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: GulfBreeze
I wish everyone would stop calling this stuff "health insurance." No plan if effect today, nor any proposed by any of the candidates is health insurance. They are more appropriately called health care reimbursement programs.
Insurance covers catastrophic incidents or major losses. No one would think of calling their house insurance carrier to request payment for lawn mowing or window cleaning. Insurance doesn't cover that day to day maintenance. If we had a real health care insurance with a real deductible, where routine treatments are paid for by individuals and major illnesses covered by insurance, the cost of health care would plummet.
41
posted on
05/02/2008 11:36:40 AM PDT
by
CharacterCounts
(When you discover rats in your house, you only have two options - fumigate or tolerate.)
To: samtheman
I hope you continue to feel better when Hillary is referred to as “Madame President”
To: upchuck
It amazes me that folks in the medical profession dont have a clue what their procedures cost. They dont know because they just file the procedure with the insurance company and hope for the best on payment.
What's worse is that the consumer has no idea either. Those that are insured only know their copays and those without that can't pay for it don't care because others will pick up the bill.
43
posted on
05/02/2008 11:43:37 AM PDT
by
CottonBall
(A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority. "Civil Disobedience", Henry D.Thoreau)
To: CharacterCounts
Excellent post. It seems kind of obvious but the liberals continue to frame the argument around a Romneycare vs. a Hillary care (or similar wrong-headed plans). It’s past time for some politician to come forward and speak the truth and to open up the discussion to real solutions.
44
posted on
05/02/2008 11:45:33 AM PDT
by
calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
To: CharacterCounts
45
posted on
05/02/2008 11:46:36 AM PDT
by
GulfBreeze
(McCain is our nominee. No one else.)
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.
Accepted. I'm glad you are no longer in denial about what the man is about. And that you feel better for it!
46
posted on
05/02/2008 11:48:28 AM PDT
by
CottonBall
(A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority. "Civil Disobedience", Henry D.Thoreau)
To: DLfromthedesert
I feel better about myself. I don’t feel better about our country. Our country is going to the dogs. I am crying for our country.
To: roamer_1; HappyinAZ
We are looking for socialist redistribution schemes in our president? Are you high?
Happy is more likely in the throes of trying to support a liberal candidate. Grasping at straws so the illusion won't crumble.
48
posted on
05/02/2008 11:51:53 AM PDT
by
CottonBall
(A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority. "Civil Disobedience", Henry D.Thoreau)
To: GulfBreeze
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?
hmmm.....in my view, tax credit and free market don't go together. The tax code is used to push one behavior over another and/or to redistribute the people's income.
This is a tough issue - and I agree that something needs to be done. But it'll take more than this to help.
49
posted on
05/02/2008 11:54:34 AM PDT
by
CottonBall
(A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority. "Civil Disobedience", Henry D.Thoreau)
To: roamer_1
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.
Great point. I was trying to think of a way to reduce/eliminate the need for insurance - I think you got it.
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.
Back before insurance was around, people could afford medical care and costs were not prohibitive. They've gotten so out of control that I was charged $5 for each tylenol in the hospital when I had my son - 17 years ago. So now they're likey up to $15-$20 each!
50
posted on
05/02/2008 11:59:29 AM PDT
by
CottonBall
(A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority. "Civil Disobedience", Henry D.Thoreau)
To: calcowgirl

"Mussssssst... vooooooote... for the liberalllllll... with a larrrrrrrge... capital 'R' next tooooooo... his naaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmme..."
;)
51
posted on
05/02/2008 12:00:13 PM PDT
by
KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
(If McCain really CAN "win without conservatives," then why do you care if I vote for him or not?)
To: samtheman
You could vote for Hillary, since she is willing to “obliterate” Iran..LOL
52
posted on
05/02/2008 12:20:41 PM PDT
by
Kackikat
((No strong national security, and the rest of issues are mute points; chaos ensues.))
To: Kackikat
I could. But I won’t. I’m going to vote for Republicans in lesser offices and leave the top job blank.
To: Dubya's fan; samtheman
Using the words “purism” and McCain together in the same sentence is insane.
I would settle for half a loaf, but him, you and this half baked medical insurance scam, have absolutely nothing at all to offer Conservatives, other than to tell us to change ALL of our values to blue dog democrats, in case we might lose to some ragheads in Iraq. (We won't)
The pure Democrat agenda, through and though.
Actually, my tag should be changed since I now wouldn't vote for him even if he did.
I do not vote for raving liberals even if the opponents rave more.
54
posted on
05/02/2008 12:28:31 PM PDT
by
bill1952
(I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)
To: DLfromthedesert; samtheman
hope you continue to feel better when Hillary is referred to as Madame President
*Snort*
Frankly, I am sick and tired of this insulting line of argument.
You all act as if nobody but you is smart enough to see the incredible tasks laid before us, or the pivotal time in history in which we are acting.
Hillary is a horrible choice but par for a Democrat.
Obama is a horrible choice, but is right in step with the new slant of the American democrat party and the dumbed down electorate. (thanks, American education)
McCain is a horrible choice and a disaster for both the Conservatives in America, and for America itself, as his “leadership” will move the GOP way left and leave Americans with no real alternative to the Socialist agenda.
This whole article is about moving the GOP to the left, and how we should play along with that.
Think about what McCain has done in the past 10 years.
All of these choices stink, and we cannot sell our principles away.
Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike.
- Theodore Roosevelt
55
posted on
05/02/2008 12:48:42 PM PDT
by
bill1952
(I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)
To: GulfBreeze
Too me, it sounds like you want MORE involvement by the government until there is eventually none.Not at all- What you are defending is a further entrenchment of governmental influence by way of this tax credit scheme, because the government is moving money from the rich to the poor.
I will further predict that the meddling by the government by way of a tax credit will cause an increase of cost, a redoubling, because it makes the high cost artificially affordable- That means there is more water ($$) in the pond, and you can bet money the insurance companies are going to drink it up, and then come a-running and crying how thirsty they are.
Free market doesn't necessarily care whether the lower OR upper incomes are benefiting by removing a layer of government.
It isn't removing a layer, but adding one.
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.)
Government doesn't fix the problem. Government IS the problem. -Ronald Reagan.
Government is the biggest fraudster and extortioner of them all.
56
posted on
05/02/2008 2:22:07 PM PDT
by
roamer_1
(Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
To: roamer_1
Well I would say that removing the REQUIREMENT for employers t offer insurance is removing a layer of government.
Also, You don’t think Ronald Reagan’s point was to eliminate ALL government do you? I think his point was that government had grown out of and been extended well beyond its proper bounds.
57
posted on
05/02/2008 2:32:50 PM PDT
by
GulfBreeze
(McCain is our nominee. No one else.)
To: HappyinAZ
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.From the OP:
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.
You assume that the recipient has insurance, and that it is equal in cost to the $2500. You also assume the credit to be merely a write-off, while I am inclined to see it as a gimme. Show proof of insurance, get $2500 bucks.
Furthermore, the last sentence from above is flatly wrong. Individuals are not buying and keeping insurance 'on their own', but are in receipt of a federal insurance subsidy.
58
posted on
05/02/2008 3:06:50 PM PDT
by
roamer_1
(Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
To: GulfBreeze
Well I would say that removing the REQUIREMENT for employers t offer insurance is removing a layer of government. It isn't a requirement.
Also, You dont think Ronald Reagans point was to eliminate ALL government do you?
Of course not. Don't be silly.
I think his point was that government had grown out of and been extended well beyond its proper bounds.
Indeed, and so, he would not approve of this extension of the federal government beyond it's proper bounds. Is national health care federally mandated by the Constitution?
59
posted on
05/02/2008 3:13:11 PM PDT
by
roamer_1
(Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
To: CottonBall
Back before insurance was around, people could afford medical care and costs were not prohibitive.There's the money shot, right there... And doctors made house calls, too.
60
posted on
05/02/2008 3:18:49 PM PDT
by
roamer_1
(Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
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