cost decrease compared to his opponents by creating a national health insurance program for individuals who (1) do not have employer-provided health care and (2) do not qualify for other existing federal programs. Unlike Clinton, Obama does not mandate individual coverage for all, but requires coverage for all children. Obama claims this plan would save the "typical family" $2,500 a year in health care premiums.
Clinton calls Obama’s plan “confusing" and claims her plan is superior because of the mandate. According to Clinton, Obama is confused in his description of his own plan, "If you go back and look, he said it was universal," Clinton said, "[then] he said it was sort of universal, [then] he said it wasn't universal, [then] he said it covered everybody, [then] he said it didn't cover 15 million. He [said he had] a mandate for kids, now he's against mandates."
Clinton's plan requires insurance companies to offer coverage to anyone who applies. Obama disagrees, and is questioning the cost of insurance for all, "Sen. Clinton's idea is that we should force everyone to buy insurance," Obama said. "She's not being straight with the American people because she refuses to tell us how much she would fine people if they couldn't afford insurance."
But, Clinton is quick to point out that Obama’s plan would leave 15 million Americans uninsured. So far in the race, Clinton seems to have gained the voters’ trust on the healthcare issue. In a CNN/WMUR poll, the majority of those questioned believed that Clinton would best handle health care issues.
Health care may be the deciding factor in selection of the Democratic candidate, and based on new research, Clinton may gain the upper hand. A study by Jonathan Gruber of MIT, a leading health care economist, confirms that universal health coverage (per Clinton’s plan) could be achieved at a cost only a bit higher than Obama’s plan.
A comparison of the plans reveals that both require that private insurers offer policies to everyone and also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead. Both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income while including more funds for subsidies.
The key difference in the plans is and perhaps future for America’s healthcare system is mandates. Obama claims mandates are not needed because people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable, but this is not the case. Currently, health insurance can be free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll.
On the Obama plan, healthy people could decide not to enroll for insurance and “take their chances” on good health status. Also, some may not enroll until they develop medical problems. Both of these scenarios would result in increase premiums for the rest of us. Obama, perhaps now seeing this flaw in his plan, is now saying he might penalize those who delay in enrollment but has no outline of how this would work.
Per the Gruber study, a plan without mandates would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, costing taxpayers $102 billion per year. The same plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured, costing taxpayer cost of $124 billion. This means that a Clinton plan with mandates would provide health coverage for all Americans.
The cost per newly insured person on a Clinton mandate plan is $2,700, while on a non-mandate Obama plan is $4,400 per newly insured person. Clinton’s plan would cost less per newly insured person than Obama’s plan and provides universal coverage. Meanwhile, Obama’s plan costs significantly more and only covers half as many currently uninsured individuals. A similar result was found in a 2003 study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which saw that mandates were key to effectively covering the uninsured and cost-effectiveness.
Look for more news on healthcare policy and legislative issues in this publication as the US election approaches and new information is available.
|
