Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Today's Q's For O's White House
- Afghanistan Offensive and Iraq Withdrawal: Obama's National Security Advisor Discusses Both with ABC News
- Who Makes the Big Bucks at the White House?
- Obama Quizzed at Health Care Town Hall: On Taxing Benefits, Single Payer System, and Costs
- Today's Q's for O's White House
- Spotlight on Non-Profit Work, Obama Calls on “Deep Pockets”
- Obama says Iraqi People Right to Celebrate
- Today's Q's for O's White House
- POTUS to LGBT: "Welcome to Your White House"
- Obama Gives Biden Iraq Assignment
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama's Advisers Vs. Obama on Health Care?
October 25, 2008 1:48 PM
The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board takes a look at Sen. Barack Obama's attacks on Sen. John McCain's health care proposal -- and how some of his arguments seem to contradict principles outlined by a couple Obama advisers.
Obama's economic adviser Jason Furman, specifically, wrote in the first issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas in Summer 2006, "The fact that the tax subsidy, which supports the employer-sponsored system, is better than nothing is a feeble excuse for resisting any changes to the status quo." (You can read the whole article HERE, registration required.)
Says the Journal: "Furman implored fellow Democrats and other progressives to confront 'a critical missing link' in their health ideology -- the same link his boss now spends most of his time demagoguing. Mr. Furman used to portray the current system as regressive, inequitable and a subsidy for health plans that insulate consumers from the cost of their care, thus inflating health spending. When he was director of the Brooking Institution's Hamilton Project, Mr. Furman outlined a health reform -- again using tax credits -- that took the 'sensible approach' of 'exposing individuals to the price of health care through greater cost sharing.'"
The Journal also notes that Obama adviser David Cutler, the Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics at Harvard, in his 2004 book "Your Money or Your Life," wrote that "Health insurance is not something that is made better by tying it to employment. As a result, essentially all economists believe that universal coverage should be done outside of employment."
"Cutler's plan," writes the Journal, "like Mr. McCain's, also applied subsidies such as 'tax credits -- people get a lower tax bill, or a refund from the government, to be used to purchase insurance.' In this he was echoing many other liberal health experts such as MIT's Jonathan Gruber, another Democratic policy star. These advisers know that Mr. Obama's claim that Mr. McCain will tax health benefits 'for the first time in history' is particularly disingenuous. For people who stick with employer coverage under the McCain plan, the money employers take out of wages to pay for insurance would be taxed, but the new credit more than covers the bill. The people who decide to buy coverage on their own would see their wages rise. And everyone who joins the individual market -- many of them uninsured now -- would be equipped with new health dollars, instead of paying with after-tax income."
Obama spox Bill Burton replies: "The Wall Street Journal took quotes from Jason Furman out of context. The health plans he outlined before joining the campaign had much more in common with the plan Barack Obama has proposed than the plan John McCain has proposed. For example, as Ezra Klein noted, 'What Furman has described here is a new health care system that looks almost identical to Barack Obama's National Health Insurance Exchange.'"
Burton adds, "In fact, Furman explicitly warned about precisely the type of plan that John McCain is proposing, writing: 'When conservatives look at the tax code's effect on health care, they all too often use the current crisis as a pretext to cut taxes and shift risk onto individuals; some even want to eliminate all the tax incentives for the employer-sponsored system without creating any meaningful alternative… With no subsidy at all, some employers would drop their health insurance plans and some of the 174 million people with employer-sponsored health insurance would lose it, especially those working at smaller companies that are already on the verge of dropping their coverage.'"
-- jpt
October 25, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (23)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Most the people commenting on this story are missing the key element of Sen. McCain's plan. The $5,000 tax credit ($2,500 for individuals) can be used to directly purchase insurance for the 41% of Americans who do NOT have employer-sponsored health care - people who currently receive NO tax benefit to purchase insurance.
For the remaining 59%, who DO have job-related insurance that they can KEEP, the tax credit covers the additional tax liability created when the tax subsidy/exemption they currently get (to the tune of $200 BILLION annually) is REPLACED by the tax credit.
For example, a family earning $80,000 a year in a 25% tax bracket with a $12,000 a year plan will get $5,000 to cover their new $3,000 tax liability - with $2,000 left over to go into a health savings account - about $1,200 per family on average. The new FAIR tax subsidy benefits ALL Americans, not just those with job-related coverage.
And with Sen. McCain's proposed new national marketplace for insurance, premiums will drop as well, due to competition and pricing transparency. For example, in New Jersey, which has over 40 mandated coverage items, a 25 year old man psy about $5,500 for a good policy. But if he's willing to forgo acupuncture or in vitro fertilization, or any combination of items he has to pay for even if he'll never use them, under McCain's plan, he could buy the same basic coverage in Kentucky, with fewer mandates, for about $800. Sen. McCain's $2,500 individual tax credit would MORE than cover that plan - with $1,700 left over that would be deposited directly into a portable health savings account for him to use on uncovered things like glasses or co-pays, or even acupuncture, if he wants it. Opening up the marketplace will save American families about$1,400 per year, according to an independent estimate, and on its own will allow about 12 million people who can't afford health insurance in their own states purchase their own with the use of their tax credit.
And despite what the Obama camp is claiming, Sen. McCain will NOT pay for this plan by cutting Medicare - he has a whole group of proposals, including streamling payments, reducing fraud and waste, lower drug prices and not paying for medical mistakes that will cover any additional costs.
Independent estimates note that Sen. McCain's plan will reduce the number of uninsured in America by 27.5 million - more than half of those currently uninsured. Obama's plan will cover fewer at a higher cost.
And, yes, the money can ONLY be spent on health care - why wouldn't it be, since that's what it's FOR?
Posted by: Donna | Oct 28, 2008 9:20:48 AM
First off I would like to put to rest the claim that Obama's healthcare plan is socialized medicine because socialized medicine means that the Government pays for your doctor bills. This is not the case under Obama's plan, under his healthcare plan people would be able to keep the insurance that they already have the Government would just work with your providers to lower premiums. If you like many Americans are uninsured you would then have the option to buy into the same plan that Federal employees have, you would still pay a premium like you would if went and got your own health insurance or most employer based insurance plans require some employee payment of at least part of their premium. My mother is an employee of the U.S. Postal Service here in North Dakota so I have been under this Government employee coverage before and had BlueCross BlueShield of ND. Obama's plan will also give people with Pre-existing conditions coverage at a reasonable rate. I personally have Chronic Low Back Pain due to a severely messed up disk. I have had health insurance before but the premiums just kept on rising to the point that I was paying twice as much as they were covering just in my premiums not including my co-pays. I have shecked recently to see what insurance would cost me now and I would have to pay at the very least $350 per month for insurance that would cover regular doctors visits and prescriptions plus my co-pays they would not cover any medical procrdures on my back though and I am looking at getting a total disk replacment surgery so that I can live a semi normal life. I have emailed both ampaigns with the specifics of my case almost 3 months ago and within 1 week I had an email back from the Obama Campaign in which they outlined his plan to help people with pre-existing conditions they were very specific and used things from my email to them which tells me that someone actually read the entire email. I have yet to receive even a standard reply from the McCain campaign but have read his proposal and he offers no real help for pre-existing conditions and no safegaurds against you healthinsurance provider from just raising the rates of individuals $2500 or families $5000 per year which is the amount of the proposed tax credit. This lack of consumer protection from premium increases really bothers me. It would help some but Obama's plan seems the best fit for me.
Posted by: Josh | Oct 26, 2008 6:01:10 AM
get real--the federal goverment made it possiable in the 50"s for me the working to get health care by ofering a new incentives ---ex---recieve 50 cents in pay increase or 40cents in cash & 35cents=75cents in health benefits @ a discount to the employer mccain plan would negate this --with his plan would not come close making ins. affordable 5,000 cant by a third rate plan john chiotti 70&retired
Posted by: john chiotti | Oct 25, 2008 10:12:45 PM
It figures. Not surprising.
Posted by: msa123 | Oct 25, 2008 8:07:25 PM
Why all the fuss NOW? It should be obvious that what CANDIDATES Obama/McCain say is irrelevant to what PRESIDENT O/Mc would actually do OR what the pres is even ABLE to do. The U.S. doesn't have the medical capacity to treat everyone anyway so get over the dream, false by the way, that universal coverage will suddenly appear and no one will have to pay anything for unlimited coverage. Surely you realize that....or do you really trust a government employee (Federal) with your health care? Yeah - like the great job Greenspan et al did....? You bet your life!
Posted by: LRL | Oct 25, 2008 7:48:51 PM
Why is the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board "conservative" but the
New York Times Editorial Board never
"liberal"?
Posted by: Pat Goff | Oct 25, 2008 7:44:18 PM
BHO has so many socialist ideas costing huge amount of bucks. With him, Mrs P the leader of the worse rated Congress in history (last I heard 9% compared to Pres. Bush's 29%) and Reid running things with a majority congress (if they get one) the country is screwed. If he loads the S Court with lib's that would give them all 4 branches of the government. 5, if you include the unions. This guy brings nothing new, he is bought and owned by Chi guys. If he wasn't he wouldn't be running for Pres.
Posted by: Ditcatcher | Oct 25, 2008 7:34:40 PM
I fail to see why one person's health insurance is subsidized if purchased via a businesss, but not if purchased directly. What happened to the fairness crowd?
Posted by: don'tgetit | Oct 25, 2008 6:57:32 PM
Jim said:
"We need a one payer universal system that doesn't discriminate based on health status and age."
I completely agree. How many people in their late 50s and early 60s could retire but for the outrageous cost of health insurance? This would open the way for young people to move into the jobs they would vacate.
And why is the US the only industrialized nation ON THE PLANET that does not have universal access single payer health insurance -- are we really that much smarter?
And, by the way - how much more competetive would US companies if they were not burdened by our health insurance profiteers? There is no question we pay more for health insurance than any where on the planet and yet our health outcomes are NOT the best in the world by many measures - so much for the free market is best lie.
Posted by: Dave | Oct 25, 2008 6:45:32 PM
Bud: You are right on. I am self employed and 56 years old with a history of heart problems. I pay $20,000 a year for my policy not including another $5000 for co-pays, prescriptions, co-insurance, and deductibles. I am an Obama supporter but I get so upset when I hear stories like this one where the advisors he surrounds himself with just don't get the point. We need a one payer universal system that doesn't discriminate based on health status and age. These guys get so wound up with tax credits here, and tax credits there. The issue is that the small business self employed and individuals seeking health insurance have half-ass plans to chose from and if by any chance they pose a risk to the insurer either by age or health status they are either denied or the policies are unaffordable. BCBS of NC audits my IRS forms each year to make sure I am still in business. If I am not, they will drop me and then I have to look for an individual policy. In the Carolinas I am UNINSURABLE!
Posted by: Jim | Oct 25, 2008 4:34:09 PM
God. WSJ's op-ed columns have really gotten low. All they do is attack Obama's plans, citing out-of-context statements and partisan data, without even some mention of the disadvantages of McCain's. The personal smears are as rabid as the McCain wingnuts and the mischaracterizations as grotesque. They are ready to pounce on Obama's ambition but hardly recognize McCain's blatant lack of competence, mentioning instead that fuzzy, vapory substance called 'experience' (no matter that the type of experience -- legislative -- is irrelevant).
WSJ is shameless in its willful neglect of this Republican disaster.
Posted by: AB | Oct 25, 2008 3:11:41 PM
God. WSJ's op-ed columns have really gotten low. All they do is attack Obama's plans, citing out-of-context statements and partisan data, without even some mention of the disadvantages of McCain's. The personal smears are as rabid as the McCain wingnuts and the mischaracterizations as grotesque. They are ready to pounce on Obama's ambition but hardly recognize McCain's blatant lack of competence, mentioning instead that fuzzy, vapory substance called 'experience' (no matter that the type of experience -- legislative -- is irrelevant).
WSJ is shameless in its willful neglect of this Republican disaster.
Posted by: AB | Oct 25, 2008 3:10:43 PM
Jake,
Why has no one done any stories on the impossibility of individuals replacing the benefits that they receive in a group plan with an individual plan, when employers start dropping group coverage as a result of McCain's plan? Individual health plans are vastly inferior to group plans.
I used to sell this stuff, pick your favorite online health care site and check it yourself. Anyone over 40 will be hard pressed to find a comparable plan with comparable benifits for a measely $2500 (or $5000 for a family).
And another funny thing about the McCain plan is that it is "a socialist plan," according to the McCain definition of socialism. Tax credit = Socialism.
He gives people a "tax credit" that is not tied to income. You can owe $0 in taxes and get $5000. That's socialism according to John McCain and the McCainiacs.
(And he supports child tax credits too - that Socialist!!!)
The health plan itself is terrible:
-group plans have lower deductibles and lower co-payments than individual plans
-the benefits and short eligibility periods in group dental coverage are unavailable in individual plans
-small business owners could be the ones worst hit, because they tend to be older and thus will face pre-existing conditions making them uninsurable
-AND most people with pre-existing health conditions seek out jobs with group plans in order to get coverage (because they are un-insurable - e.g. irregular pap smears, heart troubles, cancer survivors, etc.). This will be much tougher under John McCain's plan.
-Under John McCain's own health plan he himself would be un-insurable as a cancer survivor as well as having undergone numerous operations.
This McCain plan is bad news all around, so it's good to see that Obama has the wisdom not to go along with every idea some egg-head comes up with (as John McCain often seems to do).
And the funniest thing of all is that John McCain, friend of the taxpayer, raises taxes $3.6 trillion with his plan. Some friend to business.
Ridiculous.
Posted by: Bud | Oct 25, 2008 3:07:15 PM
Wall Street Journal and you have this thumb sucker. What next, Obama picks his nose in the shower?
Michelle uses hair straightener?
Someone carved "You're an idiot" on Palin's old clothes but wrote the R backwards and spelled You're "Ure" and added extra out of place pronouns to it, plus did it looking at the mirror?
McCain suspends his campaign again so as to go DC and add another 150 million in earmarks to a bill before he'll sign it?
Man won't this election day come already so we can read better written fantasies than the Palin-McCaain can come up with. Even children caan now see through their subterfuge and simplicity.
Posted by: fred fep | Oct 25, 2008 2:51:02 PM
Thinking
It was on all our news here Thinking..
John McCain's Pennsylvania communications director Peter Feldman told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established and even told reporters outright that the "B" carved into the victim's cheek stood for "Barack," according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.
John Verrilli, the news director for KDKA in Pittsburgh, told TPM Election Central that McCain's Pennsylvania campaign communications director gave one of his reporters a detailed version of the attack that included a claim that the alleged attacker said, "You're with the McCain campaign? I'm going to teach you a lesson."
DISCUSTING!!
Posted by: Aussie | Oct 25, 2008 2:33:42 PM
As an outsider...
BOTH THE HEALTH CARE CHOICES SUCK!
So then i guess the question is who's sucks less ?
OBAMA'S COVERS MORE PEOPLE WITH THE CHOICE TO ENTER THE SAME CARE AS HE AND MCCAIN GET...
MCCAINS WILL SEE LESS PEOPLE COVERED AND PEOPLE WILL SEE PEOPLE RECIVE LESS COVERAGE...
IN AUSTRALIA WE ALL GET COVERAGE COSTS ABOUT $800 A YEAR
AND THEN YOU CAN CHOOSE EXTRA COVERAGE (PRIVATE TO TOP IT UP) IT COVERS OTHER THINGS SO YOU DONT HAVE TO WAIT.
SORRY FOR the caps
Posted by: Aussie | Oct 25, 2008 2:28:56 PM
The B stood for Bullpoop. Let it go.
**************************************
McCain supporter?
Brian Williams states that the McCain Campiagn pushed the report. Why should I let it go?
Posted by: Thinking | Oct 25, 2008 2:23:40 PM
The health care systems of countries like the UK and Canada don't rely on dubious "tax credits" or force people to shop around for coverage from insurers who just might drop them or leave the state in which they reside. A system tied to employment, while imperfect, is a step in the right direction in ralizing that health care is a right, not a responsibility.
Posted by: chuck | Oct 25, 2008 2:21:16 PM
Palin Increasingly Disregarding Advice From Aides... Beginning To "Go Rogue"... Top McCain Aides "Going To Try And Shred Her After The Campaign To Divert Blame From Themselves"...
Posted by: Mike NC | Oct 25, 2008 2:19:07 PM
The B stood for Bullpoop. Let it go.
Posted by: Kitty | Oct 25, 2008 2:16:54 PM
Post a comment

