Does the Bush administration want workers to have any benefits?

Today's Paul Krugman column in the N.Y. Times points out the differences in the two health plans offered by the presidential candidates. Kerry's plan would help 26.7 million of the 44 million uninsured. Bush's plan offers tax credits. "The credit would be $3,000 for a family of four with an income of $25,000; for an income of $40,000, it would fall to $1,714. Last year the average premium for families of four covered by employers was more than $9,000." This would only help 1.8 million families.

What really caught my eye was the part futher down:

In the case of health savings accounts, the key side consequence is a reduced incentive for companies to insure their workers. When companies provide group health insurance, healthier employees implicitly subsidize their sicker colleagues. They're willing to do this largely because the employer's contributions to health insurance are a tax-free form of compensation, but only if the same plan is offered to all employees.

Tax-free health savings accounts and premiums would provide healthier and wealthier employees an incentive to opt out, accepting higher paychecks instead, and would lead to higher insurance premiums for those who remain in traditional plans. This would cause some companies to stop providing health insurance, or raise employee contributions to a level some workers can't afford.

Let's see. Bush has pretty much destroyed Social Security's long-term prospects with his deficits. His Labor Department has taken away overtime. His ideas for insurance tilt the table toward the rich again. And then Bush has the gall to call the Democrats pessimistic about America's future. We're not pessimistic about America; we're pessimistic about working people's future when led by a class warrior like Bush. Vote Kerry/Edwards in November.