BuffettNews.com

This morning has been a bit slow in the office and a number of people were discussing John McCain's Health System Reform proposal and I thought I would ask for your insights on it as well.

From reading the outline of the plan on JohnMcCain.com, I have to say it appears to be a plan that removes employers from the insurance game and places the entire burden in the lap of the average American.

"John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.

John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

John McCain Proposes Making Insurance More Portable. Americans need insurance that follows them from job to job. They want insurance that is still there if they retire early and does not change if they take a few years off to raise the kids.

John McCain Will Encourage And Expand The Benefits Of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) For Families. When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions and often decide against unnecessary options. Health Savings Accounts take an important step in the direction of putting families in charge of what they pay for."

As I read this I see where employer insurance will still be an option but it doesn't specify that an employer who currently offers coverage will have to continue to do, nor do I see where it indicates that there is an incentive for an employer to continue to do so. I suspect that a great many employers will use this as a means to eliminate the expense of offering health insurance and few will base along those savings to the employees in the form of pay increases.

As an example, my current employer pays 100% of my health insurance premium. If the cost goes up, he pays the additional expense, if it were to go down, he would get that savings. Under McCain's plan, my employer could continue to offer the insurance or he could opt not to and I would have to go out and find whatever coverage I could afford and/or desired. I would get a tax break of $5000.00 since I have my family covered. If my employer was generous, he would give me the money that he was paying toward my premium however there is no guarantee that he will, nor is there any guarantee that next year will the premium goes up by 16%, that he will increase my pay to match that increase. I happen to know that my monthly insurance premium is just under $1400.00. So if my employer opts to no longer offer insurance and not give some or all of the realized savings to me, then I will have to pay more out of my pocket and I will probably have to pay more for equal coverage. I won't get into the fact that if he were to pass along his savings that would be added to my income and thus increase my taxable income. Or that even if he doesn't do away with employer sponsored health insurance, that will become taxable income.

Some how, this doesn't strike me as a good deal. I am interested in gaining your insights so please feel free to comment.

I don't think McCain's plan is necessarily far-fetched. On one hand, it implies to me that people/families with fewer health risks will pay less for insurance and those at a higher risk will pay more. This is different from employer-based plans where the plan is the plan is the plan whether you are in marathon condition or a smoker who is 100lbs overweight.

It would basically be offered the way car insurance is offered now. You pay less if you're a good driver and more if you're high-risk. Health is a bit more subjective, although life insurance policies have been playing this game for as long as I can remember.

One thing it does do is lessen the appeal of certain employers over others because benefit packages won't necessarily be the appeal they once were. Employers will have to provide better incentives to attract the employees they want (that is, if the economy recovers enough to the point where employers are more apt to be hiring rather than firing).

In a strong economy, I think McCain's plan could work quite well. In a weak one as we have now, I'm not sure as a consumer I want to leave the safety of my good job and reliable health benefits (not saying great or super affordable benefits, but reliable) to risk losing coverage or paying a substantial amount more to insure my family.

My other concern is giving insurance companies too much power. I'm just not a fan of insurance companies. They are right up there with car salesmen, IMO.

A few other questions that come to mind are:
Would health insurance be mandatory (just as car insurance is in most states)?
Can a person still self-pay for medical services?
What about prescription drugs?
What options are available for individuals possibly deemed as "uninsured?"
How often will my rates change?
Can I lock in a rate for a period of time?

Oh. And another question. Would "kids" be insured under their parents only until age 18? Will the "college student" coverage many employer plans include be a part of what insurers provide?

What if I want to pay for health insurance for my elder parents? Do I get additional tax breaks?

The job I left in June paid (between my contribution and theirs) about $5000 just for coverage for me for 2007.

This just sounds like a way for employers to get out of offering health insurance.

I did not get a raise when we switched to Tom's company's plan (which had a lower contribution for both of us than just for mine).

The company I work for does not offer health insurance for hourly employees. Instead after you have been with the company 6 months you are given an extra $ 100.00 a month for you to purchase your own insurance, or if you should not want health insurance you can do whatever with it.

The reason is simply economical. Many of our hourly employees are young and really don't use health care insurance. They were paying their portion, the company theirs and unless the employee utilized the insurance that was in essence wasted money.

I personally believe that more and more companies are going to stop offering health insurance.

There's a reason health insurance is called a benefit. Unless you have an employment contract that requires your employer to insure you, they don't have to.

No employer has to provide health insurance, it's a benefit.

Part of me would like to see Obama get elected so he can wave his magical hand and make this horrible country better . . . . but then I realize that all his talk about how bad this country has become is really just one of the hundreds of lies he has told America to get elected. In short, everything McCain says is more believable and workable to then the spew that comes out of Obama's lying mouth. Therefore, I am all for his healthcare plan and I have every faith that he will make it work.



(Universal Health Care without raising taxes . . . . . . ah Obama, you almost had me . . . )

I'm glad that a number of PH's here feel that everything is pretty much OK,
even in the wake of the Wall St. collapse that is occurring as we speak.

btw, have you taken a look at your 401k or IRA status lately?...because chances are you're losing a good 20-30% of your retirement savings this year.
Is this what you call "being better off" than living under a different party President??

But, hey, I know you don't need that pesky government to get in the way of CEO's collecting their "golden handshakes" while you just paid for it.
I know you're pretty good with all that, because they're the ones that create the jobs...
before, of course, they take away your health benefits... or lay you off all together!

Problem with McCain is he does not appeal to the masses like Obama does. Obama can walk on water and John McCain has to slug it out. It would not suprise me in the least to wake up the day after the election with McCain has our president. I do not think it's going to be easy for Obama at all.

Crazy Navy Flyer wrote:No employer has to provide health insurance, it's a benefit.

up to very recently... it's a benefit that was almost completely ASSURED with a quality job.
So how are you, as the worker, coming out any better when wages aren't raised?

Frank4 wrote:Problem with McCain is he does not appeal to the masses like Obama does. Obama can walk on water and John McCain has to slug it out. It would not suprise me in the least to wake up the day after the election with McCain has our president. I do not think it's going to be easy for Obama at all.

I completely agree, Frank.
McCain has turned the argument into WHO you vote for, rather than WHAT you vote for.
A vote for McCain will bring a presidency that is virtually incapable of getting any legislation passed in a Democratic congress.

...gee, in these turbulent times, does that sound real wise??

Lightning Bolt wrote:A vote for McCain will bring a presidency that is virtually incapable of getting any legislation passed in a Democratic congress.

...gee, in these turbulent times, does that sound real wise??

And if no legislation was passed in a Democratic-controlled Congress because the President is Republican, whose fault would that be?

Maybe politicians should take a step back and decide, no matter what side of the aisle they're on, to do what's best for the country instead of what's best for their party. But then they'd actually have to take responsibility for what they do instead of just saying "I'm not the other guy."

As of yesterday, the federal government is already in the insurance business. Maybe they can get a great deal on health insurance.

LIPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:A vote for McCain will bring a presidency that is virtually incapable of getting any legislation passed in a Democratic congress.

...gee, in these turbulent times, does that sound real wise??

And if no legislation was passed in a Democratic-controlled Congress because the President is Republican, whose fault would that be?

Maybe politicians should take a step back and decide, no matter what side of the aisle they're on, to do what's best for the country instead of what's best for their party. But then they'd actually have to take responsibility for what they do instead of just saying "I'm not the other guy."

It would also be nice for people to define what they feel the President does. Because if you think the President has anything to do with Wall Street you are wrong (most Economists feel 10 years after a President's term is when you see the effect of his and his cabinet's decisions in terms of the economy . . . . what I learned in college and what I tend to believe). Obama is as into big corporations as anyone else. Don't be fooled or lied to. The parties are there to create an "us" versus "them" mentality . . . I agree with Larry, here.

The President's job revolves around the Joint Chiefs, the Cabinet he creates, and the Supreme Court and little more. But, if you feel that Obama's magic hand can cure the economy (which isn't bad mind you . . . don't be fooled on that either . . .) then bless that magic hand . . .

I don't want the government involved in health care, nor do I want the government confiscating my money to fund social security payments to me when I retire.

drunkpirate66 wrote:

LIPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:A vote for McCain will bring a presidency that is virtually incapable of getting any legislation passed in a Democratic congress.

...gee, in these turbulent times, does that sound real wise??

And if no legislation was passed in a Democratic-controlled Congress because the President is Republican, whose fault would that be?

Maybe politicians should take a step back and decide, no matter what side of the aisle they're on, to do what's best for the country instead of what's best for their party. But then they'd actually have to take responsibility for what they do instead of just saying "I'm not the other guy."

It would also be nice for people to define what they feel the President does. Because if you think the President has anything to do with Wall Street you are wrong (most Economists feel 10 years after a President's term is when you see the effect of his and his cabinet's decisions in terms of the economy . . . . what I learned in college and what I tend to believe). Obama is as into big corporations as anyone else. Don't be fooled or lied to. The parties are there to create an "us" versus "them" mentality . . . I agree with Larry, here.

The President's job revolves around the Joint Chiefs, the Cabinet he creates, and the Supreme Court and little more. But, if you feel that Obama's magic hand can cure the economy (which isn't bad mind you . . . don't be fooled on that either . . .) then bless that magic hand . . .

I minored in Poly Sci in school, and I do know that the President is not the all-knowing Oz...
but in times of grave uncertainty... and you won't need 10 years to figure out that this is quickly becoming the closest thing to economic collapse we've seen since the Depression,
the POTUS is looked upon as a beacon. Leadership will not emerge from Congress unless absolutely none other emerges, and you probably will not see it til '09.
Bush and McCain both took a lot of heat yesterday for trying to say (yet again) "the economy's fundamentals are strong".
The public does know bull**** when it can see and experience it, and they won't have it.
McCain would have to go against his grain to LEAD THE CALL and REGULATE to rein in the tumbling financial institutions (like the AIG and Lender bailouts).
Sure, you could let those huge firms fail and collapse, but the residual fallout would like none we've ever seen.
Lots of other firms would collapse in the undertow, loads more jobs would be lost.

I'll put Obama's economic team (led by Robert Rubin) up against McCain's, which sees this as a mere hiccup, anyday. Phil Gramm thinks we're all just imagining this... amazing!

LIPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:A vote for McCain will bring a presidency that is virtually incapable of getting any legislation passed in a Democratic congress.

...gee, in these turbulent times, does that sound real wise??

And if no legislation was passed in a Democratic-controlled Congress because the President is Republican, whose fault would that be?

Maybe politicians should take a step back and decide, no matter what side of the aisle they're on, to do what's best for the country instead of what's best for their party. But then they'd actually have to take responsibility for what they do instead of just saying "I'm not the other guy."

I agree, and I saw news of that sort live as it was happening last night.
You should have seen the look on Sean Hannity's face as he announced breaking news of the $85 billion "assistance" extended to AIG!!
He was just a little bit red in the face!

Lightning Bolt wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

LIPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:A vote for McCain will bring a presidency that is virtually incapable of getting any legislation passed in a Democratic congress.

...gee, in these turbulent times, does that sound real wise??

And if no legislation was passed in a Democratic-controlled Congress because the President is Republican, whose fault would that be?

Maybe politicians should take a step back and decide, no matter what side of the aisle they're on, to do what's best for the country instead of what's best for their party. But then they'd actually have to take responsibility for what they do instead of just saying "I'm not the other guy."

It would also be nice for people to define what they feel the President does. Because if you think the President has anything to do with Wall Street you are wrong (most Economists feel 10 years after a President's term is when you see the effect of his and his cabinet's decisions in terms of the economy . . . . what I learned in college and what I tend to believe). Obama is as into big corporations as anyone else. Don't be fooled or lied to. The parties are there to create an "us" versus "them" mentality . . . I agree with Larry, here.

The President's job revolves around the Joint Chiefs, the Cabinet he creates, and the Supreme Court and little more. But, if you feel that Obama's magic hand can cure the economy (which isn't bad mind you . . . don't be fooled on that either . . .) then bless that magic hand . . .

I minored in Poly Sci in school, and I do know that the President is not the all-knowing Oz...
but in times of grave uncertainty... and you won't need 10 years to figure out that this is quickly becoming the closest thing to economic collapse we've seen since the Depression,
the POTUS is looked upon as a beacon. Leadership will not emerge from Congress unless absolutely none other emerges, and you probably will not see it til '09.
Bush and McCain both took a lot of heat yesterday for trying to say (yet again) "the economy's fundamentals are strong".
The public does know bull**** when it can see and experience it, and they won't have it.
McCain would have to go against his grain to LEAD THE CALL and REGULATE to rein in the tumbling financial institutions (like the AIG and Lender bailouts).
Sure, you could let those huge firms fail and collapse, but the residual fallout would like none we've ever seen.
Lots of other firms would collapse in the undertow, loads more jobs would be lost.

I'll put Obama's economic team (led by Robert Rubin) up against McCain's, which sees this as a mere hiccup, anyday. Phil Gramm thinks we're all just imagining this... amazing!

I know nothing about the economy compared to those who actually in the field. But I do know a few things: 1. People on unemplyoment are still getting their checks . . . 2. Mall Parking Lots are still slammed even during the monday - friday working hours so people have both time and money to spend . . . 3. I have friends and family who work as carpenters/ plumbers/ electricians and they are all very busy so home owners are spending and getting loans for big 5 - 6 figure projects . . . 4. Sporting Events are sold out coast to coast and that aint cheap . . . 5. College are turning away a record number of students this year (Source: Time Magazine) because more kids are applying which means that student loans are still coming through . . . 6. The Euro messed up alot of the World's Trade and when that rectifies itself our economy will level . . .

I could go on. I don't think things are bad. I know the numbers that you could throw at me and I know that some have it rough. I feel bad for them. But that is not the President's job. I know we all love to hear whoever is occupying the President's chair in the Oval Office speak about helping your fellow neighbors and alll that motivational stuff the President is supposed to say but that is not the reality of the job. Obama is exploiting that because he speaks well . . . there is no way (and if he gets elected and I am wrong I will admit this freely) he can do even half of what he claims . . . no way. None. It is both laughable and insulting the way he speaks because I know he is lying. Not to say McCain is 100 percent truthful but Obama is just so far out there we might as well call him Santa Claus.

Lightning Bolt wrote:I'm glad that a number of PH's here feel that everything is pretty much OK,
even in the wake of the Wall St. collapse that is occurring as we speak.

btw, have you taken a look at your 401k or IRA status lately?...because chances are you're losing a good 20-30% of your retirement savings this year.
Is this what you call "being better off" than living under a different party President??

But, hey, I know you don't need that pesky government to get in the way of CEO's collecting their "golden handshakes" while you just paid for it.
I know you're pretty good with all that, because they're the ones that create the jobs...
before, of course, they take away your health benefits... or lay you off all together!

I've lost my A$$ the last few days......I'm not panicked YET....but it has been disconcerting to say the least.....