Be the Spark!

contribute now

From the Conventions: Health Care Cures

AIR DATE: Tuesday, August 26th 2008
Download the mp3 for this show.
None
How would the competing health care plans of presidential candidates John McCain and Barak Obama affect you?

Here's one thing presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain seem to agree on: the nation's health care system is ill and needs a cure. That's where the agreement ends. The candidates' medicine for the system would be very different.

With Dave Miller bringing in views from the Democratic National Convention in Denver, we'll explore the details of the different plans and how they would affect life and health here. Obama would require that children be insured and is proposing access to insurance for everyone through a new federal program. His program also would require many employers cover their workers and would let young people stay covered through their parents' insurance up to age 25.

McCain proposes a tax credit of $5000 for families and $2500 for individuals to use to buy health insurance. He would cap malpractice awards as a way to cut costs and cut back on state regulation to encourage a national competitive marketplace for insurance.

There are about 45 million Americans without health insurance now. That includes more than half a million (pdf) in Oregon, although the Office for Oregon Health Policy & Research documented slight improvement in 2006. (Watch for 2007 numbers coming out Wednesday.) Are you you uninsured? Or do you have insurance but find you're pinched by rising costs? Do you run a business that covers your employees? Or can you not afford to?

How would the competing presidential health care proposals change your situation?

GUESTS:

  • Kathryn Rayner: Bookkeeper in Redmond
  • Harvey Williams Case manager for a company that provides services for people with disabilities
  • Ron Maurer: Oregon state representative, owner of Rogue River Health Clinic
  • Earl Blumenauer: U.S. Congressman representing Oregon's third district

Photo credit: Autistic Psycho / Flickr / Creative Commons

Tagged as: convention · insurance · medicine · oregon health plan

Unfortunately neither candidate is addressing the root cause of the medical disaster unfolding in the US. The spiraling costs of healthcare are related to the grotesque profits that the health insurance companies make, without adding any positive contribution to the medical health of the nation and the ever increasing profits that drug companies earn.

Tax credits are a ridiculous approach, both ignoring the underlying problems and reducing the overall federal income when it is already grossly in dept. Although Obama's plan is closer to universal healthcare, it again does not address any of the underlying cost problems.

The US, having the highest spending per capita on healthcare, is remiss in not allowing universal healthcare to be available to every resident, as is now the case in almost every other developed nation. Why do we continue to languish in this backward philosophy of not caring for our nation's health? Universal healthcare would not only benefit the populous, it would provide a level playing field for employers, now struggling under the burden of ever increasing costs which companies in other countries do not have to bear.

As Aneurin Bevin, the father of the UK National Health Service, said in 1946: "No society can call itself civilized if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means".
MattBromley —
Yes, you are correct that insurance is the hidden devil in the details. I remember when health insurance was a choice, and it was only used for emergency ills. A standard physical, care for flu or a cold or an infection was affordable. A doctor's visit was around $35, and if you aren't going to the doctor more than twice a year, to pay for insurance was absurd. Oh yes, and doctor's actually made house calls and had their own office - not some clinic where you end up being seen by a nurse and not a doctor.

That was only 20 years ago. Then the insurance companies began paying lobbyists to rub shoulders with Congress and further their profits. Congress began their fear tactics with 'what ifs'. HMOs? That's where this all started. Pharmaceutical companies, medical labs, and so on saw that they could make more money if people were insured instead of paying out of their pocket - and the greed took off.

But I don't believe the answer is universal health care - that's just bringing us closer to losing our freedoms and becoming a socialist government. The answer is to cap health providers and get rid of insurance except for emergencies and severe problems.

My employer shouldn't be responsible for my health - it is my body and mind - it is my responsibility. But my health should be something that I can independently afford to maintain, and my employer can offer health insurance for major illnesses if they so choose. Consider what percentage of people actually have major illnesses or injuries. Right now your monthly insurance cost is paying for that person that goes to the doctor for a hangnail, not just the person who has cancer.
cinnamon327 —
I love Think Out Loud and frequently listen (in the evenings since I work all day). I will definitely listen tomorrow since health care is an interest of mine.
McCains' plan is idiocy and won't help those with pre-existing conditions. Those with pre-existing conditions pay astronomical amounts for health insurance if they can even get it at all, so the tax credit will be useful to them. And as another poster mentions, adding this huge tax credit is stupid when the country is already in debt. If McCain gets elected and gets rid of the COBRA law and other laws protecting continuity of coverage (since he might do since he promises to cut regulation of insurance companies) there will be a lot of people who won't be able to get insurance.
dianewills —
Tax credits only benefit families with higher incomes. Tax credits do nothing to help low income families afford health care. McCain would maintain the status quo where well-off people have health insurance and the poor do not.
Jesse42 —
Although McCain's plan has problems, you are incorrect Jesse42, according to my understanding. McCain's tax credit would apply even to those who do not pay taxes, low income families would actually receive more money back from the IRS than they pay. Whether they receive enough or not will depend on the cost of insurance, and could be debated.
Bob88salem —
Definitely agree with MattBromley.

Mr. Obama's plan is clearly preferable to Mr. McCain's. But Mr. Obama's plan does not go far enough. It is simply more of the same with a thin 'universal' veneer on-top. The insurance companies would still control everything. It is unfortunate that we are not getting this right from the get-go. America is again choosing the lesser of two evils.

I am feeling, like I might be inclined to think, that nothing is better then getting it wrong. Once Mr. Obama's plan is implemented it well be incredibly hard to have a second go at true universal health-care.
scottmil —
For Obama's plan: If what you buy in at is dependent on how much one makes, will those who make more be able to get better benefits?
adab785 —
For health care, there should be no such thing as better. There should simply be what you need.
fatmidwesternwhiteguy —
Just like the Federal Govt. provides subsidized flood insurance for houses in flood plains, I would like the government subsidize health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions.

Right now, healthy people that don't get health insurance through their employment generally don't buy insurance because it is so expensive. This leaves mostly those with "undocumented" pre-existing conditions purchasing insurance, driving up the costs. Under Obama's plan, the cost of insurance will rise. Under McCain's plan, either the cost of insurance will rise, or insurance companies will deny coverage to even more people with pre-existing conditions.
Bob88salem —
McCain's health plan embeds individal income tax increase to all of us that have employer provided health care. I would have to pay 10,000 out of pocket of taxable income to match my tax free employer provided care (after the tax credit). If my employer adds this 10,000 to my compensation then my entire income will be taxed at a higher rate along with the tax I have to pay on the added dollars. This is how he plans to finance the plan- increase tax on the middle class! Common- let's get this out in th open!!!

Side note- as an a person not a company- this same insurance for my family would acutally be 20,000 out of pocket of taxed income.
lsteckley —
This discussion is largely missing the point. The arguments that offering a tax credit will help people is a scam. The truth is a person like the lady with the brain bleed will likely be unable to even get insurance. She is shut out of the system because the insurance companies know they will never make money off of her.

The only way to fix teh problem is have government sponsered care, so ALL people have a chance to receive care. Rather than offer a tax credit, use money to fund a national program. This would eliminate the cost issue as well because the government could negotiate with healthcare providers for the best price because the government would collectively negotiate for everyone. In other words, if the healthcare providers don't reduce thier price they would be out all together.

Its the same technique the PPO and HMO employ, but it would be on a much larger scale, and their wouldn't be someone in the middle milking the system for a profit.
sampdx —
I think the root cause is the rationing that the insurance companies engage in. For example, MRI's. MRI is an old technology now. The cost should have come down due to economics of scale 15 years ago like any other technology does. But since it has been so heavily rationed from the beginning, it remains very expensive. I think if we do away with the insurance rationing by having a universal health care, and focus on providers supplying competitive bids for services, we will see a reduction in costs.
fatmidwesternwhiteguy —
How about regulating and standardizing costs for specific services? Our company recently decided to self-insure for vision coverage, but ended up going back to purchasing vision insurance when we found out that providers were charging different fees for the same services depending on which insurance company you had. It actually worked out cheaper to go back to buying an insurance policy. The provider charged higher fees for the same exam because we didn't have an actual policy.
katyludwig —
I am employed and insured - between my employer and my self we together pay just over $1000/month (I pay $228 they pay $836) for my husband and I (both 37). I am planning on quitting my job in a few months and have been shopping for health insurance that my husband's small business can purchase - and we have found very affordable health insurance through ehealthinsurance.com anywhere from $65.00 - $424.00/month depending on how much deductible and frills you purchase. This is much more affordable than the health care I am now getting through my employer because they are purchasing plans that can suit hundreds of employees rather than getting a plan tailored to my specific needs that would keep my insurance costs down. So I don't quite understand why there are so many uninsured - have they just not shopped around? I do not support universal health care that limits my choices in health care. I would only want universal health care that covers people who truly can not afford insurance, such as children, disabled, elderly, and very poor. For everyone else, it is personal responsibility to take care of your needs, such as housing, food and healthcare.
Trisha G —
I'd like to hear more from Rep. Mauer about what it means to dismantle the current employer-paid system. Right now I pay about $7200 a year in pre-tax dollars to insure my family through my employer's plan. As expensive as that is, replacing it with a $5000 tax credit doesn't sound appealing.

My teenage foster daughter qualifies for Oregon Health Plan, and requires intensive mental health services. I'd like to hear how the two candidates' plans will cover mental health services, and how John McCain's plan would affect Oregon Health Plan.
sharonstern —
One of the areas that has not been addressed is the cost of health care to businesses. I am the director of a small not-for-profit. If I were to have health insurance for my employees it would cost me $10,000 a year for each employee. Multiply this by 5 employees it comes to $50,000. Our budget is just over $100,000. We can not afford to offer insurance. In many agencies, if an employee works more than 18.5 hours a week the agency must purchase insurance for them. Consequently, there are many people hired for only 18 hours, with no opportunity to work more for the same agency, even if they are needed. As a result, people are employed less, earn less money and are unable to purchase their own insurance. In addition, when hospitals and doctors deduct costs from a patients bill they are only bringing the cost down to a realistic level. Inflating medical costs is the issue. The State Rep. is absolutely right in saying cost is the issue that needs to be addressed.
Edie Jones —
As a country, we should be ashamed. Not a single dollar should go to oil subsidies until every child within our borders is covered. Shortly after meeting my wife she had a bicycle accident. We knew it was bad but at the time she did not have health coverage through her job and we feared going to a doctor or the hospital since it would likely cost thousands of dollars and could create a pre-existing condition status that would prevent us from getting coverage in the future. Now years later we think it was a concussion, The recovery was long and some of the fear could have been avoided by a doctors visit if only we had the option at the time.
We need a national single payer system and I will be voting for Obama in the hope of getting one some day.
coryfp —
I am the Corvallis ER Doctor who spoke at the end of the discussion about the elephant in the room being the insurance companies that neither candidate is willing to take on. Nobody even tangentially addressed my comments. On the other hand, they did talk about how EVERYBODY is avoiding the other difficult subjects such as ratcheting down our devotion to very expensive/marginally beneficial technologies and our abysmal approach to end of life issues. The "R" word, rationing is only spoken of in the negative. We currently ration by health insurance status. Wouldn't it make more sense to ration our precious public resource on the basis of how we can get the greatest health and the least suffering for our health care dollars? For a video that addresses three questions about our health care system: 1) Why does it cost so much? 2) What does is say about us? 3) What can we do about it? ... I direct you to www.ourailinghealthcare.com

phochfeld —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics