RNCC Interview: McCain health care policy
posted at 1:20 pm on September 5, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In continuing my coverage of the convention, I’ll have videos appearing all day here that I just didn’t have time to convert yesterday. The first, with Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), covers the specifics of John McCain’s health-care policy. Dr. Burgess is an OB/GYN specialist, just as Dr. Tom Coburn in the upper chamber, and he serves on McCain’s advisory board on health-care issues. As you can see for yourself, the McCain plan does not lack for specifics:
Please excuse the poor transfer on this particular video. I had to watch file size because of the tricky nature of my Internet connection, and I compressed this a little harder than necessary. Rep. Burgess gives an excellent rundown of McCain’s plan, though, and he was quite generous with his time.
One particular concept comes out clearly from this interview. McCain wants to revamp the government’s current effect on health insurance to allow the self-employed the same kind of access and the same level of tax support as those who work for companies providing those benefits. It’s revenue-neutral, but allows people (like me, as I say here) to take more risks in going to self-employment. That can only help make the economy more dynamic, and get us away from a corporate insurance structure that locks people into jobs.
Michael Burgess is running for re-election to Congress in his Fort Worth-area district. If you like what you hear, consider making a donation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Just think about what a great job the Department of Education has done for our schools and what a great job the Department of Energy has done to assure America has plentiful energy.
Now we are talking about letting the government get involved with health care? Is America really that brain dead? If so, we don’t need health care.
Maxx on September 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Two Words. Social Security
marklmail on September 5, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Ed seems to be fine. On my end at least.
upinak on September 5, 2008 at 1:33 PM
You should have just put another pic of Palin up there, commenters sure aren’t flocking to post on Burgess.
But your point about self-employment is excellent.
kirkill on September 5, 2008 at 1:42 PM
My man and my Congressman, Michael Burgess! Give em hell, Michael!
thedudesblog on September 5, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Darn it…I was just getting over health care wonkishness too…
There are a lot of people who don’t get the more subtle ways to fix things and just want government to run it all (not that such a thing is 100% bad, either). He explained the interstate commerce problem better than I have.
I was making a mock Cabinet with a friend of mine recently, and we didn’t have a SECHHS. I like this guy, though.
its_a_trap on September 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM
I’ve met Congressman Burgess and he should know something about health insurance, he was an OBGYN for years before becoming a congressman. He has done a great job for his north Texas constituency and I look forward to voting for him again in November. Thanks for posting!
Texasrocker on September 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Look, if there’s one thing I KNOW about it’s health care/insurance (unfortunately). It is the most boring topic on the planet, but nobody in Washington DC will ever solve or help this problem. I’ll tell you why.
Insurance is controlled by each state’s department of insurance. The federal government does not have jurisdiction over this issue. It never has, it never will. The state department of insurances will not just hand over their authority to DC.
There are simple solutions. The only problem with the current system is the uninsurables. NC is addressing that problem with a ‘risk pool’ where people who otherwise would be turned down are placed in a pool of money supplied by all insurance companies that want to do business in this state. That allows lower costs for high risk insureds.
The only thing the Federal government has jurisdiction over is taxes. They COULD make premiums tax deductible. And they COULD establish tax free IRA-like savings accounts (like HSA’s that they have already done). Anything beyond these issues oversteps the boundaries of the FEDERAL government.
I understand that people in and from DC (like McCain) can’t understand why they aren’t ‘ALL POWERFUL’ like some kings are. . . but in America, they aren’t. Until the Federal government and people running for office realize that they do not and will not have jurisdiction over state department of insurances, they won’t be able to address the only REAL problem with the system (uninsurables).
ThackerAgency on September 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM
It’s hard to think on a friday while basking in the afterglow of the RNC. It’s easier just to watch balloons fall on Andrea Mitchell while sipping a cafe latte.
Mr_Magoo on September 5, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Being somewhat familiar with the health insurance industry, albeit in a technical aspect not the business side, but hey stuff rubs off on you, Thacker brings up a good point about each state exerts a large measure of control over the health insurance agencies operating within its’ borders. One issue that must be addressed is the portability of your health insurance. If the insurance can be tailored to the customer rather then the business who employs you it would be a big step forward. Often times due to geographically transferring jobs or even changing jobs you must start over with a new insurance company. The whole model of health insurance is based on employer rather then employee.
A second issue is to allow small businesses to band together as a group in order to be offered the same advantages by the insurance companies as the larger employers. Often times your out of pocket expenses for insurance is more dependent on the number of employees a business has rather then the actual coverage offered.
I do not believe should the federal government should get into the insurance business as a provider.
If you want to see what that is like take the time to visit the web site Medicare and see all of the rules associated with that. It is a wonder any Medicare claims ever get paid.
Just A Grunt on September 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM
“McCain wants to revamp the government’s current effect on health insurance to allow the self-employed the same kind of access and the same level of tax support as those who work for companies providing those benefits. It’s revenue-neutral, but allows people (like me, as I say here) to take more risks in going to self-employment.”
This is an EXCELLENT idea and something that will really help me as well. Great idea.
NoDonkey on September 5, 2008 at 2:40 PM
When it comes to health care, I want the government out of it. I want to be able to reasonably purchase health insurance the same way I purchase my auto insurance and my homeowners. I want to be able to decide what my deductible is and what ‘extras’ I want included. I have a 5 year old with speech difficulties. My husband’s insurance does not cover speech therapy and I refuse to have this child taken out of class to get ‘free speech’ therapy courtesy of our school district. We are paying out of pocket for our child’s speech because it is our responsibility and I want to control how and when my child gets help.
red131 on September 5, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I am uninsurable. Luckily, my husband has a job with a large company so we have GREAT insurance. However, my husband is completely stuck at his job because of my illness - I have MS and my treatments are around 3k a month. By the way, I feel that those treatments are worth every penny (even though I haven’t had any improvement - as long as you’re not going downhill, you’re grateful) because they’re funding the next generation of drugs. The thing I dread most in the world is having the government in charge of my health care. Even though I’m not making any improvements, I need THIS treatment - even though it’s more expensive than the other drugs. I have a hard time believing someone whose first concern was making sure that evil pharma doesn’t make a profit would really care. Not to mention, when the taxpayers at large are paying for my medication, there would be protests outside of every treatment center in the country for this “waste” of tax payer money. Please let me pay for what I get - so I can decide what I get. That was kind of rambley, but this is something that I REALLY worry about.
melda on September 5, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Thanks for the info on this seemingly unpopular, yet important topic. Being in the military has sheltered me from this issue. Tricare is about it for us, which hasn’t been too bad, but certainly has its flaws. I commonly quip with folks that if they want universal health care, then they should come to a military hospital sometime. A government bureaucracy on top of a medical bureaucracy makes things… interesting.
Send_Me on September 5, 2008 at 3:20 PM
congressman Burgess does a state of the medical industry hour on the floor of the house I think like twice a month. It really is informative. his website puts all of them up if you are interested
http://burgess.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=83344
having a wife that graduates medical school this year this is one of the most important issues for me. If you all knew what the democrats have already been doing to the medical perfession and what is already in the works you would be shocked. In the video he mentions alittle about the medicare but it is much worse than he lets on.
CaptainObvious on September 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Thacker what you are saying and what my wife is saying it makes sense. It seems to her and the professors that they are creating an environment that will force all doctors to work directly for the government. Medicare and medicaid are a losing proposition for doctors and they are leaving it in droves. OBGYNs are even worse with all the lawsuits they must face. 1 in 4 obgyns get sued and in most states can be sued up to 18 years after a birth if in anyway an abnormality can be traced back to the birth (see Breck girl)
most obgyns must carry around 4 million in malpractice insurance
then to pay for the “college education act” they passed in the houndred hours agenda (and “supposedly” because of the paygo rule) they got rid of a rule called the 20 / 220 rule to pay for it.
this was in place for any professional degree that incrues large amounts of debt. Before if you graduate and dont begin to make 200% of the poverty level your interest on your debt wouldnt begin to incrue and you were not forced to begin payment on your debt.
getting rid of the 20/220 rule now as soon as you graduate you must start paying interest incrueing debt back. being that a doctor must attend a min of 3 years in residency sometimes over 10 (making 35 to 40,000) the avg cost of your school loans means they would be paying 65% of their salary during residency toward their loans on day one.
Ofcourse if you make a 5 to 10 year commitment to work in low income areas (ie new orleans or elpaso etc) then they will forego some if not most of your loans.
great except the avg doctor is basically forced to retire in their late 50s early 60s
so you have 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of med school, say 5 years avg of residency and say 8 years of low income work your now 40 before you can start to work on your own.
theres more to it but you get the idea. So if they cant make the government cave they will make the doctors.
CaptainObvious on September 5, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Pretty much all health care already costs the price the Federal Government says it should cost through Medicare/Medicaid price structures. I guarantee you that your bill is within a percentage point or two of what the government says the doctor should change. This collusion on prices would be illegal if the doctors got together and set these prices themselves, but the Federal Government does it for them. Currently there is no competition on price by medical doctors. If you want the free market to work correctly the Federal Government needs to get out of the insurance business completely.
Buford on September 6, 2008 at 3:41 AM
Employer-provided health insurance was created during WWII (Thacker is right, it was a simple change in the tax code that created it). It was a great idea then because we were in a war. After the war was over, it made no sense but, like all government ideas, we were stuck with it. You can read all about it in The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care.
Kafir on September 6, 2008 at 7:23 AM