PDA

View Full Version : McCain Plans Federal Health Cuts


aiki14
10-07-2008, 09:50 PM
From the WSJ:

McCain Plans Federal Health Cuts
Medicare, Medicaid Spending Would Be Reduced to Offset Proposed Tax Credit

John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs.

The Republican presidential nominee has said little about the proposed cuts, but they are needed to keep his health-care plan "budget neutral," as he has promised. The McCain campaign hasn't given a specific figure for the cuts, but didn't dispute the analysts' estimate.

In the months since Sen. McCain introduced his health plan, statements made by his campaign have implied that the new tax credits he is proposing to help Americans buy health insurance would be paid for with other tax increases.

But Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain's senior policy adviser, said Sunday that the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid. Those government health-care programs serve seniors, poor families and the disabled. Medicare spending for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30 is estimated at $457.5 billion.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the Medicare and Medicaid changes would improve the programs and eliminate fraud, but he didn't detail where the cuts would come from. "It's about giving them the benefit package that has been promised to them by law at lower cost," he said.

Both Sen. McCain and his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, have recently sought to refocus on health care. The issue once ranked at the top of voters' domestic concerns, but has in recent months been eclipsed by energy and the economy.

Sen. McCain charges that the Obama plan, which would create a government-run marketplace in which people could buy coverage, would lead to government-run health care. Sen. Obama charges that Sen. McCain's plan would leave many people unable to get insurance.

Sen. Obama's campaign turned up the volume in a major push on health care over the weekend with two days of attacks from the stump, four new television advertisements, a series of health-care events across the country and fliers to voters' homes in swing states.


Sen. Obama is focused on Sen. McCain's plan to offer a new tax credit of $2,500 per person and $5,000 per family toward insurance premiums. This would allow people to buy health coverage on the open market, where they may have more choices and might look for a better bargain.

In exchange, the government would begin taxing the value of health benefits people get through work. If an employer spends $10,000 to buy a worker health insurance, the worker would pay taxes on that money.

"It's a shell game," Sen. Obama told an outdoor rally of 28,000 people Sunday in Asheville, N.C. "Sen. McCain gives you a tax credit with one hand -- but raises your taxes with the other."

Sen. McCain's plan actually would lower taxes for most people. But that means the plan wouldn't pay for itself, because it cuts certain taxes more than it raises others.

The federal government imposes two taxes on wages, generally: an income tax, which funds the government's general operations, and the payroll tax, paid for by employers and employees, which funds Social Security and Medicare. If Sen. McCain were to apply both of these to the value of health benefits, he could fully pay for his new tax credits. That is what aides have in the past suggested he would do.

In April, when Sen. McCain gave a major speech about his health plan, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, the senior policy adviser, said the tax provisions alone were budget neutral -- meaning that health benefits would have to be subject to both income and payroll taxes.

Campaign officials have regularly implied since then that the tax plan was a wash. In the vice-presidential debate last week, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin described Sen. McCain's proposed tax credits and said: "That's budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything, as opposed to Barack Obama's plan to mandate health-care coverage and have this universal, government-run program."

Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the campaign never intended to apply the payroll tax to health benefits. That means that most people would see a net tax cut, contrary to Sen. Obama's assertions. Only those with very rich benefits packages are likely to see a net increase in taxes. But it also means that Sen. McCain must fill a huge budget hole -- which the campaign says will come from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, estimates that the McCain plan would cost the government $1.3 trillion over 10 years. The plan would allow as many as five million more people to have insurance, it estimates.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the plan is accurately described as budget neutral because it assumes enough savings in Medicare and Medicaid spending to make up the difference. He said the savings would come from eliminating Medicare fraud and by reforming payment policies to lower the overall cost of care. He said the new tax credits will help some low-income people avoid joining Medicaid. The campaign also proposes increasing Medicare premiums for wealthier seniors.

Sen. Obama also would rely on some Medicare savings to pay for his health-care plan, which would offer subsidies to help consumers pay for premiums. The Tax Policy Center estimates that his plan would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years and cover 34 million more people.

Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com

aiki14
10-07-2008, 09:52 PM
Here's what The New Republic says about it:

McCain's Medicare Suicide


Jon has a meaty, substantive post about about today's Wall Street Journal's report that John McCain proposes to cut Medicare and Medicaid. I'll leave the substance to Jon for now, and point out that John McCain proposes to cut Medicare and Medicaid in an election year. You can't do that. That, alone, is enough to cost you an election. If Ronald Reagan did that in 1984, he might have lost.

Now, this may not seem like such a big deal given that McCain's campaign seems to be on the verge of death anyway. His candidacy at this point is like Rasputin -- having already been poisoned, shot multiple times, and clubbed, it has now been bound and thrown into an icy river. The election isn't over, but this development doesn't bode well for McCain.

aiki14
10-07-2008, 09:54 PM
Also from the New Republic:

McCain: I'm Not Raising Taxes. I'm Cutting Medicare!
Barack Obama says John McCain would raise people's taxes by changing the way the IRS looks at health insurance. McCain says he wouldn't.

Who's right?

Quite possibly McCain. But only because he's decided to slash Medicare and Medicaid instead.

Laura Meckler, who is one of the sharpest and most reliable policy reporters around, has the full story in today's Wall Street Journal.

To review: The essence of McCain's health care plan is to change the tax treatment of health benefits they get from employers. Instead of having people deduct the cost of group insurance premiums from their taxes, as they do now, McCain would offer everybody a tax credit--worth $2,500 to indivdiuals and $5,000 to families--that they could apply towards the purchase of health insurance. The credit would be valid whether people buy insurance through their employers or on their own.

It sounds simple enough. But you have to pay attention to the math.

Giving everybody that big new tax credit costs a lot of money. To pay for it, you'd have to get rid of the entire deduction as it now exists. That means people could no longer write off the cost of health insurance from their personal income taxes or from their payroll taxes. As Meckler explains:

If Sen. McCain were to apply both of these [deductions] to the value of health benefits, he could fully pay for his new tax credits. That is what aides have in the past suggested he would do.
In April, when Sen. McCain gave a major speech about his health plan, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, the senior policy adviser, said the tax provisions alone were budget neutral -- meaning that health benefits would have to be subject to both income and payroll taxes.

In my inteviews with McCain staff, I got the same impression.

But the trouble with making this shift is that it would substantially alter people's tax liabilities. Some people would see taxes fall, while others would see taxes rise. And that last part is the opening Obama has seized recently, claiming that McCain wants to raise people's taxes.

As I've written, Obama's attacks aren't ideal from a policy standpoint; properly done, as part of a broader reform package, the kind of change McCain has described might work. But, strictly speaking, Obama's argument is correct.

Or, at least, it was. A few months ago, the McCain campaign began telling people that it wouldn't get rid of both deductions after all. It would eliminate the deduction on income taxes but it would keep the deduction on payroll taxes.

That meant only a few people would see their taxes go up. The rest would see their taxes decline--since, after all, they were keeping part of their old deduction and getting McCain's new credit.

But that also changed the math. Instead of being revenue neutral, the McCain health plan would cost the government money. A lot of money. According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, it would add $1.3 trillion to the deficit over ten years.

Last week, though, a new wrinkle appeared. During the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin announced that McCain's health plan was "revenue neutral."

I wrote that this was dishonest, but apparently I was wrong. The McCain campaign has now decided to introduce one more change. They're going to help pay for the new tax credit with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Again, here's Meckler, explaining this latest sequence:

Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the campaign never intended to apply the payroll tax to health benefits. That means that most people would see a net tax cut, contrary to Sen. Obama's assertions. Only those with very rich benefits packages are likely to see a net increase in taxes. But it also means that Sen. McCain must fill a huge budget hole -- which the campaign says will come from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

...
Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the plan is accurately described as budget neutral because it assumes enough savings in Medicare and Medicaid spending to make up the difference. He said the savings would come from eliminating Medicare fraud and by reforming payment policies to lower the overall cost of care. He said the new tax credits will help some low-income people avoid joining Medicaid. The campaign also proposes increasing Medicare premiums for wealthier seniors.

So, just to review...

First McCain said he would elimine the entire tax deduction for health insurance, in order to pay for his new tax credit. This would have paid for itself, but it would have done so by raising taxes on a lot of people.

Then McCain decided he was keeping part of the deduction after all. While he would be raising taxes on a very few people, he'd be lowering them for most. Of course, that would also have meant running much bigger deficits.

Now McCain is saying, no, no, he's not going to increase the deficit with his health care plan. Instead, he's going to pay for it by cutting Medicare and Medicaid--which, at the levels he's discussing, might seriously weaken the program.

I can't wait to see what they come up with next.

--Jonathan Cohn

aiki14
10-07-2008, 09:57 PM
from BlueJersey.com:

Do NJ GOP Candidates agree with McCain's Medicare cuts?
by: Jason Springer
Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:02:01 AM EDT

Talk about trying to plug one hole while opening up another. Here's a little bit from the WSJ on what McCain is proposing for his healthcare plan:
In exchange, the government would begin taxing the value of health benefits people get through work. If an employer spends $10,000 to buy a worker health insurance, the worker would pay taxes on that money.
Now they've decided where to get the money from:
John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs....
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain's senior policy adviser, said Sunday that the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid. Those government health-care programs serve seniors, poor families and the disabled.

Hmm, I wonder how NJ Seniors feel about this? In Minnesota, Senator Norm Coleman's spokesman actually turned to Obama's plan when asked about if his boss would support the McCain Medicare cuts:
Again, it would depend on what was in the bill. ...I'm sure, some things that will line up. I mean, they are both pretty comprehensive plans. I'm sure there are some things that line up from Senator Obama's plan as well.
The silence from NJ GOP candidates on the proposal from their Presidential hopeful is deafening. At least Seniors will have that tax credit to make up for the coverage they don't have anymore. That should make them sleep well at night

freakscene
10-07-2008, 11:52 PM
bluejersey dot com ? thats some objective source you got there !

how about IBD which you subscribe too and recently called a right wing rag i think

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff.

Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

freakscene
10-08-2008, 12:00 AM
actually, now that i think about it, it makes perfect sense that aiki would support obama's plan and turning control over to the government.

he can maybe lose some of that guilt he has being part of the reason why many of us pay higher premiums

obesity is a ............large........problem in America

;)

aiki14
10-08-2008, 07:54 AM
actually, now that i think about it, it makes perfect sense that aiki would support obama's plan and turning control over to the government.

he can maybe lose some of that guilt he has being part of the reason why many of us pay higher premiums

obesity is a ............large........problem in America

;)

My friends, one more reason to support the Obama plan, is that it will provide mental health benefits that are so clearly lacking for so many of our citizens. Medications, Electro-convulsive therapy, and wall padding for freaky, and counseling for his wife and children. Under an Obama plan freaky won't have to stand in front of his house yelling at red cars that they are communist, he can do it in government funded care facilities who will see to his needs and occasionally wipe his chin.

Survivor
10-08-2008, 08:25 AM
Although funny...
I hope you two guy's would stop fighting...:withstupid:
Both are smart, it just don't seem right.

freakscene
10-08-2008, 09:34 AM
http://www.healthysize.com/?t202id=3486&t202kw=weight%20loss&gclid=CPqFks3Rl5YCFQu-GgodtxPm7A

Today I finally reached my weight goal!

I did it! I am 32 pounds lighter than I was 2 months ago! I am sooooo happy! Here is my story:

you can do it aiki !

endorsed by obama supporter, oprah !

freakscene
10-08-2008, 09:40 AM
Then let me help. Potato chips OK, Nacho Chips OK. Alas, I fear I am too late.


but, you'll need to refrain from this type of behavior !!