McCain differences from President Bush

Prescription drugs could be imported from Canada to save seniors money if Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, were elected president, a senior aide told reporters on Monday.

President Bush has opposed reimportation of drugs from Canada, where government health programs purchase them for less cash than can individuals covered under Medicare or private prescription plans in the U.S.

But Carly Fiorina, may have been hard-pressed to point to many other major differences between the senator and the Republican president he would like to succeed.

Fiorina, a senior adviser to McCain on business and economic questions and a former executive in the computer business, spoke for an hour with national political writers.

The other big differences she cited were: 1) That McCain, unlike Bush, sees government policies on energy as influencing global warming, 2) McCain was an early critic of the Iraq War policies of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and promoted the '"surge" of increased military pressure in Iraq, which is working, and 3) McCain supports retraining and other benefits for workers who have been displaced as a result of foreign imports.

McCain sides with Bush on many more issues including passage of a free trade agreement with Colombia, and expansion of health savings accounts to provide insurance to the nearly 50 million Americans who have none.

Fiorina said controlling health care costs, which she said are increasing 20 to 30 percent a year, is a key to making health insurance more available. She said McCain would like to remove state regulations that make it virtually impossible to purchase health insurance out of state.

At the briefing, Fiorina, who formerly headed Hewlett-Packard, did nothing to downplay speculation that she might be selected as McCain's running mate. When asked if she might join McCain on the ticket, Fiorina said that business leaders have a lot in common with politicians, and often have to make tougher decisions, particularly on spending, than do politicians.

Fiorina also signaled she would be available to serve in a McCain cabinet.

Do you think that McCain's policies are sufficiently distinct from the president's to enable the senator to separate himself from the president's current unpopularity?

--- Douglas Turner 

Comments

[Rnactivist]

Why reimport drugs? How incredibly stupid..why not negotiate like Canada does for better prices?? Oh yes, I forgot the big Pharma lobby that paid millions to Bush and friends so that we won't do that...
Mccain claims to want to make health care more affordable..his tax cuts for families still leave them thousands short...but he wrongly assumes they should have the extra money to make up the difference.
Health savings account only work for people with extra money and a decent paying job.
As for people with health insurance get ready for a big tax on this benefit with mccain.
As for his support of free trade..well there go more US jobs overseas..that's why he was in South America last week.
As for his plan for privitizing social security well I am sure Bear Sterns is just drooling to get their hands on that money...(oh yes, but whose going to bail them out next time?)
Mccain is so wrong for the average working American...look how he voted against workers, seniors, children, soldiers etc. in the past
www.aflcio.org

[Mark]

Whoever is elected President needs to deal with health insurance or it will bankrupt the country. I am paying $4,400 per year for single coverage, a 40% increase over last year. When I see the salarys of the CEO's and upper management at our regional insurers, I am disgusted, particularly when NYS has a lot less choice than other choices. Change and thinking out of the box is needed now.

[carl]

Mark
Believe me $360.00 a month is a deal for the best health care in the world. Today it was reported that over 900,000 are on a waiting list in Canada. It could take up to 6 months for a MRI in canada. People come to the US from all over the world to be treated here.
McCain's plan is sound and makes sense Obama's will drag our system down to Europe's standards, and destroy the best system in the world, unless you want to believe Michael Moore who says Cuba's is better. There is no free lunch and Obama's plan will raise taxes like this country has never seen and you can bet you will pay big time one way or the other. Socialized medicine dosen't work it's been proven all over the world

[RNactivist]

Mark,
Here's some facts for you:
THe united states spends more on health care than the entire world yet we die sooner and are ranked 37th. the number of uninsured is rising...Insurance companies make profits by denying coverage and cherry picking..and their profits are enormous
They inflate prices that's why in the U.S we pay more for our drugs...U.S. for example will pay $1.00 while other countries such as France will pay 51 cents.Their profit margins and CEO pay is unbelievable.
We need a system that is affordable and covers everyone where everybody pays something...It makes sense.

[RNactivist]

Mark,
You do not realize it but here you wait as well unless it's an emergency...
the free market in health care isn't working...
Plus if you have health care Mccain wants to tax it...
His system is just the same old failed system we all deal with now..
We need all employers to pay into health care...
Everyone should be guaranteed coverage...
have a choice between public and private plans
and a strong regulation of insurers so they cannot cherry pick or deny reasonable coverage.
I find it ironic that Bush and Mccain can purchase any health care plan in the world yet they choose the tax payer paid for plan.You know the "socialized medicine" that is so bad for us but good for them.
Did you also know the Federal government already is the biggest purchaser of health care with the VA Medicare etc?
We can make the system better and do it right.

[Barton Keyes]

The major flaw in McCain's health care plan is that it wants to control health care costs through more competition, i.e. allowing health care users to be able to buy out-of-state and well as in-state health plans. The fact is that history teaches us that free market plans alone have only a limited ability to control costs.
The Kaiser Health Plan has previously conducted a study of many of the past plans to control health care costs: company health plans, HMO's etc. And the bottom line was that none worked all that well in the long run.
And the other hard fact is that government control has been not any more successful. Disepite the ability to allegedly control costs, Medicare and Medicaid are facing eventual bankruptcy. Even government has been unable to put a stop to yearly double digit health care costs.
And all this gloom results from a third set of facts: a)health care is too complex to be successfully managed in detail by the government. While government has a place to manage bad actors and to be sure there is a fair playing field, the more government gets involved the more complex and buraucratic are the rules; and b) health care is too "demand driven" to be successfully governed by the free market alone. The free market can manage potato chips or cars, but it has been less successful managing costs in health care. Consumers are simply more willing to pay even an exhorbidant price if a cure is offered. Older people even give up some food to pay for medication.
And these truths are supported by that Kaiser study that revealed that all the past free market plans were only able to control costs initially; that in the end the overwhelming desire of the public to get medical relief combined with the high research costs mean ever increasing health costs.
The best we may be able to obtain is to lower the annual increase and spread the costs to pay for those increases across the entire population. We might even require all private companies to offer a lower cost basic plan to all of the public with some government subsidies to supply those plans to the truly poor.

[RNactivist]

Carl,
This one is for you ...
Medicare has a 2% overhead vs a private insurance company that runs 16 to 22%
Take Medicare for example..2 years ago the government decided to privitize (think profits) a portion of it called Medicare Advantage,
now they find they are posting record profits, costing taxpayers more and there is no proof anyone enrolled in Medicare Advantage is getting any better care than traditional medicare.
The VA is the only system that is allowed to negotiate drug prices and they are very effective at giving quality and saving money.

[R]

Yes, you certainly have options in the US, if you don't have enough money OR have pre-existing health conditions, it will be no health care or bankruptcy. If the Canadian system is inferior to the US, why are Canadians living on the average three years longer than their American counterpart and the infant mortality rate in the US is almost 40% higher? America is 30th in the world for average lifespan, you call that a superior choice? You won't hear these (WHO) statistics from the insurance, drug companies or Government in the United States. After all, doesn't America do everything better than everybody else in the world? Certainly there are problems with the systems in North America primarily caused by an aging population base. It all depends how one is going to handle it now and into the future, especially considering the enormous and growing cost of chronic care for the elderly. It is interesting to note that back in the sixties when universal(single payer) health care was implemented, all the same excuses that Americans are being fed now were heard back then. It all boils down to taking money out of some people's pockets for the betterment of society and the insurance and drug companies didn't like it. In the end, the sky did not fall and they are all still around making tons of money. My doctor, certainly, will never require a tag day or have to visit the local food bank. He may not make as much money as his US counterpart, but his administrative expenses along with his malpractice insurance premiums are FAR lower.

Another point of nonsense is that universal healthcare creates a lack of innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Companies like Biovail, Novopharm, Apotex among others, are large Canadian pharmaceutical companies that in addition to producing generic drugs(that many Americans buy) do their own r&d on products that are presented to the FDA on a regular basis for approval.

In addition, not ALL the so called "innovative" drug companies are located in the US. Glaxo, Smith, Kline is British, Roche is French and Bayer is German.(ever heard of Aspirin?) Considering the fact that the major drug companies are now spending more on advertising(along with filling the pockets of legislators) than they are on r&d is quite telling. Do you honestly think these people are going to do anything that may affect their bottom line when it comes to providing care that is more affordable? The drug and insurance industries are totally beholden to themselves and their shareholders. No one else.

It all comes back to the type of society we want. Do we look at health care as a right to ALL the citizenry or is it just another shareholder driven business. If you prefer the latter, that is where most Canadians(along with the vast majority of the industrialized nations) and Americans part company.

[village idiot]

John McInsane. This guy is a nut. Please god, if he is electd I am jumping into the niagara river to swim for it. I wonder if my health care carrier will cover me for hypothermia?