John McCain’s health care plan is right for America.

In a campaign where both candidates claim to be the agent of change, McCain wins that accolade, hands down, at least when it comes to health care. But he has done a miserable job in enunciating his plan.

I urge you to consider this editorial from the Wall Street Journal. It is written by Dr. David Gratzer, MD, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

In a nutshell, McCain’s plan aims to provide tax credits to individuals who purchase their own coverage. He also wants to allow people who live in states where premiums are high to purchase plans in other states where rates are much lower. And yes, his plan encourages high deductible health plans designed to work in conjunction with a health savings account.

At the heart of McCain’s plan is the recognition that employer-sponsored plans are growing increasingly scarce — for a variety of reasons, of course, but scarce nevertheless.

Encouraging people to buy their own plans through tax-incentives has at least 3 advantages, including:

1. Portability (employees who change jobs often lose their coverage)
2. More choice (most employees have only 1 plan to choose from at work)
3. A more mobile workforce (people would no longer feel compelled to stay at Job X for health benefits)

By contrast, Obama proposes more of the same-old, same-old, only with more regulation.

A noted economist has observed that this approach fails to address the underlying problems in the current system. In short, it would do nothing to decrease national health care spending, and in fact, would increase it.

That economist is Jason Furman, of the Brookings Institute. You may recognize the name — Mr. Furman is now economic policy director of Senator Obama’s campaign.

No plan is perfect. Ultimately, I predict that Medicare will become our version of “national health care.” We’ve already seen suggestions to lower Medicare admission age to 55. Something along those lines will eventually come to pass.

But regardless of how we get there as a nation, one thing is for certain: We are not going to be paying less for health care in the future. That being the case, individuals deserve the same tax-breaks enjoyed by corporations for decade when they purchase their own health care plans. And opening access across state lines is an idea that seems to have little, if any downside.

Thanks for reading. Your thoughts and comments are welcome.

C. Dean Richard, JD, MSBA
“the HSA king”

As the New York Times article states:

Virtually all large employers offered coverage, but only 62 percent of small companies did. People working for big companies were also paying less — about $3,000 a year for family coverage — compared with $4,100 for those in small companies.

Faced with the choice of dropping coverage altogether, many small companies have opted for health plans that ask employees to pay much more in the form of deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. One in three workers in small businesses has annual deductibles of $1,000 or more, in contrast to one in five in the previous year’s survey.

The article jumps to the conclusion that government intervention is closer than we may think.

COMMENT:
Typical left-wing perspective from the Times, but the numbers don’t lie either. As more and more small companies are dropping coverage all together, they are opting for individual coverage. And all individuals who are taxpayers are eligible for health savings account plans.

These plans can save a bundle, especially when the employer sponsors a health reimbursement plan. Ask us for more details.

This is a hot topic and because this particular articles does an excellent job explaining the issue, I urge you to click here and read the article from the Heartland Institute.

COMMENT:

And you thought the days of businessmen being in bed with Congressmen were over. What a sham!

Simply amazing how egg-headed certain members of Congress can be. Thankfully, the President will veto this garbage should it ever pass the Senate.