Is Scott Brown trying to save face with amendments that aren't his?

When I was putting together my earlier post on Scott Brown's bad day, something that he told WAAF's Greg Hill in his on-air therapy session caught my eye. According to the Herald's account of the interview, Brown claimed that he was going to be trying to change the bill today:

Brown said he is offering several amendments to the “fix-it” bill. Among them is a proposal to repeal a 3 percent tax on medical devices. Brown said there are more than 200 medical device makers in the Bay State that would lose their profit margin if the tax is put in place.

The Herald took that and published this later in the day:

Brown was preparing to file an amendment today that would repeal the medical-device provision, as part of an overall Republican plan to bombard Democrats with amendments as senators vote on a “reconciliation” bill that would make changes to the health-care reform package.

This puzzled me, because I was sure that I saw the list of amendments yesterday. It was my understanding that the debate started last night and the list of amendments needed to be in before the debate started. So I couldn't figure out how Brown was going to file an amendment today.

To satisfy my curiosity, I went to the Senate web site and looked up the list of amendments. I found three things:

1. Scott Brown is not the primary sponsor of any amendments, never mind "several amendments to the 'fix-it' bill."
2. Scott Brown is only listed as a co-sponsor to Senator Pat Roberts's amendment to repeal the medical device tax.
3. All of the amendments were filed yesterday, March 23.

So what's the deal, Senator? Do you think that tacking your name on as a cosponsor to someone else's bill covers you when you tell the media that you are going to be filing several amendments? Do you think voters won't notice when you over-promise then take credit for someone else's work?

We notice.

Scott Brown's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day

It has been a really rough 24-or-so hours for the extremely freshman senator from Massachusetts. He doesn't seem to be handling it particularly well.

First, people are starting to realize that Brown's election ended up being the kick in the pants the Democrats needed to actually pass health care reform. I noted it, Massachusetts' top political blog subscribes to the same theory, even the head Scott Brown cheerleaders at the Herald ran a story today wondering what the hell is going on with their hero, complete with an expiration date stamped on his forehead:

“We start to wonder whether we helped a RINO (Republican in name only) get into office,” said Tea Party activist Jeffrey McQueen, who raveled from Michigan to campaign for Brown in the final days of the Jan. 19 special election that rocked the nation.

“If it wasn’t for the Tea Party movement, Scott Brown wouldn’t have gotten that seat. We expect to see a true conservative in there.”

In fact, Democrats now say Brown’s election as the so-called “41st vote” to block Obama’s health-care overhaul inspired them to seek procedural means to bypass GOP efforts to derail the bill.

“Scott Brown’s election actually delivered health-care reform, because we didn’t need the 60 votes to make it happen. He delivered a significant victory in that,” [Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman John]Walsh said.

Brown did what any distinguished politician would do when confronted with controversy, he called in to WAAF to whine:

Host Greg Hill asked the Wrentham Republican to respond to Democrats’ criticism that he’s “insignificant” and GOP fears that his election killed their fight against President Obama’s health care overhaul.

“That’s good. Let them keep thinking like that. That’s what they thought last time and here I am doing the people’s business,” said Brown. “They can try to, you know, twist and manipulate and, you know, destroy the message and destroy as much as they want but the bottom line is people are very angry.”...

“You know they can try to pooh-pooh my election and try to minimize it and all that stuff,” Brown said. “I get what they’re trying to do. But the bottom line is they are going to start to carve out folks who are disabled and have some very serious medical issues and say, ‘See the Republicans want to take this away.’ ”

I'm not sure exactly what he means, but I think he's saying that Democrats are going to accuse Republicans who favor repealing the bill as wanting to take away new safeguards for people with preexisting conditions, wanting to take away the right to keep health care and not fear losing it if a patient becomes sick, and wanting to take away tax credits that help seniors cope with the Medicare "donut hole" and help small businesses purchase insurance for their workers.

If that is what he means, then he is right to be worried. Well, he doesn't have to be worried if he favors those provisions. But in yet another mistake, he came out yesterday in support of full repeal. So when we accuse Brown of wanting to take away new safeguards for people with preexisting conditions, wanting to take away the right to keep health care and not fear losing it if a patient becomes sick, and wanting to take away tax credits that help seniors cope with the Medicare "donut hole" and help small businesses purchase insurance for their workers, it is because that is exactly what Brown is calling for when he calls for repeal.

But that is not all. Brown is being widely ridiculed for taking a Walsh tweet and some internet speculation and turning it into a fundraising pitch against a 2012 opponent who is isn't an opponent. From the Senator's fund raising letter:

It's only been a couple of months since I've been in office, and before I've even settled into my new job, the political machine in Massachusetts is looking for someone to run against me. And you're not going to believe who they are supposedly trying to recruit--liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow.

I don't know if this was enough to raise any money, but it did get a response from the TV host:

"It's completely made up by [Brown]," she told Bill Wolff. Normally the executive producer of The Rachel Maddow Show, Wolff took the host's chair as Maddow recused herself "for the first and probably last time."

The bewildered Maddow found herself in two unexpected positions: a guest on her own show and a fundraising catalyst. "The fear of Rachel Maddow is what he's raising money on in Massachusetts," she observed before joking, "Massachusetts donors, open your wallets! Maddow's coming!"...

"Why didn't they just call and ask me if it was true before sending out the fundraising letter?" she wondered.

So to recap, in the last day or so Scott Brown has

• been blamed for health care being passed
• been called out for not being able to fulfill his promise to stop it
• been ridiculed by the Boston Herald, of all publications
• called for insurance companies to be able to deny coverage to children and sick patients
• complained that he is being accused of calling for insurance companies to be able to deny coverage to children and sick patients
• tried to raise money on the fear that a TV personality might run against him
• been ridiculed for trying to raise money on the fear that a TV personality might run against him, and
• complained to a DJ on a rock music radio station that he's being treated unfairly.

Hell of a day, Scott. Hell of a day.

Will Health Care Reform be Scott Brown's legacy?

If Senator Scott Brown represents Massachusetts for decades he will have an opportunity to forge his own legacy as a Senator, but if he is voted out of office in 2012 the health care reform bill passed this week will be his legacy. The bill--especially the House provisions included in the reconciliation package--would not have become law without him.

If you go back to the first of January, the question was whether or not the House would accept the Senate bill as it was written and whether the Senate would approve any changes the House might propose. Because there had been 60 votes for the Senate version, the Senate held all of the cards in that negotiation. Majority Leader Harry Reid had worked like crazy to get a bill that could hold together 60 votes. He was not going to compromise with the House and risk losing his super-majority. At the time there were three options:

1. The House would pass the Senate bill as is, making the Senate bill the law of the land and shutting out House provisions.
2. The House and Senate would try to find a solution in conference that would keep all of the House votes and not lose even one Senate vote.
3. The two chambers could not come to an agreement and the bill would die.

In reality, the only way health care reform was going to be passed was with option 1. Even at that, the Senate bill was unacceptable to the pro-life Stupak group and was also opposed by liberal House members who didn't think it went far enough in it's provisions. Any change to make it more pro-life would have lost liberal votes in both chambers. Any change to make it more pro-choice would have shut out the Sutpak bloc. Any liberalization of the terms of the bill would have lost votes in the Senate.

With the landscape as it was in January, it was going to be either the Senate bill or no bill at all.

But as we know, everything changed on January 19. With Scott Brown's election, Senate Democrats no longer had 60 votes. That meant leadership also didn't have any leverage with the House. If there was going to be health care reform, it would have to go through a reconciliation process that only required a simple majority.

That change put the ball squarely in Nancy Pelosi's court. Now the House had the upper hand in negotiations. It didn't matter anymore what conservative Democratic Senators like Ben Nelson an Blanche Lincoln thought about the bill because their votes wouldn't matter anyway. Pelosi realized that this was her chance to enhance the bill is whatever way she needed to get House Democrats behind it. As long as it was palatable enough for 51 senators, it would work out.

So Pelosi crafted a sidecar bill that made the final product more progressive. The reconciliation bill increases premium subsidies to low- and middle-income families, expands Medicare payroll taxes to capital gains and dividends, closes the prescription drug "donut hole" for Medicare recipients, eases the excise tax on high-cost "Cadillac" insurance plans, and strengthens efforts to move Medicare reimbursement money away from for-profit Medicare Advantage plans and back to doctors and hospitals where it belongs.

The result is that the bill is more progressive than it ever would have been if Martha Coakley had been elected.

If Scott Brown is unlucky enough to take to the floor of the Senate on January 2, 2013 to give his farewell speech, he'll talk about what he has done for Massachusetts. But he won't mention his greatest legacy: ensuring that the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 became the law of the land.

Health Care debate: Send in the clowns

I can't say that I am a C-span junkie, but I've been known to watch proceedings now and then. Whether for or against the health care reform bill that passed the House tonight--and I am in favor of it, although it could be a lot better--I think everyone can agree that tonight's vote is historic. This will probably go down as one of the most important acts of legislation of the post-war era, and I decided that I was going to watch the debate and the votes tonight.


After watching four hours of "debate" it's easy to see why people think congress is broken.

I must have heard somewhere around 100 speeches this evening and there isn't a dime's difference between them. Every Republican had the same set of talking points. Every Democrat read from the same script.Same thing over and over and over again.

Why? Because of the television cameras. Every last representative has to get up and say their one minute--even if it is the same thing as the previous speaker--so that the local TV station has video of Representative So-and-So imploring his or her colleagues to vote the right way.


Regardless of how our founding fathers thought Congress should work, the fact is that the all of the negotiations are completed behind closed doors. By the time a bill is called for a vote, the speaker knows exactly how many votes she has. Everything done in the chamber is done for the cameras.

So if you tuned in tonight and thought, "wow, what a bunch of clowns," that's why. While they may or may not all be clowns, they have certainly turned the floor of the House into a circus.

Correcting the Health Care Crazies -- Part 2

A few days ago, I received an email about the House health care bill that included so many inaccuracies and outright lies, that I was compelled to respond. This is the second post in rebuttal to that email. Earlier discussion of the health care debate is here.

Yesterday, I looked at self-insured plans and out-of-pocket maximums. Today's topics are those folks the crazies say will get to dictate your health plan and illegal immigrants.

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

I think this is supposed to be scary because it is "the guvmint" whose committee will set guidelines; otherwise, this is no different than what goes on today. Here is the text of the bill:

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.

Of course, every health insurer already has a panel that "decides what treatments and benefits you get." When you get your benefits book (assuming you already have insurance), there will be a very long section listing which conditions are not covered, which treatments are not allowed, or which procedures will only be partially paid for. Those decisions were made in advance by a committee of doctors, actuaries, and accountants who decide what should and should not be covered.

The bill calls for a committee to make recommendations to those insurers who are part of the health exchange. These recommendations will ensure that those carriers offering coverage through the exchange meet minimum standards of coverage. If you purchase insurance through the exchange and want to have a procedure done that is not covered by the plan you choose, you can pay out of pocket for the procedure...just as you can today.

And because you have the option to buy a private plan through the health care exchange (or through your employer), you will have the option to appeal...just as you do today.

• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

The "Health Choices Commissioner" is the head of the agency, like the Postmaster General or the Director of FEMA. From the bill:

(a) DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible for carrying out the following functions under this division:

(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the enforcement of such standards in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury.

(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The establishment and operation of a Health Insurance Exchange under subtitle A of title II.

(3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.— The administration of individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits.

(4) ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS.—Such additional functions as may be specified in this division.

The Commissioner is charged with setting the standards that companies who wish to offer insurance through the exchange must meet. He or she is responsible for administering this exchange of plans. He or she is also coordinates the subsidy paid to people who make less than three-times the federal poverty limit.

You will have a choice. You can choose to keep the plan you have with your employer or not. If not, you can choose from any number of plans in the exchange. If you are not wealthy, your premiums through the exchange may be subsidized. The commissioner runs the plan. He or she does not make any of those decisions for you.

• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

Oh brother. Let's just go to the bill:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

"Personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care" is pretty ambiguous. When I read that, it tells me that participants cannot be discriminated against for any host of reasons--religion, race, gender, age, etc.--but let's assume the Crazies are right and this is a way to sneak illegal immigrants into the bill. Even if we concede the point, this section only allows undocumented immigrants to purchase health care through the exchange.

In order for someone to qualify for "free health care," one would have to be so poor that they would receive a full subsidy for their care (which would not happen because participants who are that poor would get their care through Medicaid, not the exchange). However, illegal immigrants cannot receive subsidy credits. From page 143 of the bill:

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

That's about as plain as legislative language gets. "No Federal payment for undocumented aliens." So if there is no Federal payment, there is no free (or subsidized) health care. Period.

Next time: Big Brother wants your checking account.

Correcting the Health Care Crazies -- Part 1

As you know, I've just about had it up to here with the misinformation surrounding the national health care debate. Well, last week I received a chain email from a conservative friend of mine that has just about put me over the edge. I'm not going to post the whole thing here (if you want to read the whole email, I've preserved a PDF of it), but here is the introduction:

If you don't have the time to read the whole health care bill, it's not a problem. The work has already been done for you. WAKE UP!

If you haven't seen any of this stuff, be prepared to be shocked. If this becomes widely known, there will be rioting in the streets a la Iran after the recent election.

I'm scared to death to know what the next 500 pages will say. This is worse than anything even I foresaw.

A few highlights from the first 500 pages of the Healthcare bill in congress....

I have highlighted a few of the items that are down right unconstitutional

It then goes on to list 48 provisions that are allegedly in the first 500 pages of the bill. Now, I realize that I probably shouldn't even try to argue with someone who starts by saying "The work has already been done for you." I mean, why not just take this guy's word for it, he's already read it! But I'm a sucker, I guess. So I pulled up the text of the house bill and actually read the sections that the email writer referenced. Funny, but I don't think it says what he or she thinks it says.

So over the next little while, I'm going to go through the email charge by charge and relate to you what it actually says. The first two charges (the text of the email is in bold):

Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

Employers who self-insure essentially pay their employees' health care costs out of pocket (the premiums that the employees pay goes into a pool that the employer uses to pay claims). The suggestion here is that the government is trampling on the rights of these employers by auditing all of them.

Here is what the bill says (emphasis mine):

(1) STUDY.—The Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine the following:

(A) The types of employers by key characteristics, including size, that purchase insured products versus those that self-insure.

(B) The similarities and differences between typical insured and self-insured health plans.

(C) The financial solvency and capital reserve levels of employers that self-insure by employer size.

(D) The risk of self-insured employers not being able to pay obligations or otherwise coming financially insolvent.

(E) The extent to which rating rules are likely to cause adverse selection in the large group market or to encourage small and midsize employers to self-insure.

The bill doesn't mandate that all self-insured plans be audited, it calls for a study of both self-insured and fully insured to compare their effectiveness and to determine whether or not both approaches adequately cover employees. The bill does not require that all self-insured plans open their books (which would be an audit). What it does do is give the government the broad information necessary to determine whether or not self-insured plans are providing an adequate level of care.

Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

This is one of my favorite lies. Here is the offending text (emphasis mine):

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES.—There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards), including well baby and well child care.

(2) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—

(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).

(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.

(C) USE OF COPAYMENTS.—In establishing cost-sharing levels for basic, enhanced, and premium plans under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible, use only copayments and not coinsurance.

The emailer is trying to make people believe that the "Annual Limitation" of $5,000 or $10,000 is referring to a limit on the amount of health care available to you. Thus, your "ration" would be $5,000 ($10,000 for your whole family). This is entirely 180 degrees backwards. The "Annual Limitation" is commonly referred to as an "out-of-pocket maximum" and is a feature of nearly all health insurance plans. It is literally the maximum an employee would pay out of pocket for health services in a particular year. So if you suffered a catastrophic event and needed hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical services, the most you would have to pay is $5,000. The insurance company would pick up the rest.

Instead of the government rationing health care, the out-of-pocket maximum ensures that a provider will not ration your health care because of your inability to pay. So rather than the government limiting the amount of health care you receive, it is limiting the amount you will have to pay for the health care you need. And it is doing so by requiring that private health insurance companies that want to be offered through the Health Care Exchange continue to offer reasonable out-of-pocket maximums, which most insurers already do.

Next time, the Health Choices Commissioner and illegal aliens.

Times and Courier gets health care debate right

Gatehouse Media and its local papers--including the Times and Courier--have been doing a fantastic job the last week or so covering the local discussion on health care reform. Instead of concentrating on the heat of the battle between reform opponents and supporters, Gatehouse has written a couple of articles this week about the substance of the bill and the debate about the bill’s merits.

I realize that actually covering the issues instead of the emotional outbursts shouldn’t be worthy of praise, but the entire discussion about health care over the last three weeks or so has been about death panels and socialists and shouting and near-fist-fights. There has been very little about the actual words of the proposals themselves.

Against this backdrop, the coverage in the Gatehouse papers is refreshing. In their coverage of a town hall meeting held Saturday by Rep. Niki Tsongas, writer Chloe Gostis sets the scene by mentioning the tension in the hall, but then steps beyond the shouting and actually looks into the claims made in the meeting:

But some skeptics like Mary Crantz of Chelmsford, don’t think the government is responsible for helping people who can’t afford insurance or are unemployed.

“This is a land of opportunity,” said Crantz, an Air Force veteran. “Opportunity to work and serve. And the ability to choose. 250 million Americans have the privilege of insurance because they work to pay for it. Please Congresswoman Tsongas, represent the 250 million people who are willing to pay for their healthcare....”

Opponents of the bill have been disseminating information that says the Health Care Commission will decide a person’s plan and coverage. But according to Politifact.com, a nonpartisan fact-checking Web site run by the St. Petersburg Times, consumers can choose their plan and coverage.

Still, some forum attendees said the bill would rob them of their choices.

This is far, far better than what we’re getting from most media. The reporter here takes two sides of an argument and then goes to a source to actually find the truth. Most media organizations stop at presenting the two arguments. They have confused balance with objectivity. Reporting two views is balance. Reporting the underlying facts (in this case a congressional bill) is objectivity.

But that’s not all the Times and Courier has on the subject. On the day before the town hall, Tsongas sat down with the media for what appears to be a wide-ranging discussion of the issue. Yesterday, the T&C posted a long-form interview with Tsongas, complete with a glossary of health-care related terms, a listing of places to get further information, and the contact information for Rep. Tsongas and Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

Gatehouse media and the Times and Courier are doing an exemplary job covering the issue. Readers and other media outlets should take notice.

Anti-healthcare mob comes to Worcester

There are a few things that I have absolutely no use for. I can't stand bullies who shout and intimidate instead of carrying on with a discussion. I have no use for people who won't listen to an argument. And I have no use at all for someone who resorts to calling people Nazis.

So you can imagine what I think of this:

WORCESTER — U.S. Reps. James P. McGovern and Richard E. Neal were heckled and booed after trying to rally support today for President Barack Obama's plan for a comprehensive national health insurance program.

The two Worcester-area Democratic lawmakers were shouted down several times by people attending a packed “town hall” meeting at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

UMass officials threatened several times to end the gathering because of the raucous behavior, which occurred despite a heavy police presence.

At one point, Mr. McGovern was likened by an attendee to Josef Mengele, the Nazi officer who performed experiments on concentration camp survivors.

Look, if people want to oppose the bill, go right ahead. Ask tough questions, be skeptical, let people know what you think.

But why yell? Why attempt to intimidate? Why suggest that our congressmen are no different than Nazi criminals? Because the opponents know they cannot win this fight on the merits.

They know that if the question is whether or not all Americans deserve health care, a universal health care system will win.

They know that if the discussion is about banning insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, the health care reformers will win.

They know that once the American people understand that competition from a public plan will force private companies to cut their costs to compete, a public plan will win.

So instead of arguing otherwise, they attempt to intimidate.

Earlier tonight, Rachel Maddow had a report exposing the medical industry lobbyists behind the "hooliganism."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Tags: Massachusetts Worcester Health Care James McGovern Richard Neal

McCain's Transplant Folly

Perhaps the worst moment for John McCain last night was this answer he gave when talking about his health care plan:

Now, 95 percent of the people in America will receive more money under my plan...except for those people who have the gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies that have to do with cosmetic surgery and transplants and all of those kinds of things.

Immediately when he said that, Michelle looked at me and asked "He thinks people should have to pay more for transplants?" She said it before I did, but I was thinking exactly the same thing. What kind of out-of-touch do you have to be to suggest that someone who needs a life-saving organ transplant should only have it covered under a "gold-plated Cadillac insurance policy" that would cost more than what 95% of Americans can afford?

Catching up on the reviews from this morning, I've seen some suggestions that he was talking about hair transplants, which makes sense because he joked in the last debate about needing those and he coupled the reference with cosmetic surgery.

But there are millions of people who have had a life-saving organ transplant or have a transplant recipient in their family (I have two relatives who have had kidney transplants, for instance). For those people, McCain's answer was jarring. I read a lot of commentary so I was able to get a better idea of what he was talking about, but I wonder how many others heard his answer the way I did and questioned what would have happened to them or their loved ones had McCain been in charge when they needed an organ transplant.

Tags: Election 2008 Barack Obama Debate John McCain health care

John McCain's health care disaster

John McCain rolled out his health care plan yesterday. For the tens of millions of Americans who currently receive their benefits through their employers, it promises to be a total disaster, as the average family’s premiums will more than double. From the New York Times:

Mr. McCain’s health care plan would shift the emphasis from insurance provided by employers to insurance bought by individuals, to foster competition and drive down prices. To do so he is calling for eliminating the tax breaks that currently encourage employers to provide health insurance for their workers, and replacing them with $5,000 tax credits for families to buy their own insurance....

Democrats and some experts said the proposal might lead some employers to stop offering health insurance, and questioned whether the tax credit would cover the cost of private insurance.

There is no “might” about it, the proposal will cause many employers to drop health care insurance altogether or significantly roll back their offerings. The tax break that employers get is the most significant incentive for them to offer insurance to their employees. Without it, the only incentives to an employer are intangible. For instance, more competitive benefits help attract better workers, and healthier employees are more productive. But how many companies will continue to shell out $7,000-8,000 per family per year for coverage if they are not able to deduct those costs? Probably not that many.

Based on the most recent statistics, the tax credit will not nearly cover the cost of private insurance. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, the total cost of the average family health insurance plan is $12,100. Of that the average family pays $3,300 in premiums with the rest covered by the employer. Under McCain’s plan, that average family would receive a $5,000 tax credit to offset the cost of the plan, leaving the family to cover the remaining $7,100 in premiums.

The average family who pays $275 per month for health insurance would see their premiums rise to $592 per month under McCain’s plan, a 115% increase.

(I am very lucky that I have an employer that offers a better than average plan and asks me to pay less than the average. Applying McCain’s proposal to my situation, if my employer decided it would be cheaper for them to drop employer-sponsored coverage, my monthly cost for the same plan that I am in now would more than triple from $225 per month to $750 per month.)

McCain suggests that his plan will “foster competition and drive down prices,” but the retail price of the average plan would have to drop from $12,100 per year to $8,300 in order for the average family to see no premium increase. In an era where medical premiums have nearly doubled in the last seven years, can anyone rationally expect that health insurance costs will drop 31% as a result of McCain’s plan? No.

While the promise of a $5,000 tax credit will sound like a great plan to many voters, it is nothing more than another device to shift the cost away from corporations and onto the backs of the working and middle-class. The McCain plan is a loser for ordinary Americans.

Tags: Election 2008 Republican health care John McCain