If you feel like you know about President Bush’s timber
company or Senator Kerry’s outspoken wife more than either
candidate’s health care plan for America, then keep
reading.
This election year finds 44 million Americans without health
insurance and millions more threatened by soaring premiums. As
costs continue to outpace inflation, many more individuals and
businesses will forgo coverage. Fortunately, our two main
candidates say they have a plan.
The various platform differences Bush and Kerry maintain include
insuring the uninsured, making health care affordable, and dealing
with high medical costs.
To cover the uninsured, Bush’s strategy relies on private
sector insurance supported by tax incentives, such as tax credits
of up to $3,000 to help lower-income families, as well as tax
deductions for those who buy long-term policies.
Kerry’s plan, meanwhile, calls for private sector
incentives with expansion in Medicaid and the State
Children’s Health Insurance Program. He says he would offer
subsidies that encourage more employers to provide coverage.
In addition, Kerry plans to establish a new health plan ““
similar to that which serves federal employees ““ available to
individuals and businesses and funded with tax credits, according
to the Lewin Group, a non-partisan consulting organization.
The candidates also want to make health care more affordable. On
top of his tax credits, Bush wants to give small businesses greater
bargaining power for low insurance rates by allowing them to join
forces in “association health plans.” He would also
reward individuals who set up Health Savings Accounts with a tax
deduction for the premiums they pay for high-deductible insurance
policies.
Kerry’s solution would use a federally funded
“reinsurance” program to compensate employers for 75
percent of all medical bills above a catastrophic limit (a limit
set by insurance companies that deals with high-cost emergencies).
Without those costs, companies and group health plans could then
pass the savings on in reduced premiums to all workers, as reported
in the New York Times.
Then, there is the issue of escalating medical costs. Both
candidates favor electronic medical records, disease management
systems and malpractice reform to reduce expenditures. However,
they butt heads over the issue of prescription drugs, which
comprise almost one-fifth of health care spending.
The president doesn’t address prescription drugs beyond
his Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003. In addition, he vocally
opposes drug importation and supports a ban on government
negotiations with drug manufacturers.
Kerry, in contrast, believes the United States should import
cheaper drugs from abroad and use its purchasing power to negotiate
lower prices with drug makers, according to the Lewin Group.
The plans in front of us are by no means sweeping. For personal
or political reasons, the candidates have opted for incremental
adjustments of the current structure over red-meat reforms.
Nevertheless, they represent policies that translate into big
numbers.
The Lewin Group reported that Bush’s plan will cover an
estimated 8.2 million new people at a cost of $227.5 billion over
ten years. Kerry’s plan is expected to do more by covering an
addition 25.2 million new people, but will cost more ““ to the
tune of $1 trillion.
Family out-of-pocket spending under Bush’s plan would
increase by an average of $68 per year, yet decrease by $451 per
year under Kerry’s plan, the group reported.
Health care is too big of an issue to sweep under the rug this
election year. Without reform, expenditures will continue to soar
unchecked, begetting greater uninsurance. The consequences will
threaten our health, peace of mind and economic vitality.
Clearly, much is at stake. To be truly informed as decision
makers, we should take the time to understand our leaders’
vision for our health. So, before punching that crucial chad on
Nov. 2, make sure you know what you’re voting for.