The McCain campaign, in the latest of a series of conference calls to bloggers, unveiled its ideas for reforming health care in the US. Several blogs report details; I appreciated Matt Lewis’ blog at Townhall, which identified the callers as Seni…

for one thing, they’re preventing provider (yes, doctors and hospitals) fraud, something that is killing Medicare.

Onager on April 30, 2008 at 7:49 AM

That’s a very expensive watchdog for that fraud detection service.

I don’t understand what kind of service the insurance company is providing.

for one thing, they’re preventing provider (yes, doctors and hospitals) fraud, something that is killing Medicare.

I love the drug reimportation question. Are you for buying drugs from foreign countries? McCain was asked about that today:
Matt Lewis, Townhall: It’s easier to sell liberal ideas as opposed to free-market solutions. How do they plan to do the latter…

If he would heed the advice of an actual conservative economist, that would be OK… Unfortunately, McCain’s arrogance will never allow him to take good advice.

But at least he tends to trust the market to provide solutions.

I’m not sure I like the taxation on employer-based health care, as it would hit across the board and act exactly like a tax increase.

No, it’s exactly the right move, and it won’t be a tax increase. It will effectively divorce health insurance (‘healthcare’) from employment, which has been an albatross around its neck.

History: The definition of health insurance as a employment ‘benefit’ stems from WWII, when, because of wage and price controls, employers could not offer raises. So they offered compensation in another way: ‘benefits’, principally health insurance. This has totally hamstrung the system ever since: instead of the individual choosing his insurance, he’s stuck with whatever his employer offers. For small employers, those options are extremely limited.

With a Section 125 plan, which presumably will still obtain, an employer can let employees pay for insurance pre-tax, even if the employees pay the full premium (they do anyway; it’s all compensation). Once health insurance is out of the employer’s hair (saving HR money), and the employees are out in the marketplace shopping for their own (as they do life, car, home insurances) everyone will benefit. And the tax deductions for individuals will help everyone, too.

Pre-tax insurance premiums, plus a tax deduction. What’s not to like?

And, just by the way, there is no such thing as preventative care for an issue that already exists. That is called, “treatment”.

I’m talking about tests that were run years ago to look for the cause of a minor condition that my be a symptom of a mjor condition. That’s preventive care. When all tests come back normal, and an insurance company, many years later, still defines it as a “pre-existing condition”, there’s something wrong.

Tort reform will comprise part of this package to reduce the burden of litigation.

If this happens (which I doubt. The DC insiders have too much wrapped up in the current tort system to want to reform it) then the bulk of the problem is solved. Get rid of frivilous law suits and costs will go down. The big reason that healthcare is so expensive because of the rise of malpractice suits and the rising cost of malpractice insurance. Granted, there are other reasons, but this is root of the issue and the basis of a solution, not a government take-over.

Not true.

Yes it is.

You have a very rosy view of insurance companies.

No I don’t. I’ve worked in the insurance industry (for a software vendor) since 1964 and I know full well how the majority of these companies work.

They define “pre-existing conditions” down to the point that any prescription (even for medicines that have since been approved for OTC sales) are grounds for denial of coverage, with no options for an exclusion.

“They” do NOT. Some may, but certainly not all.

I understand that this kind of situation is common, especially when people seek preventive care for minor medical issues;

Your understanding is wrong. And, just by the way, there is no such thing as preventative care for an issue that already exists. That is called, “treatment”.

the insurance industry actually provides a disincentive for seeking preventive care.

You need to contact an HMO. An HMO (health maintenance organization) operates more on the wave length you’re looking for. An insurance company provides a product that covers risk.

Uh, if the condition is pre-existing you’re not looking for insurance you’re looking for a condition subsidy. Insurance, by definition, covers RISK – the possibility of something happening, not something certain to happen.

Not true. You have a very rosy view of insurance companies. They define “pre-existing conditions” down to the point that any prescription (even for medicines that have since been approved for OTC sales) are grounds for denial of coverage, with no options for an exclusion. In my case, no definitive diganosis was made because the condition subsided before my campus clinic could figure out what it was. I understand that this kind of situation is common, especially when people seek preventive care for minor medical issues; it is perverse that by focusing on such things, the insurance industry actually provides a disincentive for seeking preventive care. It’s idiotic.

The biggest problem with individual insurance is that insurance companies often don’t want to provide coverage to individuals based on “pre-existing conditions”

Uh, if the condition is pre-existing you’re not looking for insurance you’re looking for a condition subsidy. Insurance, by definition, covers RISK – the possibility of something happening, not something certain to happen.

Incidentially, most individual insurance comapanis will cover you with a pre-existign condition if there’s no reoccurence of the condition for a defined period. That period varies by company but the most extreme is 10 years.

Alternatively, if the condition isn’t a threat to other body systems, a company will cover you but rider (exclude) that particular condition.

Or voting Democrat (Clinton) in teh Indiana primary.
Onager on April 29, 2008 at 3:33 PM

This doesn’t hurt McCain. It helps Hillary. Today, Rush suspended Operation Chaos. As I suspected, Hillary is going to swipe the nomination with the help of Republicans. I am voting for Paul next week in NC,

We have to keep him below 50% in the remaining primaries, even if it means voting for Paul (the lesser of 4 evils).

Valiant on April 29, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Or voting Democrat (Clinton) in teh Indiana primary.

Spiraling health care costs are largely due to third-party payments. A consumer has less incentive to economize health care spending if they know an insurance company is paying the costs. Hunting for a deal on yearly physicals or open heart surgery be…

Red Pill on April 29, 2008 at 3:07 PM

The problem is there is no conservative leader out there willing to swipe the nomination from McCain. I do fantasize about a brokered convention. We have to keep him below 50% in the remaining primaries, even if it means voting for Paul (the lesser of 4 evils).

I’m swiping at the jackass democrat we managed to nominate for the general.

Sigh.

jdub on April 29, 2008 at 1:48 PM

He hasn’t been nominated yet. I know most people think it’s already a done deal, but I don’t. There may yet be hope for a brokered convention. Look at what the Ron Paul supporters are doing in Nevada. Instead of slamming them, why not support their efforts to work within the law and save us from the travesty of a McCain nomination.

I respect McCain’s service to our country, but he certainly does not represent anything close to the mainstream of the Republican party base, and if he has cheated in any way (Washington state, Florida, Texas) or suppressed the vote using dishonest media, then he doesn’t deserve to be nominated at the convention.

What the hell is wrong with Arizona anyway?

Snake307 on April 29, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Illegals.

BigD on April 29, 2008 at 1:52 PM

He’ll raise taxes first and promise tort reform later. It is the old Potomac two-step.

I think, that’s the root of the problem…It’s what’s driving the cost to begin with.

They called McCain’s visit to hospitals a “tribute” to the excellence of American medical care, and hoped to bolter that excellence while reforming the insurance system to allow for better competition and broader coverage.

Give me some more corporate-speak b.s., please.

Tort reform will comprise part of this package to reduce the burden of litigation.

Even Maverick McCain, if he really means it, would never, ever, ever be able to reach far enough across the aisle to accomplish this. I also don’t like him tying tort reform to just health care — tort reform needs to go well beyond that. Not that it will ever come about.

It is a tax increase.

If your taxes go up, see, and you made the same amount of money, your taxes… increased.

I’m not swiping at Ed, here, if that’s what it seems like. I’m swiping at the jackass democrat we managed to nominate for the general.

Sigh.