E.D. Kain’s comparison of McDonald’s healthcare with the government plan
E.D. Kain’s critique of McDonald’s healthcare has been making the rounds. I have a problem with it. E.D. is using the post-subsidy cost ($1,127), not the actual premium cost ($2,712)—a difference of $1,586 in the form of the government tax credit. (Numbers taken from the Kaiser Foundation link in E.D.’s post.) Is this a fair comparison? Perhaps E.D. is operating on the assumption, “hey, employer-provided care is ‘subsidized’ in a sense because it’s tax-exempt. So it’s ok to compare one “subsidized” program with another.” But not all subsidies are created equal. Besides, does a tax-exemption on a $20,800 salary really amount to anything?