Child poverty rate of over 20%. Hate to set off the profanity alarms, but all the "USA! USA!" chanters should shove that 20+% right up their ignorant asses.

I think that the list could be reduced to one pair of points:
-McCain evil
-Obama good

It will cover all children. And Christ almighty, isn't it time we did at least that?

No, it isn't. I think, for example, Warren Buffett's kids should have their health insurance paid by Warren Buffett - not the tax payers.

In other words, the government should only cover poor children's healthcare, not all childrens.

To a great extent, America is importing its child poverty problem--masses of children entering the country illegally with their parents and also adult illegals having children who remain mired in poverty their whole lives long.

Bottom line--the fewer illegals, the less child poverty and the more resources freed up to help combat American child poverty.

Here's what John McCain wants to do to you. First, he will eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance.

Consequences:

Many working adults will immediately lose their current health insurance, as small businesses that are already struggling to provide it will have little reason to continue.
Everybody else will immediately face a large tax increase, unless they decide to drop their employer-provided coverage.

McCain will use the new taxes (in other words, don't read his lips) to give people a $2,500 refundable tax credit for individuals, or $5,000 for families, to buy health insurance on the open market, as an individual.

Consequences:

Even with the tax credit, low income people still won't be able to afford insurance, so they'll just stay uninsured.
Moderate income people may find insurance they can afford, but it will have high co-payments and deductibles, which means that if they are injured or get sick, they will have to pay more out of pocket.
As health care costs continue to increase, if Congress doesn't increase the tax credit, health insurance will become less and less affordable and more and more people will be uninsured.

Insurance companies will be allowed to use medical underwriting. Consequences:

People who are older, or in poorer health, will have to pay more, or may not be able to buy insurance at all.
People will not be able to get coverage for "pre-existing conditions."

Insurance companies will be able to sell policies across state lines, meaning that state regulation of insurance will become meaningless. Consequences:
State mandates to cover preventive services such as cancer screenings, disease management, smoking cessation, etc., will become ineffective. Insurance companies will stop offering these benefits, because even though they save money in the long run, you as an individual probably won't still be their customer by the time the savings are realized -- either because you'll be on Medicare by then, you won't be able to afford insurance at all any more, or they threw you off the plan because, yup, you got sick.

McCain proposes to create a plan of last resort for people who can't buy insurance on the market, but it won't actually offer any help: it will have high costs, limited benefits, and exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

The Republicans argue that "competition" among insurance companies, and consumer choice, will lower costs, but it isn't true. Insurance companies compete by trying to skim healthier customers and charging sicker people more; and consumers don't choose to get medical procedures or take prescription drugs just because somebody else is paying for them, they get those services and goods because they actually need them. If they can't afford them, they won't get preventive services and treatment.

My friends, The McCain health care "reform plan" will mean:

1. Higher taxes.
2. More uninsured people.
3. Higher costs for health insurance.
4. Less preventive care, and a sicker population.
5. Higher health care costs in the long run.
6. Injustice -- sick people won't be able to get health care.
7. Bigger profits for insurance companies.

I'm Cervantes, and I approved this message.

Here's another talking point for Obama: His plan will triple the budget deficit.

Ezra, how about an analysis of the 3rd Health Affairs article that proposed a plan that might actually work and be politically viable?

I think it is also important to note that in the individual market, your rates go up significantly if you get ill. For example, in PA, there are no bounds whatsoever on how much your insurance rates can go up year over year.

In effect, then, you aren't buying individual insurance, since if you ever use it, you're effectively taken off the plan.

In other words, the government should only cover poor children's healthcare, not all childrens.

Should Warren Buffet's kids have to pay a special fee if they get mugged and the police investigate? Should his grandchildren be charged every time they go a public park to play on the swings? After all, they certainly could afford it.

Rather than needs-testing every program or public service, the smart thing to do is to establish progressive tax rates. Rich people pay a larger share, and the government doesn't spend all its time needs-testing a million programs and services.

And one note on the politics of McCain's plan. Although massive reform is desperately needed, we've seen over 15 years of this debate that any plan that sounds like a threat to voters' existing health insurance is dancing around on a third rail.

The GOP's "everything's fine" prescription has rested politically on the ability to "Harry and Louise" any call for reform. But McCain's plan is a direct attack on current health insurance -- it's probably even more vulnerable to scaring people about losing their coverage than Obama's plan. I hope Obama works on an "elevator rap" about John McCain canceling your health insurance and raising your taxes and rolls out ads and hammers him in the last debate. It would also be smart for Biden to focus on this in his debate with Palin.