Most of us don't think about health care issues in terms of our parents, but perhaps we should.

A new analysis in the National Journal Magazine says that yes, maybe McCain’s health plan would save some young, healthy folks a few dollars in the premiums they pay, but the cost to Americans who aren’t so young and/or so healthy would be great.

Ronald Brownstein explains that most employers would stop providing health insurance benefits if they are stripped of the tax incentives for doing so. Older workers who lose employer health insurance might not be able to find insurance on the private market (they have difficulty finding insurance now). Or, if they found insurance, the cost would be prohibitive. The McCain tax credit would not be sufficient, and these workers would end up paying more than they do now.

The cost of health insurance for employers that continue to offer benefits would also go up as younger and healther workers look for insurance on the private market. This would leave older, less healthy workers in the employer pool, causing premiums to increase.

And, Brownstein points out, the individual market would undercut state law requirements to cover certain services. His example is that insurers might choose to locate in Utah, the only state that does not require coverage of mammographies.

A proposal that saves pennies for young Philadelphians at the expense of our older siblings and parents, or even at the expense of our less healthy peers, doesn’t seem like the best approach towards cutting health care costs and increasing coverage, does it?

Read the National Journal article is at
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20081011_2605.php