McCain's health care philosophy

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Click on the John McCain link to see page 3 of the pdf

I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
If McCain becomes president will we see the same crisis and meltdown in health care as we're now seeing in financial services?

New campaign slogan:
If you liked what deregulation did to financial services you'll love what it could do to health care!!



 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
It was not deregulation that screwed up financial services... If a company makes a bad investment, they're supposed to be hurt by it. If you invest in that company, you're supposed to be hurt by it. If a company offers you a ridiculous loan for a ridiculous home, it would be ridiculous for you to take it.

If the government quit bailing anyone out, then the laws of supply and demand would take over.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,215
2,084
136
Originally posted by: brxndxn
It was not deregulation that screwed up financial services... If a company makes a bad investment, they're supposed to be hurt by it. If you invest in that company, you're supposed to be hurt by it. If a company offers you a ridiculous loan for a ridiculous home, it would be ridiculous for you to take it.

If the government quit bailing anyone out, then the laws of supply and demand would take over.
It was the regulation that had compartmentalized the industry, which would keep all the firms from being too heavily leveraged in any area. By breaking down the rules, this lead to a cascade affect where all the banks were involved with the same bad debt. On paper, it looked good, until it collapsed. The deregulation was what allowed the bad debt to spread, which brought down more than just a few of the players. If the regulations had been in place, the other investment banks would've been forbidden from jumping into the credit craze and the collapse would have been more isolated. At least this is how I understand it, based on my limited reading.

So, yes, deregulation was the major culprit. It leads to increased volatility in the market, which allows people to make a lot of money, which is why repubs are for it. However, it also makes it easier for the whole system to collapse, which is why the laws were there to begin with.

Your premise that the "laws of supply and demand would take over" is true, but the effect is the cannibalization of the market, due to a tightened money supply based on lending fears. This leads to a decrease in capital, and the cascade continues on down the line. The bailout was a plug in the ***, so to speak.

I'm really tired of hearing how "free markets" are going to fix everything. They won't. Get it out of your head.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
I don't understand how choices are going to make insurance affordable to people with preexisting conditions or older folks. I guess the choice McCain means is that you either die, stay job locked, or rack up huge bills and not pay.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Private and pulic healthcare have their positives and negatives; it's not as simple as saying one is better than the other without making many naive assumptions. The problems with private care are having effective competition (unlike a city many rural citizens have limited choice), profits generated go to shareholders (rather than improving health of other citizens), large administration costs are typical of healthcare companies meaning less resource goes to citizens. The problems with public healthcare is jurisdiction and bureaucracy where other levels of government try to get involved offering incentives and reforms creating a mess of funding streams, a potential for high administration costs also exist, there's no personal responsibility for people's life choices. Not that people want to be hurt or die but some have issues with funding of people's cancer treatment if they choose to smoke. This opens the door to public policy geared towards protecting people from themselves; smoking, diets, fitness...mandated by the state.

Most economists will tell you that economy of scale produces the most potential for efficient use of resources, this is why we have laws preventing companies from becoming monopolies because they can increase their purchasing power, reduce their costs and ultimately charge what they want. Under a single payer universal heathcare system...this is in effect a monopoly. If people don't have issues paying for other's healthcare and looking out for everyone's health, the government can fund the system effectively, can keep administration costs low, and are effective at redirecting resources based on need...a public system in theory is the most efficient for any country.

Of course nothing is ideal and depends on each person's values/opinions. It's not as simple as saying public is better than private; I'm sure there are many examples of private care being more effective than public...governments are pretty good at screwing things up.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,376
126
Ask Texans (I live in DFW) what 'deregulation' has done for utility prices :)

Oh, or the Californians ;)
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Stunt
Private and pulic healthcare have their positives and negatives; it's not as simple as saying one is better than the other without making many naive assumptions. The problems with private care are having effective competition (unlike a city many rural citizens have limited choice), profits generated go to shareholders (rather than improving health of other citizens), large administration costs are typical of healthcare companies meaning less resource goes to citizens. The problems with public healthcare is jurisdiction and bureaucracy where other levels of government try to get involved offering incentives and reforms creating a mess of funding streams, a potential for high administration costs also exist, there's no personal responsibility for people's life choices. Not that people want to be hurt or die but some have issues with funding of people's cancer treatment if they choose to smoke. This opens the door to public policy geared towards protecting people from themselves; smoking, diets, fitness...mandated by the state.

Most economists will tell you that economy of scale produces the most potential for efficient use of resources, this is why we have laws preventing companies from becoming monopolies because they can increase their purchasing power, reduce their costs and ultimately charge what they want. Under a single payer universal heathcare system...this is in effect a monopoly. If people don't have issues paying for other's healthcare and looking out for everyone's health, the government can fund the system effectively, can keep administration costs low, and are effective at redirecting resources based on need...a public system in theory is the most efficient for any country.

Of course nothing is ideal and depends on each person's values/opinions. It's not as simple as saying public is better than private; I'm sure there are many examples of private care being more effective than public...governments are pretty good at screwing things up.
I would suggest you look up efficiencies of Medicare vs the private health insurances. You will be surprised.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
To toss around the word "deregulation" without any context isn't a very intelligent thing to do.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: brxndxn
It was not deregulation that screwed up financial services... If a company makes a bad investment, they're supposed to be hurt by it. If you invest in that company, you're supposed to be hurt by it. If a company offers you a ridiculous loan for a ridiculous home, it would be ridiculous for you to take it.

If the government quit bailing anyone out, then the laws of supply and demand would take over.
It was deregulation.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: brxndxn
It was not deregulation that screwed up financial services... If a company makes a bad investment, they're supposed to be hurt by it. If you invest in that company, you're supposed to be hurt by it. If a company offers you a ridiculous loan for a ridiculous home, it would be ridiculous for you to take it.

If the government quit bailing anyone out, then the laws of supply and demand would take over.
You couldn't be more wrong. Health care is not the same as the financial market. When people buy health insurance, they're supposedly buying a guarantee that they will have medical care when they need it. They are not investing for profit, and they should not be exposed to the same risk of the loss of that guarantee if their health insurance provider fails.

McCain couldn't be more wrong, either. His myopic Phil Graham vision that unregulated financial interests to act in their own best interests will always result in the best interests of society is naive, at best.

When things last got this bad, the result was the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression in the ensuing decade. That's why FDR instituted controls over unregulated speculation and greed. Since then, both parties have dismantled far too much of that protection, and the current, very real collapse of the financial sector is the direct result of the unregulated greed our government has allowed to occur for far too long.

Our elected representatives are supposed to supervise and protect the interests of those who elected them, NOT the fat cats who dive for cover with their mulit-million dollar golden parachutes.

That said, financial investment always entails some level of risk. That should NOT be allowed to apply to health insurance and care providers. Health INSURANCE is a commodity one buys like a piece of hardware. It's just supposed to work, period. It should be an iron clad guarantee that buyers WILL receive the care they need when they need it... and when they're least able to find alternatives.

The health insurance and care industries are already far too under-regulated. The result has been more expensive, less comprehensive and lower quality standard of care for those who can still afford any insurance, at all, by companies whose primary daily task is to figure out whose claims they can deny, next, to add to their mega million dollar bottom lines.

The suggestion that allowing these companies to be further deregulated is beyond stupid. It's dangerous to the health of all Americans.

McCain is full of shit, but he's a Senator so his medical care is covered, and he can afford to see his proctologist. That doesn't do squat for the rest of us. :thumbsdown:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
The current situation encourages Americans to recognize a myth: that most of the pro-derugulations, anti-government propaganda was put out quite intentionally by the people who woud profit from those policies at the expense of the public, and who needed to fool the public into agreeing.

It's not that there isn't oversized and wasteful government - but that it's exaggerated.

I bet if you polled, most would say that privatizing social security would get cheaper, more efficient 'private' operation, instead of the real estimate of tripling the expenses.

Medicare and the VA are recognized as being efficiently run from my reading; the insurance companies for profit have a lot of waste and bloat.

Everyone has seen the figures about private contracters in Iraq getting 5-10 times the salary of soldiers; I haven't seen one right-winger really challenge the policy.

I wonder how many will recognize that myth.
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
0
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I don't understand how choices are going to make insurance affordable to people with preexisting conditions or older folks. I guess the choice McCain means is that you either die, stay job locked, or rack up huge bills and not pay.
Bolded the part that applies to our new economic plan, which will be the way to go. The healthcare companies can simply give those "illiquid" invoices to the RTC!
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Harvey
Health INSURANCE is a commodity one buys like a piece of hardware.
If that were true, it would be a lot cheaper.

As for those people who have a "solution" to health care, I'm not going to bother to listen to one sentence until I hear an honest answer as to why there is a health care problem to begin with.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Medicare and the VA are recognized as being efficiently run from my reading
I don't know where you are reading, but you need to stop.

Medicare is projected to bankrupt the country.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
Medicare and the VA are recognized as being efficiently run from my reading
I don't know where you are reading, but you need to stop.

Medicare is projected to bankrupt the country.
You need to start.

The program being expensive because it does a lot does not make it inefficient.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
Medicare and the VA are recognized as being efficiently run from my reading
I don't know where you are reading, but you need to stop.

Medicare is projected to bankrupt the country.
You need to start.

The program being expensive because it does a lot does not make it inefficient.
I would say that it being projected to bankrupt the entire country makes it inefficient.

Saying that it is "expensive" isn't telling the whole story.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY