I guarandamntee you that you will need a prescription after you hit age 70. Why is that?

Well, in the case of the house, there are houses that have existed for hundreds of years without burning down… fire is not inevitable.

But people? Every single (EVERY SINGLE) one of them is going to die. No matter how much money we spend. Even if we spend all of it.

I’m just saying that it’s about as likely as other big-government programs to achieve the things they set out to do.

For example: Johnson’s War On Poverty.

If I were to tell you that universal health care was as likely to be about as expensive as the WOP and about as successful, would you see it as something we should totally do or something that, hey, well… maybe we should hold off?

There is a moral challenge in the face of another, John. That is a notion not only And I can’t begin to tell you how cruel you appear, when you meet every question about suffering with such derision. So what would you say, if you could actually put aside for one moment your incredible sensitivity and defensiveness on this issue, and tell me what you would have sick and suffering people do?

… universal affordability would be fine with me – as long as everyone was required to participate.

I think that’s an awful idea; individual mandates are a perfect way to give the medical industry a chance to require people to pay for services that they don’t want or need.

Let’s see some genuine proposals from conservatives.

Again, see Ross and Reihan’s book for a start. Or see any of the dozens of health care wonks at NRO, Cato, and so on. I make no apologies for the incompetence of the Republican Party.

So a $5k tax credit will not help anyone not paying at least $5k in Fed income tax.

I think this is based on a misunderstanding of the mechanism; refundable tax credits can be used to give people back more than what they paid in taxes.

The next point is what does insurance cost? The latest I heard was around $11k or $12k annually for a family for employer plans – whether they are good plans or not I have no idea.

Yes, but part of the reason that they’re so costly is because they aren’t taxed, so individuals don’t actually face up to the plans’ real costs; hence part of the impetus behind a plan like McCain’s was to create market incentives to help drive the cost of health insurance down.

If I step back, it almost looks like he’s protecting the insurance companies, not the un and underinsured.

How in the world do you get that, when the plan includes tax credits to families and individuals, mechanisms to ensure that no one has to pay more than they can afford, etc.?

Expensive could be, but McCain’s plan had just as much government in it as any other plan. Government action is the only thing holding his plan together.

That may be true, but it’s only a problem if you object to government action per se, as opposed to government action of particular sorts.

Is McCain’s idea the only one out there?

No. See above.

However it is done, and I do not believe a free market can work where the power is all on one side of the table, in this case the provider/hospital/insurer side, i believe it should be done. Let’s see some genuine proposals from conservatives.

Presuming you meant John McCain (and if his take on Iran didn’t alarm you, then I am talking to the wrong John :) his plan was tax credits, increased competition amongst insurers, and taxing employer plans. McCain offered up a $5k tax credit for a family. Interestingly enough, that amount might actually be more than the income tax burden on the median family in the US. Median family income in the US in 2007 was around $50k. The Fed income tax burden? Something under $2000 or less, and even less under Obama’s tax plan. So a $5k tax credit will not help anyone not paying at least $5k in Fed income tax. The next point is what does insurance cost? The latest I heard was around $11k or $12k annually for a family for employer plans – whether they are good plans or not I have no idea. So to to provide insurance to the uninsured, most of whom don’t make more than the median and so play little or no income tax at all, we are going to give a $5k tax break they can’t use then hope that insurance for individuals will be somehow lower than existing employer plans, which cost only $11k or $12k annually. Is that the plan to which you refer? Maybe you mean RSM, I don’t know.

McCain’s plan goes on to include risk pools for the really sick – that is an oxymoron – as well as limits on what insurance costs and assistance for those who simply can’t afford health insurance (almost everyone below the median). I would characterize this as Reihan’s piecemeal approach – and yet when you get down to it, the gov does almost all the work – the risk pools (guaranteed access), the assistance, the limits. If I step back, it almost looks like he’s protecting the insurance companies, not the un and underinsured. And then McCain says this will cost only $10 billion, I assume annually, as compared to total health cares costs in excess of $2 trillion. That is so unrealistic as to be laughable.

McCain’s pre-election objections to the Democrats plans consisted of too expensive and too much government. Expensive could be, but McCain’s plan had just as much government in it as any other plan. Government action is the only thing holding his plan together.

Is McCain’s idea the only one out there? Do you actually consider him a conservative, even a fiscal one?

Jake