Improving health care efficiency is a big selling point in most Democratic plans for revamping the health care system. Private efforts so far have been mixed, according to this NYT article. The article points out that the initial investment can be steep when improving efficiency in the long run. So, how do the Democrats' health care plans generate the dollars they need to improve efficiency? And how do they translate these efficiency improvements into the dollars needed to insure more Americans? These are tough questions, and the answers aren't simple. Tax increases are likely to fund these health care plans.
Here are the plans:
Clinton / Edwards / Obama
Edwards' and Obama's plans are much more detailed than Clinton's. Clinton basically promises universal coverage without saying how she plans to get there. Edwards and Obama have similar outlines but different specifics: regional pools (Edwards) vs. a "national health exchange" (Obama). Edwards requires individuals to purchase insurance, while Obama only requires coverage for children. Both require employers to either purchase health insurance for employees or pay taxes to support the government plan. Obama promises subsidies to help people pay for health insurance, while Edwards favors tax breaks. Edwards' outline is nice: everyone has a "responsibility" under his plan. Obama has the same basic principles, and the overarching goal of a "healthy America" comes through more in Obama's text. Still, I wish for a more coherent "vision" in Obama's plan, to go with the point-by-point specifics.
2 comments:
The following is the entirety of Mitt Romney's policy stance on health care (at least what's available on his website):
"The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms.
Governor Romney: "We can't have as a nation 40 million people -- or, in my state, half a million -- saying, 'I don't have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay."
(USA Today, July 5, 2005)
Governor Romney: "It's a conservative idea," says Romney, "insisting that individuals have responsibility for their own health care. I think it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle: insurance for everyone without a tax increase."
How pathetic. How exactly is he going to insure the uninsured? The ideas just aren't there with this candidate.
For the record, Hillary does have a health care plan, though it focuses on controlling costs and is vague about how it provides universal coverage. Beyond calling universal coverage "uniquely American and bipartisan," it doesn't say how she will get there. Here's the plan.
Post a Comment