I have, of course, made this point before. But it bears repeating as we approach the election, which is less than 100 days away (Yikes!). Michael Tanner of The Cato Institute does a good job of explaining why McCain’s plan is superior to that of his opponent:
Senator McCain’s proposal is far from perfect, but from a free-market perspective, it appears superior to Senator Obama’s plan. Obama’s plan, with its heavy reliance on government, leads to the same problems that bedevil universal health care systems all over the world: limited patient choices and rationed care. McCain’s proposal is much more consumer centered and taps into the best aspects of the free market.
Obama’s plan anticipates even more federal meddling in health care than we already have:
Senator Obama’s approach relies heavily on government mandates, regulations, and subsidies. He would mandate that employers provide health care coverage for their workers and that parents purchase health insurance for their children. He would significantly increase regulation of the insurance industry, establishing a standard minimum benefits package, and requiring insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health.
McCain’s plan envisions patients as informed consumers making decisions in a free market environment:
John McCain emphasizes consumer choice and greater competition in the health care industry. He would move away from our current employment-based insurance system by replacing the current tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance with a refundable tax credit for individuals. At the same time he would sharply deregulate the insurance industry to increase competition.
So, unless you think we need more “help” from the people who brought us the primary care shortage, ER overcrowding, hundreds of hospital closings, and a rapidly metastasizing regulatory burden, John McCain is your man on health care.