McCain's Dangerous Health Care Deregulation and Denialism

I've got another great perspective on John McCain's dangerous health care plan for America, from a doctor with and interesting percpective about the whole discussion. I just stumbled on this blog, that exposes a tactic used in politics by both sides of the isle (although perfected by Republicans as their standard operating procedure). It's called denialism, and here's their explanation:

Hello and welcome to denialism blog. Here we will discuss the problem of denialists, their standard arguing techniques, how to identify denialists and/or cranks, and discuss topics of general interest such as skepticism, medicine, law and science. First of all, we have to get some basic terms defined for all of our new readers. Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

Check out their site for examples. Here's their analysis of McCain's health care wish list.

Disaster---McCain's health care plan will ruin us all, PalMD:

As a physician, I have a lot of politically conservative colleagues. Much of this stems from our experience with the government. The influence of Medicare helps set prices, which we are not at liberty to change, and affects how we practice. On the other hand, Medicare is usually pretty good at paying its bills---except when it doesn't. If our costs go up, say in increased rent, we can't raise our prices. And if we get together with a group of doctors to try to negotiate fees, it can be considered collusion, and as such, illegal. So we're in a bind.

On the other hand, the current system of multiple payers causes no end of headaches and paperwork. A single payer system could reduce costs through having us deal with a single entity. But this isn't about the advantages and disadvantages of a single payer system---neither candidate is proposing such a thing. This is about the disaster the McCain plan would wreak on all of us.

Let's start with the most insidious proposal---to eliminate state borders with regard to regulation. This idea is both consistent and inconsistent with conservative values. It tramples states' rights, but it also does away with regulations. What kind of regulations? In my last post, we talked about the problem of diabetic testing supplies, and a reader pointed out that California law mandates coverage. Under McCain's plan, insurance companies would simply pack up and move to Nevada (or wherever) and be free of pesky life-saving regulations. Sure, this could reduce costs, but how often have we seen these savings passed on to consumers?

Under McCain's plan, our employees benefits will be taxed. That will reduce their income. However, they will get a tax credit. This credit will be worth $2500 for most of them. With this credit, they will be able to purchase only a crappy, high-deductible plan. Why? First of all, we probably won't provide coverage anymore because it will save our narrow-margin business quite a bit. Second, my employees will no longer belong to a larger risk pool, and will be at the mercy of unregulated insurance companies who can make all but the most basic coverage unaffordable.
Insurance is about pooled risk---that's what makes it work. On the other hand, if, as an insurance company, you can get away with only insuring low-risk people, your profit will go up.

McCain's plan eliminates state coverage mandates, risk pooling, and the incentive for employers to provide coverage, which is usually better than individual coverage. McCain's plan will destroy health insurance as we know it, will save no money, and will increase the dis-incentive to seek preventative and other early care.

One thing was clear in this week's debate: Obama and McCain, independent of their health care plans, have a basic philosophical difference. Obama sees health care as a right, McCain does not. I know many people who share McCain's view, but I do not. A healthy society (in all senses of the word) requires universal coverage, large risk pools, and a dose of humanity.

Any good health plan will encourage the largest possible risk pool (the entire population), will cover the most important basic health needs, and will take into account quality and cost. It will have to balance the benefits of an open market vs. bureaucratic control. It's a tough problem. But it's one we can't ignore, and McCain's plan isn't a solution, but a guaranteed way to exacerbate all of the faults of our current system.