Skip to comments.
Candidate of Change? (John McCain)
National Review Online ^
| May 2, 2008 12:00 AM
| Rich Lowry
Posted on 05/02/2008 6:47:06 AM PDT by GulfBreeze
May 02, 2008, 0:00 a.m.
Candidate of Change? McCains health-care proposal is just the start of what has to be a broader conservative reformation.
By Rich Lowry
Editor’s note: This column is available exclusively through King Features Syndicate. For permission to reprint or excerpt this copyrighted material, please contact: kfsreprint@hearstsc.com, or phone 800-708-7311, ext 246).
If there’s just one candidate of change this fall, John McCain will be the Horatio Seymour or James Cox of 2008 — a presidential also-ran all but forgotten to history.
The only way McCain can hold the White House for the Republicans is if he trumps his opponent on values and national security, and sells the public on a domestic reform agenda that keeps Democrats from sole ownership of the theme of change. Otherwise, Barack Obama will out-inspire him, or Hillary Clinton out-policy him, in a classic out-with-the-old election.
McCain would seem a natural candidate of reform, given how often he has used the word during the past decade. With his hair-trigger sense of honor, McCain’s reformism has been driven by what offends him — large, unregulated campaign contributions and wasteful earmarks. But with the cost of health care increasing and the value of homes declining, the public is going to wonder about McCain’s politics of honor, What’s in it for them?
The McCain campaign is shrewd enough to realize all of this, which is why he’s beginning to piece together a forward-looking domestic agenda. The task isn’t easy, given that the candidate isn’t animated by domestic issues and leads a party that is only haltingly realizing it needs a policy renovation as it hits bottom at the end of the Bush years.
On his just-completed health-care tour, McCain appropriately triangulated between the status quo and overreaching Democratic proposals. It doesn’t take Michael Moore to realize that our health-care system is expensive and inefficient, and leaves too many people out. The root of the problem is the tax break for employer-provided coverage — dating from World War II — that leads most people to get their insurance through their employer.
Since they don’t pay directly for the insurance themselves, people don’t know the cost of their plans, and since their insurance pays for their medical procedures, they don’t know the cost of them either. This creates the predicate for runaway medical inflation.
Meanwhile, if you lose your job, you lose your insurance, sometimes — tragically — just when you need it most.
The answer isn’t government-sponsored universal coverage. McCain correctly says it would “replace the inefficiency, irrationality and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly.” He offers a different sort of break from the employer-dominated system.
McCain wants to give people a tax credit — $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families — to buy their own insurance. They can keep their insurance through their employer if they like, but the credit would make it easier for individuals to buy — and keep — insurance on their own. “The key to real reform,” McCain said, “is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves.”
If individuals are shopping for health care, insurance companies would have an incentive to provide better plans at lower cost. If they purchase their own plans, their insurance wouldn’t be dependent on their jobs. This change therefore mitigates two of the besetting problems of the current system — affordability and access. One economist estimates that some 20 million more people would get insurance.
To be sure, the individual health-insurance market — barely existent now — has glaring failures. As Elizabeth Edwards has pointed out, both she and McCain, as cancer survivors, would have trouble buying new insurance because of their “pre-existing conditions.” McCain promises to find ways to get such “uninsurables” coverage, but it will surely require more government involvement than free-market purists will like.
McCain’s proposal is just the start of what has to be a broader conservative reformation. The sole Republican response to the public’s economic anxieties can’t be trying to talk the public out of them. If it is, the GOP will have a long time out of power to think more creatively. Better to do it now. John McCain, too, must be a candidate of change.
© 2008 by King Features Syndicate
|
|
National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2Y3MzI3MGVlYzBjYWYzNzcwYjI2MmZlNjE3NzIwOGI=
TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conservative; healthcare; mccain; mccare; president
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
To: Dubya's fan
“It isn’t time for political purism.”
No one is asking for purism, just asking not to get a@@ raped by “one of our own” for the next 4 years is all.
21
posted on
05/02/2008 8:49:26 AM PDT
by
Grunthor
( there's more than 100 billion barrels of untouched oil and gas in this country)
To: roses of sharon
IOW, the base hates his stinkin’ guts and he knows it.
22
posted on
05/02/2008 8:52:43 AM PDT
by
Grunthor
( there's more than 100 billion barrels of untouched oil and gas in this country)
To: roamer_1; HappyinAZ
“We are looking for socialist redistribution schemes in our president? Are you high?”
Didn’t you get the memo? With McBoob as POTUS, this is now a conservative ideal.
23
posted on
05/02/2008 8:54:16 AM PDT
by
Grunthor
( there's more than 100 billion barrels of untouched oil and gas in this country)
To: samtheman
I used those exact same words against other freepers here (and I apologize humbly to all of you) but thats it for me.It took a genuinely big man to type those words. Apology accepted, FRiend. ;)
24
posted on
05/02/2008 9:23:03 AM PDT
by
KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
(If McCain really CAN "win without conservatives," then why do you care if I vote for him or not?)
To: Grunthor
With McBoob as POTUS, this is now a conservative ideal.Yeah, I know. Right in there with Gorebull Warming, too.
25
posted on
05/02/2008 9:27:15 AM PDT
by
roamer_1
(Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
To: TomGuy
TomGuy wrote:
Last year, I had to have some x-rays.
“Initially, the bill showed the cost at $200.00. That is what I would have had to pay, if I didnt have insurance.
When the Insurance paid, they only paid $29.00. I had to co-pay $13.00. The remainder was written off.
That shows how much medical costs are inflated for individuals who do not have insurance.”
It’s actually worse than you think. The Xray did cost $200.00. Think about it: the hospital has to pay for the equipment, the X-ray tech salary, the radiologist to read it, the lights for the building, the maintenance guys to plow the parking lot; the clerk that checked you in for the test and on and on.
What most people don’t realize that because the hospitals are bound by medicare reimbursement schedules and “contracts” with the insurance companies they are required to settle for whatever reimbursement they are allowed. The hospital can’t get the rest from the patient under most circumstances. Why do you think so many small hospital and clinics are closing? It is especially worse in areas that have a lot of illegal aliens and people on state welfare health insurance. The reimbursements are even smaller. Also try to collect payment from someone with false information. Remember that hospital CANNOT turn anyone away from care for any reason. Doctors can turn away patients from their practices. So therefore many uninsured or welfare insured people use hospital ER’s as their “primary care physician”.
I work in a community non-profit hospital and we are struggling to stay open.
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
To: GulfBreeze
Come on. A tax credit for people who are buying there own health insurance? An end to telling employers what benefits they will offer? An encouragement of free market solutions? This is socialism?First of all, The only way this scheme will work is for the other shoe to drop- That being that the 'credit' is not a kick back, but a gimme, much in the same style as the 'earned income' tax credit.
It also discourages corporate health insurance policies, which are tax free labor payments. If the employee has his own insurance how is that 'income' replaced by his employer, other than by taxable wages?
In the same instance, corporate policies are group policies, cheaper and more inclusive by their nature, while singular policies are invariably more expensive for less coverage, and more prone to reject an applicant.
So business loses the write off, the business and the individual get taxed more, and the individual gets less coverage for more cost.
The offset the tax credit brings will favor the less fortunate, who will get the big write off, likely paying for coverage they cannot afford, whereas the more fortunate will get the lesser credit. Socialism on it's face.
If they really wanted to impact cost, and encourage self-insurance, they would make any medical cost, insurance or otherwise, 100% tax deductible, and never take the money in the first place.
Lastly, nothing is going to fix the high cost of health care except the removal of the 'insurance' model altogether. Insurance is the prop that keeps the health care system overly expensive. A free market solution would not favor insurance at all, but would encourage the lack thereof, so that the direct cost is paid by the end user. Only then will market forces begin to balance cost by way of supply and demand.
28
posted on
05/02/2008 10:27:44 AM PDT
by
roamer_1
(Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
To: GulfBreeze
McCains proposal is just the start of what has to be a broader conservative reformation.Yeah, sure.
But what rational person believes McCain? We see what he has done, and don't listen to what he says.
He's just throwing red meat for votes--a practice otherwise known as blowing smoke up a wild hog's butt.
29
posted on
05/02/2008 10:30:45 AM PDT
by
jammer
To: samtheman
Id rather man the barricades against a full-blown RAT administration than barf everytime my president opens his unbelievably low-IQ pie-hole.A beacon of light has pierced the darkness.
So go ahead. Call it a temper tantrum. I know I did. I used those exact same words against other freepers here (and I apologize humbly to all of you) but thats it for me.
Accepted without reservation. Time to kill the fatted calf. Welcome back to sanity.
30
posted on
05/02/2008 10:32:47 AM PDT
by
roamer_1
(Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
To: HappyinAZ
I think its a good start at a health-care solution and thats what were looking for in a President.No it isn't. It further embeds the real culprit under yet another layer. Insurance based health care models cannot work, and especially so when the unacceptable and poor are picked up by the government. The same government, btw, that is the biggest monolithic insurance carrier on the planet.
Making the States work together to reduce the buearacracy and encourage companies to market in all states....is not Socialism. Cost reduction and free-markets are good goals.
You seem to have forgotten about the tax credit part, only emphasizing the 'good' things.
31
posted on
05/02/2008 10:41:02 AM PDT
by
roamer_1
(Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
To: roamer_1
I can very very much agree with your last paragraph.
Nonetheless I disagree with most of what came before it. Too me, it sounds like you want MORE involvement by the government until there is eventually none.
Free market doesn't necessarily care whether the lower OR upper incomes are benefiting by removing a layer of government. It just promotes the removal of any government interference that is beyond protection from fraudsters, extortioners or other forms of theft/violence. (Which pretty much describes the ENTIRE insurance industry no that I think about it.)
32
posted on
05/02/2008 10:48:35 AM PDT
by
GulfBreeze
(McCain is our nominee. No one else.)
To: roamer_1
I think its a good start at a health-care solution and thats what were looking for in a President.
No it isn’t. It further embeds the real culprit under yet another layer. Insurance based health care models cannot work, and especially so when the unacceptable and poor are picked up by the government. The same government, btw, that is the biggest monolithic insurance carrier on the planet.
Making the States work together to reduce the buearacracy and encourage companies to market in all states....is not Socialism. Cost reduction and free-markets are good goals.
You seem to have forgotten about the tax credit part, only emphasizing the ‘good’ things.
The tax credit allows you to turn down employer provided insurance...select your own and use the tax deduction that your employer normally gets for providing you with insurance.
To: roamer_1
With McBoob as POTUS, this is now a conservative ideal.
Yeah, I know. Right in there with Gorebull Warming, too.
And slaughtering and mutilating the unborn to further “science.”
34
posted on
05/02/2008 10:53:57 AM PDT
by
Grunthor
( there's more than 100 billion barrels of untouched oil and gas in this country)
To: HappyinAZ
Go McCain!.......I think its a good start at a health-care solution and thats what were looking for in a President. Will you be ponying up the billions to pay for it, or will you expect the rest of us to pitch in?
35
posted on
05/02/2008 11:10:54 AM PDT
by
calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
To: roamer_1
A free market solution would not favor insurance at all, but would encourage the lack thereof, so that the direct cost is paid by the end user. Only then will market forces begin to balance cost by way of supply and demand. Bingo!
36
posted on
05/02/2008 11:11:54 AM PDT
by
calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
To: calcowgirl
Will you be ponying up the billions to pay for it, or will you expect the rest of us to pitch in? The party simply can't ooze leftwards enough, quickly enough to suit McCain's supporters.
37
posted on
05/02/2008 11:13:49 AM PDT
by
KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
(If McCain really CAN "win without conservatives," then why do you care if I vote for him or not?)
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I’m gettin’ pretty sick of the “Lenin’s plans are better than Stalin’s” argument.
Can ya tell? LOL.
38
posted on
05/02/2008 11:21:42 AM PDT
by
calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
To: TomGuy
That shows how much medical costs are inflated for individuals who do not have insurance.
And why is that? Under HillaryCare the first time around it became insurance fraud for doctors to charge an individual any less than what is charged insurance....he/she can't even charge an individual the amount he knows the insurance will pay! So charge insurance 200 (hoping to get 50) and you have to charge an individual 200 also or risk heavy fines and possible jail time.
Hildabeast has been laying the groundwork for "universal coverage" for a very long time.
39
posted on
05/02/2008 11:25:08 AM PDT
by
socialismisinsidious
( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
To: long hard slogger; FormerACLUmember; Harrius Magnus; Lynne; hocndoc; parousia; Hydroshock; ...
Socialized Medicine aka Universal Health Care PING LIST
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this ping list.
40
posted on
05/02/2008 11:26:08 AM PDT
by
socialismisinsidious
( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson