Comments on: McCain vs. the Critics, Part I http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/mccain-vs-the-critics-part-i/ Insights on Health Care Reform | NCPA Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:38:31 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: The Republican Health Plan | John Goodman | NCPA http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/mccain-vs-the-critics-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-42842 The Republican Health Plan | John Goodman | NCPA Wed, 27 May 2009 18:45:06 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=659#comment-42842 [...] the Coburn plan is very similar to John McCain's health plan, which I have discussed here, here and here, I won't dwell on details — other than to explain two main features which are [...] [...] the Coburn plan is very similar to John McCain's health plan, which I have discussed here, here and here, I won't dwell on details — other than to explain two main features which are [...]

]]> By: Steve Dossin http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/mccain-vs-the-critics-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-39392 Steve Dossin Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:22:38 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=659#comment-39392 John, You wrote "[McCain's Plan] would do all of this without any new taxes or any new spending programs." May we suggest distributing federal contributions for healthcare via methods other than a tax credit? Tying social benefits to our tax code runs counter to the simplification we've been working for, and reduces IRS efficiency further. Thank you for how your efforts have built consensus for basic healthcare assistance for all full citizens. But we think the answer is to give efficient, non-stigmatized delivery of benefits to all – a true safety net, not a spider's web catching some of our citizens. Steve at ComingTogether.info John,

You wrote “[McCain's Plan] would do all of this without any new taxes or any new spending programs.” May we suggest distributing federal contributions for healthcare via methods other than a tax credit? Tying social benefits to our tax code runs counter to the simplification we’ve been working for, and reduces IRS efficiency further.

Thank you for how your efforts have built consensus for basic healthcare assistance for all full citizens. But we think the answer is to give efficient, non-stigmatized delivery of benefits to all – a true safety net, not a spider’s web catching some of our citizens.

Steve at ComingTogether.info

]]> By: John Goodman http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/mccain-vs-the-critics-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-39318 John Goodman Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:56:13 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=659#comment-39318 Reply to Antiplanner: 1. The tax credit is refundable. You get the credit even if you pay no taxes. 2. The scheme is revenue neutral. The current system of $250 Billion in tax subsidies is replaced by a new and better system. Reply to Antiplanner:

1. The tax credit is refundable. You get the credit even if you pay no taxes.

2. The scheme is revenue neutral. The current system of $250 Billion in tax subsidies is replaced by a new and better system.

]]> By: John Goodman http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/mccain-vs-the-critics-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-39316 John Goodman Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:23:13 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=659#comment-39316 Medicare does a very good job on risk adjustment, but a terrible job on incentives. It pays three or four times as much for care in Boston as it does in Vermont, but with no better outcomes. If we went from the current system of $250 billion in tax subsidies to a full blown system of risk adjustment, the federal government would probably end up spending $750 billion, no improvement in care and much worse cost control than we have now. So first things first. Start by correcting the inefficiencies in the current tax subsidy system and let the market adjust to that. Medicare does a very good job on risk adjustment, but a terrible job on incentives. It pays three or four times as much for care in Boston as it does in Vermont, but with no better outcomes.

If we went from the current system of $250 billion in tax subsidies to a full blown system of risk adjustment, the federal government would probably end up spending $750 billion, no improvement in care and much worse cost control than we have now.

So first things first. Start by correcting the inefficiencies in the current tax subsidy system and let the market adjust to that.

]]> By: Laurence J. Kotlikoff http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/mccain-vs-the-critics-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-39315 Laurence J. Kotlikoff Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:00:42 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=659#comment-39315 John, The federal government is getting it right already using a private-risk adjustment program developed by my colleague at BU (Randy Ellis). They use it for Medicare Part C. A lump sum subsidy is not a better idea. The original Goodman idea is the right and only right idea here. It's time to move ground and get back to your original, absolutely brilliant plan. Best, Larry John,
The federal government is getting it right already using a private-risk adjustment program developed by my colleague at BU (Randy Ellis). They use it for Medicare Part C. A lump sum subsidy is not a better idea. The original Goodman idea is the right and only right idea here. It’s time to move ground and get back to your original, absolutely brilliant plan.

Best, Larry

]]> By: John Goodman http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/mccain-vs-the-critics-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-39314 John Goodman Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:58:26 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=659#comment-39314 Larry, That family already has insurance, right? Because 95% of everyone in Mass is insured. Isn't it better to give them their federal subsidy in a lump sum? I'm in favor of risk adjustment. But there is no way the federal government could ever get it right. So leave that problem up to employers (who are already doing it) and state governments (who will also screw it up but the impact of their mistakes will be confined to their borders). Larry,

That family already has insurance, right? Because 95% of everyone in Mass is insured. Isn’t it better to give them their federal subsidy in a lump sum?

I’m in favor of risk adjustment. But there is no way the federal government could ever get it right.

So leave that problem up to employers (who are already doing it) and state governments (who will also screw it up but the impact of their mistakes will be confined to their borders).

]]> By: Laurence J. Kotlikoff http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/mccain-vs-the-critics-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-39313 Laurence J. Kotlikoff Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:56:46 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=659#comment-39313 John, Come on. The cost of a basic Blue-Cross plan in Boston for healthy family of four is close to $25,000. If the family has a member with diabetes, it will be much higher. This is the private healthcare system in operation right now. McCain's plan needs to deal directly with pre-existing conditions with individual-specific vouchers. The vouchers have to be large enough to cover the true cost and then we need a highly efficient tax system -- the FairTax -- to pay for them. Best, Larry John,
Come on. The cost of a basic Blue-Cross plan in Boston for healthy family of four is close to $25,000. If the family has a member with diabetes, it will be much higher. This is the private healthcare system in operation right now. McCain’s plan needs to deal directly with pre-existing conditions with individual-specific vouchers. The vouchers have to be large enough to cover the true cost and then we need a highly efficient tax system — the FairTax — to pay for them.

Best, Larry

]]> By: Barry B. http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/mccain-vs-the-critics-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-39311 Barry B. Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:33:48 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=659#comment-39311 You might address more fully the problems of people who develop health issues while on individual policies. There are numerous anecdotes about people facing enormous rate increases when they are insured as individuals or even in small businesses. This came up in our debate last week and though I successfully ducked the questions along this line, it would be useful if could discuss how the laws could be tweaked to prevent having people priced out of the market after the fact. You might address more fully the problems of people who develop health issues while on individual policies. There are numerous anecdotes about people facing enormous rate increases when they are insured as individuals or even in small businesses. This came up in our debate last week and though I successfully ducked the questions along this line, it would be useful if could discuss how the laws could be tweaked to prevent having people priced out of the market after the fact.

]]> By: antiplanner http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/mccain-vs-the-critics-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-39310 antiplanner Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:22:42 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=659#comment-39310 John, Your post about the McCain plan raises two questions in my mind. 1. If this is a tax credit, what about people who don't pay taxes? They are the ones who tend to be uninsured. Or does McCain's proposal actually give people who don't pay taxes $2,500 for insurance? 2. Would this be revenue neutral, i.e., would the elimination of existing tax subsidies be balanced by tax credits or would it increase the costs to the Treasury? John,

Your post about the McCain plan raises two questions in my mind.

1. If this is a tax credit, what about people who don’t pay taxes? They are the ones who tend to be uninsured. Or does McCain’s proposal actually give people who don’t pay taxes $2,500 for insurance?

2. Would this be revenue neutral, i.e., would the elimination of existing tax subsidies be balanced by tax credits or would it increase the costs to the Treasury?

]]> By: Scottt http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/mccain-vs-the-critics-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-39309 Scottt Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:54:21 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=659#comment-39309 Although this makes a great deal of sense, the message needs to be drastically simplified for the masses. Without the simple translation, McCain's campaign will not be able to deliver this message...it is too complicated unless you work in healthcare?! Although this makes a great deal of sense, the message needs to be drastically simplified for the masses. Without the simple translation, McCain’s campaign will not be able to deliver this message…it is too complicated unless you work in healthcare?!

]]>