Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

McCain's proposal would increase health insurance costs for most people

This letter has not been edited

Cary J Polevoy, Centennial

Published October 16, 2008 at 6 p.m.

Text size  

Sorry, but the Rocky editorial, “Dueling med plans,” has it completely wrong. As a result, you came to the wrong conclusion. To begin with, aside from the analysis of various non-partisan organizations, the McCain proposal would increase the cost of health insurance for most people, not reduce it. McCain’s assumption that a $5,000 family tax credit would favorably contribute to reducing family insurance costs is simply wrong, unless he is expecting Americas to settle for bare-bones insurance. The result of that would be to place an ever greater burden on emergency rooms and hospitals as insurance coverage would prove inadequate for millions under his plan - except the wealthy, of course.

In my own family’s pretty typical case, under McCain, it would cost me MORE for insurance. The fact that he would desire to actually tax insurance benefits received from employers would be devastating to countless millions.

OIn the other hand, within Obama’s plan, while he says the following: “Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage,” he is actually talking about providing access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP). If you would take the time to actually familiarize yourself and your readers with this plan, you would see that it is a menu of insurance plans from multiple private health insurance companies, like Anthem, Aetna, Humana, etc. The premiums and coverages vary, based on what someone considers best for their situation.

Further, the premiums are competitive with employer-based plans.

Further, one might suspect, based on what insurance is intended to do, premiums might possibly have room to fall as the pool of insureds expands. That assumes, of course, that insurance companies cease being inefficient in their own management and place just a bit less emphasis on stockholder profits. Between administrative inefficiencies and the insatiable need for ever higher profits for publicly owned insurance companies, it would not be unreasonable to find anywhere from 10 to 25 percent cost savings in health insurance.

The use of tax credits, indexed to inflation or not (and indexing would be a fiscally huge mistake), would provide no encouragement for insurers to become more cost-effective and price competitive. Plus de facto eliminating or minimizing the oversight by states over plans as they would be offered interstate would be akin to what we have seen take place in banking - a disaster waiting to happen.

Your stand on McCain’s plan is simply wrong.

Comments

  • October 16, 2008

    8:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    LetsThink writes:

    I don't buy Cary's viewpoint.

    And the question that should be asked: why does the government need to provide health insurance for us??

    This would just be another dangerous step towards socialism.