wouldn’t be able to help them in a crisis. I feel it is patriotic for us to pay taxes on our measly $80,000 per year so that we contribute something to the bigger picture of this country. We need infrastructure: this means good schools, good roads, good health care — not just for MY family, but for ALL families, everywhere.

In part, infrastructure is idealistic — but it is also realistic. If you have no infrastructure, you have emergencies (THAT is what happened with Hurricane Katrina — we have family there, we saw it) and emergencies end up being costly — in terms of money spent AND lives lost.

So, I do understand your essential desire for “less government” — but a basic degree of maintenance is required to run a country. Whatever money you take away from roads, you lose in paying for ambulances. Whatever money you take away from schools, you lose as your nation’s productivity goes down. Whatever money you save on health insurance, you will pay back in spades as individuals go bankrupt, families fall apart, and the state fumbles around to pay for more homeless shelters, more soup kitchens, more prisons as the country falls to pieces.

In other words, sometimes putting “country first” means taking care of your country and trying to understand what helps people most — and, what helps the most people. That’s NOT socialism — it’s democracy.

Katie, turn away from John McCain. He is the Antichrist! He will force you to ware his mark on your right hand or forehead. He and his minions shall destroy all of mankind. Save yourself for Christ by voting for Obama. Obama IS the savior foretold in the Bible. Eat his flesh and drink his blood, for the time is nigh that all mankind shall be led unto the period of darkness, on the road to perdition…

KN-You managed to single out and highlight arguably his campaign’s weakest and most impractical platform. His arrogant, let them eat cake approach of a plan is no “fix”. Even Jack McCain wants to hurry up mention healthcare when he only has to. He knows it has zero chance and you do too, I think.

No wonder his polls are so low—with friends like you…you would have been better served mentioning Ayers, unfortunately

however, for those of us that have already tried, and failed, to get health insurance coverage on our own because of pre-existing conditions — how will we fare if everything is privatized? The insurance companies will have no incentive and many Americans will be left without coverage without the option of gaining insurance through an employer. What about the millions of Americans suffering from chronic illnesses and disorders that will be forced to spend thousands of dollars each year on prescription medicines? I’m not saying that Obama’s plan is perfect, or that I cannot see some logic in McCain’s — but I’ve gotta support the candidate who aims to guarantee coverage for every single American, not just those that the insurance companies deem worthy.

Your article starts out with a “Dear Diary” form… need I say more?

And McCain’s plan to tax this new healthcare is what…helpful to working families?

Ok, so you’re admitting that McCain’s plan does not even attempt to solve all problems with the health care system, and you’re pretending that it’s ok to keep equal burden on those who can’t afford these new taxes (the middle class). Good to hear.

You have to be kidding me! McCain knows as well as I do (although unfortunately the author of this article does not - although he has no problem accusing a woman who understands the Palin-McCain radical abortion ideas of being ignorant) that businesses aren’t going to put the cost savings of not paying for benefits directly onto paychecks! What an absolute joke! The pre-tax savings would be eliminated in McCain’s scheme and there is nothing to help those people who already can’t afford health insurance. This is the most poorly written article that this UW alum has read in the op-ed section of this paper. Ever.

So, McCain wants to “deregulate” health care? That seems like a winning idea.

Great article, Katie.

What you fail to mention is the fact that if the money that would be spent on health care is added to a paycheck in the form of wages it is subject to INCOME TAX. Do you think people should be paying taxes on health care? More importantly, what is McCain planning on spending the probable millions of increased income tax revenue on? Probably not in efforts to reduce the cost of health care….

FACTS??? You’re using facts to try to get thru to the Obamamaniacs? Silly Rabbit, facts wont’t mean a thing to them.

Homer Simpson: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!

PS. I just love it when the big problem is that insurance compnies won’t pay for pre-existing conditions on individual policies. Once they get that forbidden I hope they work on the other nasty insurance companies that won’t let you get auto insurance after an accident and won’t let you buy life insurance on dead people - the dirty SOBs!

So McCain’s plan will cost $1.3 trillion and reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 1 million, while giving the HMOs a pile of new money and taxing our health benefits for the very first time. By contrast, Obama’s plan costs $300 billion more, but will reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 34 million and won’t impose federal income taxes on our health benefits?

And you say McCain’s plan gives you hope? That’s funny, because it gives the rest of us a severe case of ulcerative colitis that won’t be covered by our HMOs.

The whole point of small group health insurance markets is to drive down prices and increase choices by spreading risk over a larger group of people. In that sense, there’s no guarantee that an individual will be able to find a more flexible or cheaper insurance plan when thrown into the individual market — they must be underwritten by their personal risk factors, which may make them ineligible for their original plans (talk about “cutting the pork”).

You almost acknowledge this when fleshing out your car engine metaphor, but conveniently ignore it when discussing the substantive market reforms in the preceding paragraphs. And speaking of that metaphor, it’s hardly reassuring when the chair of McCain’s state campaign admits that his plan is incomplete, but maintains that we should vote for him in three weeks because he has some sort of “fundamental basis” down.

Spare us your cursory “research” and come back when you have a more rigorous understanding of the issue.

the problem as i see it is not one of politics but of priorities. the issue at hand is a system where the providers do not feel that they are compensated enough, while the customer feels the he/she is paying too much. as both ends pull at the middle there is no way any system can survive. as an employer (employing 16 people in the nyc area) i have pd 98% of my employees health cost. they pay the copayment per visit and their drugs. they are not happy with that deal. so who is happy? as for being taxed on health insurance did you know that small business owners have always pd tax on their medical benfits?