Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN'S HEALTH CARE CONFUSION.
Meanwhile, it's impressive how fully the Obama campaign has snookered John McCain on health care. First, McCain came out with a plan that cost $3.6 trillion, but they said was "revenue neutral." Some simple calculations showed that that meant McCain was taxing health care benefits as employee compensation, meaning workers we're facing a huge payroll tax increase. This line of attack spooked the McCain campaign, so they told the Tax Policy Center they weren't going to tax health care as compensation. This left a $1.3 trillion shortfall in their plan. Which the Obama campaign basically ignored, because you can't have a $1.3 trillion shortfall in your plan, so it was fairly obvious that the McCain campaign was going to follow their original strategy and tax benefits. The McCain campaign, buffeted by questions on the topic, came out with a novel new payment strategy today. They're going to cut Medicare and Medicaid. And that's not mean liberal spin. It's the Wall Street Journal subhead: "Medicare, Medicaid Spending Would Be Reduced to Offset Proposed Tax Credit."
As a general point, there's nothing in American politics more unpopular than cuts in Medicare. You can talk about means-testing Social Security before you can talk about taking health care from the elderly. But now McCain is promising cuts in Medicare. It's a brutal position to be in, and not the sort of thing he wants going out on mailers to elderly voters in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. But you can bet the printer is already drawing them up.
I've gotten on the Obama campaign a bit for having an attack strategy on health care without much of an affirmative case. But the long-term takeaway from this fight is that they exposed gaping vulnerabilities in the standard-issue conservative health care plan. This is the outline all Republicans have been using of late, and it's never been a particularly strong proposal. It's more along the lines of "we must do something, this is something, we must do this!" As for the plan's evidence weaknesses, they either assumed that Democrats wouldn't be interested in hitting them on taxes or wouldn't notice. Neither has proven true and now McCain is not only raising taxes, but also chopping Medicare. And Obama has effectively painted him as a threat to employer-based health care coverage -- which is to say, a threat to the health care coverage most Americans have and are desperate to keep. This sort of plan is now dead. Future Republican candidates won't open themselves up to the same attacks. They will not take aim at the employer health market. And yet one more option is now closed off to them.
COMMENTS (8)
SUICIDAL.
The McCain campaign has lost their shit, big-time. Are they this spooked by a run of bad polls? It wasn't hopeless. They still had the Ayers/Wright card to play. Now they've played it, but on the same day the Dow plunges and they announce plans to cut Medicare. It's like they want to lose.
Posted by: jeebus | October 6, 2008 3:54 PM
I'd suggest that folks on the left are putting a few words in the McCain campaign's mouth-- namely "cut Medicare."
They did say that they needed $1.3 trillion in "cost savings" over ten years, and highlighted that Medicare fraud would be a major component. Most reasonable estimates of fraud are $50 billion a year. Throw in some Lewin-style cost-savings estimates on health IT, pay-for-performance initiatives, etc. and you get to $1.3 trillion. With no actual cuts to Medicare. Sort of like Wyden's plan growing at CPI without any cuts to benefits. These are all funny numbers, and the McCain campaign is hoping to wave away a $1.3 trillion dollar gap. No cuts have been offered.
Posted by: wisewon | October 6, 2008 4:04 PM
One of the knife-twists that the Obama campaign this weekend was the idea of insurers seeking out states with zero or near-zero mandated services -- the equivalent of South Dakota's credit-card haven -- and using them as home base.
Obama in NC over the weekend had the list of mandated services for statewide insurers -- mental health coverage, mammograms to women over 35, the right to appeal an HMO decision etc. -- and the idea of a race to the bottom generated the most vocal response.
From what I can tell, the McCain campaign hasn't disputed the basic contention that it would allow insurers to operate in a way that frees them from state-mandated provision guarantees.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | October 6, 2008 5:21 PM
For years, doctors have been limiting the number of Medicare patients they see because reimbursements are inadequate. Now McCain is proposing the perfect market oriented fix to Medicare. Cut the reimbursements further, he says, make it impossible for elderly patients to find a doctor willing to treat them, and voila, the Medicare system saves a bundle!
Posted by: FS | October 6, 2008 9:34 PM
Oh Ezra, My Ezra,
I just wanted you to see this before you go bye-bye sleepikins.
Do you really think that the Keating-5 video is likely to trump Rezko's confessions?
Huh?
Rezko who?
Confessions what?
(tee-hee-hee-hee, suppressed giggle)
Check it out, and remember, don't hate the playa, hate the game:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/fundraiser_trial
This is the equivalent of a stripper jumping out of a big Happy October cake!
Posted by: Ringo Meza | October 6, 2008 10:10 PM
While Blagojevich was frequently mentioned at Rezko's trial, the testimony rarely touched on Obama, who has been accused of no wrongdoing.
tee-hee-hee-hee indeed. Why are you building yourself up for such massive disappointment? The guy just isn't on the take.
Posted by: Mike B. | October 6, 2008 10:45 PM
Some people don't have adequate healthcare coverage versus financial meltdown: phony crisis, meet real crisis
Posted by: Anonymous | October 7, 2008 2:38 PM
McCain's health care stuff is a big fat juicy target. I hope that Obama explains his plan in the last two debates. If people understand it, it will make passage more likely. Otherwise you get something akin to Bush's attempt to 'reform' Soc Sec. It wasn't discussed during the campaign, so it immediately ran into problems in Congress.
Posted by: American Citizen | October 7, 2008 4:49 PM