McCain’s and Obama’s Inconsistent Health Care Reform Principles

Picking inconsistencies in the positions politicians take is too easy to qualify as a sport. They have to take stands on such a wide variety of issues it’s asking too much for all of them to fit into a consistent and persistent political philosophy. Pointing out the contradictions can thus be seen as a cheap shot. Then again, Lou Dobbs has made a career out of cheap shots, so what who am I not to play the game? Fittingly for this blog, there were two examples of this consistency that become apparent when you examine their their positions on health care reform.

1. McCain’s Anti-Federalist Health Care Reform Plan

Senator John McCain described himself as a “Federalist” last night. This was in the context of his explaining that the Supreme Court should reverse Roe v. Wade and leave it to each state to determine how abortion will be treated within their own boundaries. Federalism emphasizes the portion of the United States Constitution that reserves to the states powers not specifically assigned to the central government. It reflects the belief that, because voters are closer to their own state governments than to the federal government in Washington, the state is best positioned to reflect their will and protect their interests.

How surprising then that a core plank in Senator McCain’s health care reform plan is to allow health insurance companies to sell in every state benefit packages approved in one state. The result will be a rush by carriers to file their plans in the least regulated, most insurer-favored state. And it won’t take them long to identify this lowest common denominator jurisdiction. I give it three days max.

Here’s how Senator McCain’s free-for-all approach to regulation would work. Consumers in, say, California could purchase health plans approved by the Arizona Department of Insurance. I’m sure the regulators in Arizona are fine, upstanding defenders of consumers interests. But California voters had no say in who they were or what laws they enforce. A true Federalist would defend the right of Californians to create their own health care system. A false Federalist would call for Californians to accept whatever system any of the other states happens to come up with.

In many ways, this is worse than a nationalized health care system. At least Californians have representation in Washington. They have some influence on what happens there. California voters have no representation in Phoenix.

2. Obama Attacks a Progressive Health Care Subsidy

Senator Barack Obama took a lot of heat for saying he wanted a tax system that “spreads the wealth” during the debate. Yet, that’s the nature of America’s tax system: it taxes wealthier people more than poorer people. This system is called progressive. A regressive tax system puts a greater burden on lower income families than on the well off ones. In many ways, President George W. Bush’s cuts over the past eight years eased the tax burden more for those earning more than $250,000 than it did for those making less. A core plank in Senator Obama’s platform is to reverse that situation and make the tax system more progressive.

One of the least progressive portions of the tax code concern the treatment of employer sponsored health insurance. That’s because the value of these medical plans (the portion of the premium paid by the employer) is not considered taxable income. This makes employer-sponsored coverage a great deal for employees at all income levels, but it’s a regressive benefit from a tax stand point.

Take the case of Acme Widgets. It currently pays $10,000 a year on each employee’s health insurance plan. The CEO of Acme makes a ton of money and is in the 35 percent tax bracket. This means America’s taxpayers are subsiding her health care to the tune of $3,500. Her assistant makes a lot less and is taxed at a 15 percent rate, resulting in a tax subsidy of $1,500. The receptionist makes the least of all, pays no taxes and receives no tax subsidy. When the rich get more than their lower income colleagues, the tax structure is regressive.

Under Senator McCain’s proposal, the value of health insurance would be considered taxable income. He offsets this lost take home pay with a $2,500 per person ($5,000 per family) refundable tax credit. (Refundable means you get the credit even if you don’t pay taxes.) Senator Obama hammers his opponent for this “gimmickry.” But let’s see how it plays out with our friends at Acme Widgets).

The CEO’s family pays $3,500 more in taxes and gets $5,000 in a health care tax credit for a net of $1,500. The assistant’s family pays $1,500 more in taxes, receives a $5,000 credit and nets $3,500. The receptionist’s family still pays no taxes, but after the credit comes out $5,000 ahead. The well off pay more in taxes than the less well off. That’s a progressive tax system. That’s spreading the wealth.

Having It Both Ways

Senator McCain can’t have it both ways. He can’t be a Federalist when it comes to abortion and a Lowest Common Denominator-ist on health care. Well, actually he can, but he shouldn’t be able to have it both ways.

Senator Obama can’t have it both ways. He can’t be for a progressive income tax system and then attack a proposal to make the treatment of employer sponsored health insurance more progressive. Well, actually he can, but he shouldn’t be able to have it both ways.

Inconsistencies is as common in politics as false smiles and bad coffee. It’s a human undertaking and, by definition, humans tend to be inconsistent. But it is fun to point them out.

2 thoughts on “McCain’s and Obama’s Inconsistent Health Care Reform Principles

  1. A Federal healthcare experiment is Medicare Part D, the new drug coverage offered in 2006 for the first time. This simple concept: to help seniors pay for their drug costs is so complex that it has kept even millions of low income people from even enrolling.

  2. The influence of corporate health insurance on DC is enoromous. Even if St. Health Care Reformer were elected president, which is itself impossible – you don’t get that far by defying the health lobby – congress would see to it that no serious change happens.

Comments are closed.