FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

But the Tax Policy Center, an arm of the Urban Institute which, to be best of my knowledge, has never advocated or supported a clearly Republican or conservative issue in their history is more objective and and has no ideological influence in their assessments?

And yet I use data from all of these because their respective bias does not necessarily rule their data invalid. It helps to be aware of the bias, however, and collaborate the data with other sources before accepting any of it as the gosepl truth. (There are sites that have proved themselves to be so blatantly dishonest that I accept NOTHING from them as intentionally credible, but I do not inlcude UI or TPC among those.)

So now. If we can set aside the sources themselves for a moment, I will ask you to address the previous question(s).

Healthcare reform will be one of the top issues of the 2008 presidential election. In the face of widespread public demand for changes in the U.S. health care system, both Barack Obama and John McCain have offered detailed proposals for reform.

Senator Obama's approach relies heavily on government mandates, regulations, and subsidies. He would mandate that employers provide health care coverage for their workers and that parents purchase health insurance for their children. He would significantly increase regulation of the insurance industry, establishing a standard minimum benefits package, and requiring insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health. He would offer a variety of new and expanded subsidies to middle- and low-income Americans.

In contrast, John McCain emphasizes consumer choice and greater competition in the health care industry. He would move away from our current employment-based insurance system by replacing the current tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance with a refundable tax credit for individuals. At the same time he would sharply deregulate the insurance industry to increase competition.

Senator McCain's proposal is far from perfect, but from a free-market perspective, it appears superior to Senator Obama's plan. Obama's plan, with its heavy reliance on government, leads to the same problems that bedevil universal health care systems all over the world: limited patient choices and rationed care. McCain's proposal is much more consumer centered and taps into the best aspects of the free market. (--Michael Tanner)
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9561/

Well if you won't accept any site that doesn't denounce every Republican or conservative policy, we can just agree not to discuss this with each other at all because whether you want to admit it or not, the Republicans every now and then do get it right and conservatism has produces better results. Or, please post your credible site that rebuts Cato's take on it. Or give me a reasoned argument for why Cato is wrong.

I will agree that deregulation has not produced the best results in some cases, but what data do you have to show that " deregulation of any industry has never been shown to lower prices." Are you sure you want to stick with that statement? There are quite a few sources out there that agree with Cato that deregulating the insurance industry would bring prices down. Do you have one that explains why their take on it is wrong?

Please explain how the TPC data addresses the Cato data OE. The data your posted is way too vague for me to agree that it is a side by side comparisons with Cato's analysis. We all seem to agree that TPC is taking Obama's side, but then TPC almost always takes the liberal side in their analysis. They are a credible site. But I'm going to need some serious collaboration supporting their conclusions to believe they have it right.

I think that there is no reason to dispute Catos take that McCains plan is better from a free market perspective. However, for me, free market is not the measure. The question is what are we hoping to do with these health plans. What I would like to see is more people covered, more affordable health insurance, reduce the numbers of people who need to file bankruptcy due to health care costs, and break away from the bias toward employer sponsored health care. If a free market solution could accomplish these, that would be fine. But I see health care as something similar to public education.

I mentioned earlier that the easiest way to eliminate the employer sponsored bias is to just make all health insurance premiums tax deductible, period. McCains tax credit would do less and less good as premium costs rise, making it more of a burden on families who no longer get the premiums taken out pre-tax. Obamas plan covers more people and lowers costs. To me that is better. Not perfect, but better. Yes, it costs more than McCains, but not by much compared with the added benefit.

Also, other than in very narrowly defined areas necessary for national administration, my libertarian soul strongly resists Big Brother mandates requiring people to acquire something they don't want or need. Most liberals want people to have the right to die if that is what they choose. But I can choose to die but I can't choose not to have health insurance?

I am never opposed to the government spending less and allowing the people to keep more of their own money. And, from my point of view, a tax credit accomplishes that far more efficiently than does a tax deduction. I believe the free market system produces the most choices, the best quality, and the most affordable prices in the long run.

I go back to the fact that health insurance in America was readily available, affordable, and excellent up to the 1960's when the government began taking over large portions of it. It was then that the prices started spiraling out of control and most of our current problems developed. Was government involvement the reason for most of that? I don't know, but there sure is a strong correlation? Stuff the government has kept its nose mostly out of has become mostly better and more affordable with new technological innovations.

Interesting. Do you have some numbers from the 60s so I can take a look? Specifically, I am interested in how many people actually had health insurance and how much it covered.

I dont like mandates either and think a single payer system would be better in that regard, though I dont trust our government to do that well. However, you do know that the mandate in Obamas program is only for parents to buy health insurance for their children. If you dont want insurance you would not be required to buy it.

I think in the case of healthcare, an absolutely free market would produce the most choices and the best quality for those who could afford it. I do not believe it would provide the most affordable prices

Do you have some numbers from the 60s so I can take a look? Specifically, I am interested in how many people actually had health insurance and how much it covered.

My concern is that Obama is leading us into another enormous costly and almost certainly problematic inefficient govenrment entitlement program.

One thing that I appreciated that it pointed out is that healthcare insurance is only one cog in the machine and there are many many other factors involved.

I go back to the fact that health insurance in America was readily available, affordable, and excellent up to the 1960's when the government began taking over large portions of it. It was then that the prices started spiraling out of control and most of our current problems developed. Was government involvement the reason for most of that? I don't know, but there sure is a strong correlation? Stuff the government has kept its nose mostly out of has become mostly better and more affordable with new technological innovations.

Foxfyre wrote:

One thing that I appreciated that it pointed out is that healthcare insurance is only one cog in the machine and there are many many other factors involved.

It really does? If so, I must have remembered it the wrong way (and most probably mistaken it, too).

Nevertheless, I doubt that it really backs what

what you wrote:

I go back to the fact that health insurance in America was readily available, affordable, and excellent up to the 1960's when the government began taking over large portions of it. It was then that the prices started spiraling out of control and most of our current problems developed. Was government involvement the reason for most of that? I don't know, but there sure is a strong correlation? Stuff the government has kept its nose mostly out of has become mostly better and more affordable with new technological innovations.

Quote:

I think in the case of healthcare, an absolutely free market would produce the most choices and the best quality for those who could afford it. I do not believe it would provide the most affordable prices.

Well that is something we can debate for sure. I believe that a free market with plenty of healthy competition has been pretty consistent in being favorable for the consumer.

That isn't the issue here though OE.

Foxfyre wrote:

That isn't the issue here though OE.

The cost of health care, especially in comparison with other mandatory or socialized health care systems, isn't the issue?

Okay.

<leaves thread>

You see pointing out the sins of the present administration or Republicans or Democrats is not useful in coming up with solutions, but carping on such sins seems to be all that some wish to do.

Which tells me they are operating from purely meanspirited partisan ideology and there is no real interest to do the hard mental work of determining what is the best course of action now no matter who is proposing it.

You see pointing out the sins of the present administration or Republicans or Democrats is not useful in coming up with solutions, but carping on such sins seems to be all that some wish to do. Which tells me they are operating from purely meanspirited partisan ideology and there is no real interest to do the hard mental work of determining what is the best course of action now no matter who is proposing it.

Doubt it all you want. I worked in the industry and utilized the industry back then. And because I handled credit and customer relations for one of those hospitals I worked for, I saw the bills that went to insurance companies and the bills printed out for people who did not have insurance and helped them come up with a plan to pay off their bills--sometimes as little as $10/month if that is all they could afford. I also helped hook them up with social services for additional help. For most, not having insurance was not the end of the world nor was it necessary to get most healthcare.

Ah, you added something to your post. Okay.

Foxfyre wrote:

You see pointing out the sins of the present administration or Republicans or Democrats is not useful in coming up with solutions, but carping on such sins seems to be all that some wish to do.

Nonsense. I'm bringing up the current situation, because it allows to compare the American system with a system like the British one, where everything health care is state run, or with a system like the Swiss one, where everything health care is privately run, albeit as a statutory system.

There's a lot of material out there for comparison, to evaluate the claims whether going more free-market or going more socialized would have certain effects.

This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans.

Foxfyre wrote:

Which tells me they are operating from purely meanspirited partisan ideology and there is no real interest to do the hard mental work of determining what is the best course of action now no matter who is proposing it.

Nonsense. I have criticized Obama's plan in the past on the long-running universal health care thread, and I'm still sceptical whether or not a voluntary system would have a significant effect towards making health care universal.

You're blinded by your own partisanship.

It could certainly be part of the rationale for the argument. But tell me how Obama's plan will achieve lower costs or how McCain's plan won't or vice versa.

Don't tell me that socialized medicine is preferable to free market as if that is a solution.

Rather take your data into Obama and McCain's plans and show how it applies to either and how that affects the plausibility of either.