McCain’s Health Care for the Well To Do But Maybe Not for You

Paul Krugman makes one definitive claim and speculates on McCain’s plan for Medicare:

Conservative Republicans still hate Medicare, and would kill it if they could — in fact, they tried to gut it during the Clinton years (that’s what the 1995 shutdown of the government was all about). But so far they haven’t been able to pull that off. So John McCain wants to destroy the health insurance of nonelderly Americans instead. Most Americans under 65 currently get health insurance through their employers. That’s largely because the tax code favors such insurance: your employer’s contribution to insurance premiums isn’t considered taxable income, as long as the employer’s health plan follows certain rules. In particular, the same plan has to be available to all employees, regardless of the size of their paycheck or the state of their health. This system does a fairly effective job of protecting those it reaches, but it leaves many Americans out in the cold. Workers whose employers don’t offer coverage are forced to seek individual health insurance, often in vain. For one thing, insurance companies offering “nongroup” coverage generally refuse to cover anyone with a pre-existing medical condition. And individual insurance is very expensive, because insurers spend large sums weeding out “high-risk” applicants — that is, anyone who seems likely to actually need the insurance.

The speculation had to do with Palin’s closing remarks during the VP debate and her tribute to Ronald Reagan. Laura Meckler assures us that this speculation is well founded:

John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs. The Republican presidential nominee has said little about the proposed cuts, but they are needed to keep his health-care plan "budget neutral," as he has promised. The McCain campaign hasn't given a specific figure for the cuts, but didn't dispute the analysts' estimate.

As a member of the deficit hawk wing of the Democratic Party, I think fiscal neutrality is a good thing. But I also think this type of a move is really bad policy from an income distribution perspective.

Update: Jonathan Cohn does a nice job of explaining how the McCain position has evolved over time:

First McCain said he would elimin[at]e the entire tax deduction for health insurance, in order to pay for his new tax credit. This would have paid for itself, but it would have done so by raising taxes on a lot of people. Then McCain decided he was keeping part of the deduction after all. While he would be raising taxes on a very few people, he'd be lowering them for most. Of course, that would also have meant running much bigger deficits. Now McCain is saying, no, no, he's not going to increase the deficit with his health care plan. Instead, he's going to pay for it by cutting Medicare and Medicaid--which, at the levels he's discussing, might seriously weaken the program. I can't wait to see what they come up with next.

The usual GOP playbook – playing fast and loose with how their fiscal proposals are supposed to be paid for (if at all).