McCain and Obama on the Issues

[chinaco]

A decent summary of the key issues. Mostly lists the economic well-being related items. But a pretty good overview.

When I read this... Obama edges McCain out on a number of issues.

Your Money: McCain vs. Obama - Issue #1: Election 2008 (1) - CNNMoney.com

[Oldbabe]

McCain on health care subsidies:

"McCain's main pillar is the elimination of a tax break that employees receive if their employer provides their health care."

He also includes a $2500 rebate per individual.Now as an individual, I would welcome that $2500 rebate. But it's really a tax cut that I wouldn't have had otherwise. Can our government really afford this with a 9.5 trillion dollar deficit?

Also, an analyst quoted in the article says that after the elimination of the health insurance tax break, employers would gradually eliminate the health insurance benefit in 2-3 years. He says that employers would add that amount onto the employees pay check($9000 for a family, in the example). He says that employers would have to pay this in order to keep quality employees. Are you kidding me?

Does anyone believe that this would happen with the global economy causing stiffer wage competition? Have employers who have been laying people off and not replacing them been so generous with salaries in recent years? Give me a break.

This is a tax hike on health insurance benefits and the rebate will likely be short lived once our national debt continues to climb to unsustainable levels, if it isn't there already.

Here's a detailed explanation of how this policy will supposedly work.
Why McCain has the best health-care plan - Mar. 11, 2008

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Oldbabe

He says that employers would have to pay this in order to keep quality employees. Are you kidding me?

Does anyone believe that this would happen with the global economy causing stiffer wage competition? Have employers who have been laying people off and not replacing them been so generous with salaries in recent years? Give me a break.

Employers are free now to pay employees whatever they want (down to the minimum wage). Why don't they pay everyone $7 an hour? They certainly would if they could, in fact they have a duty to their shareholders/owners to pay as little as possible to get the labor they need (firm job market or weak one). When they drop health insurance coverage their trained and valuable employees will leave if their employers don't raise wages.

I don't like everything about the McCain health plan, but the best thing about it is the severing of this insane relationship between employers and health care. There are lots of workers right now who are shackled to a job they hate because it's the only way they can get health care. We all know people like this. Under McCain's plan, these people will be free to get the job they really want, or no job at all. And an efficient employment market helps American businesses be more competitive (in the intl environment you cited) and helps workers earn what they are truly worth.

[Oldbabe]

[quote=samclem;709122]When they drop health insurance coverage their trained and valuable employees will leave if their employers don't raise wages. [quote]


Well, I'd like to hear from the over 50 demographic on this prospect.

[Independent]

Originally Posted by samclem

Employers are free now to pay employees whatever they want (down to the minimum wage). Why don't they pay everyone $7 an hour? They certainly would if they could, in fact they have a duty to their shareholders/owners to pay as little as possible to get the labor they need (firm job market or weak one). When they drop health insurance coverage their trained and valuable employees will leave if their employers don't raise wages.

I don't like everything about the McCain health plan, but the best thing about it is the severing of this insane relationship between employers and health care. There are lots of workers right now who are shackled to a job they hate because it's the only way they can get health care. We all know people like this. Under McCain's plan, these people will be free to get the job they really want, or no job at all. And an efficient employment market helps American businesses be more competitive (in the intl environment you cited) and helps workers earn what they are truly worth.

I'm in the over 50 demographic, and I agree with Sam.

I assume you are concerned about pre-existing conditions. In an individual insurance world, we'd probably need high-risk pools with a taxpayer subsidy. The keys are keeping the premium for the high-risk pool above the average premium, and keeping the deductibles from getting too small.

(Note that Sam says this is the best feature of McCain's plan, and there are other things he doesn't like. I'm also agreeing with that sentiment.)

[Texarkandy]

I don't like either healthcare solution personally, (& doubt either has a snowballs chance of passage as currently described)

[Oldbabe]

Originally Posted by Independent

I'm in the over 50 demographic, and I agree with Sam.

I assume you are concerned about pre-existing conditions. In an individual insurance world, we'd probably need high-risk pools with a taxpayer subsidy. The keys are keeping the premium for the high-risk pool above the average premium, and keeping the deductibles from getting too small.

(Note that Sam says this is the best feature of McCain's plan, and there are other things he doesn't like. I'm also agreeing with that sentiment.)

Yes, but also the difficulty of finding comparable employment after leaving a job or being laid off in your 50s.

As far as pre-existing conditions, it's my understanding that most states already have high risk pools with taxpayer subsidy. I looked into that when I applied for individual health insurance. I won't go into the whole disappointing process because it's been discussed at length by many posters in the health forum.

But what I learned is that high risk subsidized health insurance is woefully inadequate and much more expensive. Many people cannot afford it. What would make it more affordable under the McCain plan? In order to lower costs the risk has to be spread across a large population. That's not happening now. And I see nothing in the McCain plan that would alleviate that situation.

If you want an in depth discussion of this issue please go to the health forum, especially for the thoughtful views of Rich in Tampa and Martha.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Oldbabe

Yes, but also the difficulty of finding comparable employment after leaving a job or being laid off in your 50s.

And what is one of the main reasons for this? Employers don't want to pay the higher health-care expenses of older workers. Under the McCain plan, another rationale for age discrimination is eliminated.

Older workers today live under the very frightening specter of losing their health insurance if they lose their job. Not a big deal at age 19, probably a bigger deal at 55. McCain's plan eliminates this worry.

[CompoundInterestFan]

Originally Posted by samclem

And what is one of the main reasons for this? Employers don't want to pay the higher health-care expenses of older workers.

Well, one of the other main reasons is that older workers salaries are generally much higher than those starting out. Even if higher health care costs are eliminated, I still think salary will be a barrier to older workers being hired.

[whitestick]

Originally Posted by samclem

And what is one of the main reasons for this? Employers don't want to pay the higher health-care expenses of older workers. Under the McCain plan, another rationale for age discrimination is eliminated.

Older workers today live under the very frightening specter of losing their health insurance if they lose their job. Not a big deal at age 19, probably a bigger deal at 55. McCain's plan eliminates this worry.

Yeah but one of the major concerns that I have is what happens to the percentage of the population that has retired and is living with former employer provide health care. What happens to these plans when the tax benefits go away for the mega-corps - why will/should the continue providing health care for their former employees/nee retirees. This will provide major disruptions in the health care planning/expense planning of current retirees.
So much for ER, when the health care potentially goes away.

[chinaco]

Neither plan goes far enough to address the affordability of health care.

McCain's proposal for healthcare does not fix a thing. All McCain's plan did was make the middle-class directly subsidize someone elses health plan. The only people that can afford to buy healthcare are the middle-class or wealthy. I am subsidizing some wealthy person who buys their own health care. If that is the extent of his creativity... I am not impressed.

Obama's plan is not great either... but it goes a bit further. Negotiating Medicare part D drugs is a good idea. I can't believe it is not happening now... it is stupid.

Unfortunately McCain is not serious about a key issue of out times.

The economy is a bit of a concern... but more of a distraction... it will right itself in spite of whomever is president.

[Independent]

Originally Posted by Oldbabe

Yes, but also the difficulty of finding comparable employment after leaving a job or being laid off in your 50s.

As far as pre-existing conditions, it's my understanding that most states already have high risk pools with taxpayer subsidy. I looked into that when I applied for individual health insurance. I won't go into the whole disappointing process because it's been discussed at length by many posters in the health forum.

But what I learned is that high risk subsidized health insurance is woefully inadequate and much more expensive. Many people cannot afford it. What would make it more affordable under the McCain plan? In order to lower costs the risk has to be spread across a large population. That's not happening now. And I see nothing in the McCain plan that would alleviate that situation.

If you want an in depth discussion of this issue please go to the health forum, especially for the thoughtful views of Rich in Tampa and Martha.

Okay, you apparantly weren't trying to start a discussion of pre-existing conditions here.

You quoted this from Sam

When they drop health insurance coverage their trained and valuable employees will leave if their employers don't raise wages.

I'm in the over 50 demographic, and I agree with that statement.

Employers are already providing the cheapest compensation package they can, given the quality of worker that they need for each job. Workers are already selecting the job with the best total wages-benefits-working conditions available, given the skills and effort that they bring to the job.

If medical insurance becomes a rare employee benefit, both sides will continue to choose the best package. Something else will offset the loss of medical insurance - probably higher wages.

[growing_older]

Workers are already selecting the job with the best total wages-benefits-working conditions available, given the skills and effort that they bring to the job.

This may be a general ideal, but I don't think our employment markets are efficient enough to really make this happen. Unless I am lucky enough to have several open job offers at once, I am forced to accept a single given job or continue looking. I usually have only a vague idea of working conditions there until I work the job. I may have to take a lesser job and work up to one I really want. For many worker finding ANY job with an acceptable compensation and benefits package is difficult. I can refuse jobs which fall below my minimally acceptable threshold of compensation, but I can never know if I have made an optimal choice. If I am already employed and looking at moving to a new job, the situation is similar though maybe the urgency is less. I also have to consider that if I make too many job changes I may become less desirable to future employers and reduce my ability to obtain higher compensation. Yes, it is a free market in that job seekers can accept or reject jobs, but job changes are so infrequent (a few per lifetime) and job availability is generally so illiquid that the market is not as optimized as the quote seems to imply.

[eridanus]

Originally Posted by samclem

I don't like everything about the McCain health plan, but the best thing about it is the severing of this insane relationship between employers and health care.

Yes! This needs to be done. I prefer McCain's health plan to Obama's.

1) How can we afford it? We need to raise taxes (gulp) or reduce services somewhere else.

2) What about older people or people with complications? As mentioned above, the state High Risk pools are very expensive. A $2500 deduction or credit won't cover it.


Of course, the plans are meaningless unless Congress does the President's bidding. With Obama, that's likely. With McCain, less so.

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Oldbabe

Well, I'd like to hear from the over 50 demographic on this prospect.

Oldbabe, the same ideas apply to the 50+. Once again, businesses will keep the total compensation package as low as they can to keep as many/quality employees as they need. No more, no less.

If the 50+ crowd is less likely to change jobs, it's already reflected in their compensation package. This won't change that.

Not to pick on you Oldbabe, but I get really frustrated that so many people comment on this or that plan, and so many of those people do not understand how free markets work. So they apply faulty logic, and then go around screaming "you have to support/reject this plan!".

I think McCain & Palin should take out 3-5 minutes of each speech for a little free market, supply/demand lesson or example. Educate the public. They need it. I guess Obama & Biden should too, but I think that is even less likely.

NOTE: I need to read up on each candidate's health plans - don't take this as a pro/con on either, just an observation that it is hard to judge them w/o using the proper criteria.

-ERD50

[youbet]

Originally Posted by ERD50

I guess Obama & Biden should too, but I think that is even less likely.

-ERD50

Why would Obama/Biden educate on a free market, supply/demand economy? They favor more of a controlled economy with educated and enlightened government officials dictating what's produced, who gets it, etc.

[chinaco]

Originally Posted by ERD50

Oldbabe, the same ideas apply to the 50+. Once again, businesses will keep the total compensation package as low as they can to keep as many/quality employees as they need. No more, no less.

If the 50+ crowd is less likely to change jobs, it's already reflected in their compensation package. This won't change that.
...
-ERD50

A fact. No business will pay more compensation than they think they need to accomplish their objective. There may be a few that would increase pay to compensate... but most would not. Some clever companies might play the shell game for a while to make the employees think they are kept whole.

McCain's health plan smells like an end run to put us all in poor situation.

Health care inflation and costs are going to ruin everyone including the middle class if they do not get it under control.

Insurance companies will never cover someone who has health problems. And all human beings eventually have health problems.

The system is flawed. There are come good things about our system. But it also has some terrible flaws.

I almost can't believe he is proposing it. At worst he is trying to pull a fast one... at worst, he doesn't get it.

I think McCain is done. Palin has aroused a little curiosity and undecided voters are taking a second look... but it will be fleeting.

[Brat]

Health insurance is sold based on a family unit. Suppose one has significant health issues and has only the high risk option, what happens to the rest of the family's insurance costs?

Right now I think that the Obama proposal makes more sense.

Why do I not trust the Rs to implement even McCain's proposal without a huge payoff to the interest groups? Just look at Medicare D's lack of competitive bidding! Trust destroyed.

[samclem]