A closer look at Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s health care plans. Which one is better, more effective?

Jill Miller Zimon wonders at The Moderate Voice how Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s health care plans will “impact death by lack of insurance?” She collected quite some relevant information. She concludes about both plans: “Read Obama’s explanation of his plan here. One of the main criticisms has been that it mandates coverage for all children, but not all adults. “But in Obama’s speech in January 2007 to Families USA, while his plan was still in formation, he states something that implies that all adults would have - as in, possess and maintain and keep, not just have an oppotunity to have - universal health care.”

And: “Read Clinton’s explanation of her plan here. One of the main criticisms has been that it imposes monetary fines on individuals who do not have health insurance and already may not be covered due to financial constraints and that it forces people to buy something they may not want.” An Ohio blog “posted a copy of the Obama flyer that identifies his primary points of opposition to Clinton’s plan.”

And then the question: “What are the statistics in your state of people who literally die because they don’t have health care? Which candidates’ plan do you think will most decrease that number?”

With regards to health care, there are basically two things I believe… which are in conflict with each other:

1. Every single person should be insured. And yes, I consider it the government’s role to make this happen. As for not being allowed to choose: that’s not really a concern for me. They can choose different kinds of insurances. Also: if you don’t mandate it, it’s difficult to force insurance companies to accept everyone who wants an insurance.

2. But in the US, this system doesn’t exist, which means that it has to be created, which often causes a whole lot of problems.

So, my initial take on this problem is that Obama’s plan makes more sense than Hillary’s does. Her’s, you could say, has the right goal, but it’s too radical, too much, too fast.

What do you all think, and what do you all think of Jill’s questions? Those questions are: “What are the statistics in your state of people who literally die because they don’t have health care? Which candidates’ plan do you think will most decrease that number?”

UPDATE

For more information, Jill provides the following links:

* Here

* Factcheck.org compares the two plans here

* Health care blog analysis of Clinton’s plan can be read here

* See this one for John McCain’s plan

* And this one for a Clinton-Obama match-up

Highlights from Factcheck.org

# Obama is being misleading when he says his proposal would “cover everyone.” It would make coverage available to all, but experts we consulted estimate that 15 million to 26 million wouldn’t take it up unless required to do so.

# Clinton stretches things a bit, too. Even her plan – which, unlike Obama’s, includes a mandate for individuals to get insurance – would leave out a million people or perhaps more, depending on how severe the penalties would be for those who don’t comply. She won’t say how her mandate would be enforced, but has said that she was open to the possibility of garnishing wages.

# Experts also are skeptical of both candidates’ claims that their plans will reduce the cost of insurance for the typical family by $2,000 or more. ” I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion,” says M.I.T’s Jonathan Gruber.

Highlights from Health Care Blog

Comparison

They both claim they are going to give us affordable premiums and would go about it in a very similar way.

I worry that both of them have cost containment strategies that would do little more then dent the continued escalation in health care costs and undermine both of their guarantees for affordable coverage.

Analysis of Clinton’s plan at HCB:

Senator Clinton has so far been running a smart campaign for President — at least on the policy side — and her health care reform strategy is no exception. She waited until after all of the leading Democratic, and most Republican, candidates had announced their plans and then stuck her plan right in the ideological middle of where her Democratic opponents put theirs. It also looks a great deal like a bipartisan plan enacted in Massachusetts and a bipartisan compromise in the works in California. So on the day it was released, it was correctly identified as being relatively centrist…

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is a case in point. Before the day was up, Romney was on camera calling her new health plan, “Hillary Care.” But Senator Clinton’s plan is a virtual clone of the new Massachusetts health care law then Governor Romney signed and that he continues to say he is “proud of.”

Her plan would put the federal government in the health plan marketing business by creating a new version of the FEHBP menu of options that would be available in the private market. This would also be very similar to the Massachusetts “Connector” that takes bids from health plans that must qualify with the regulator and offer minimum benefits.

It is also clear that she would set a comprehensive minimum benefit threshold in the FEHBP-like program equal to the level of benefits offered in the existing FEHBP program—that does include an HSA program.

While it appears that the individual market would continue, and people who have individual coverage could keep it, this would put the FEHBP-like program in direct competition with that market segment. It would appear that consumers could continue to purchase limited or high deductible plans on their own in the individual market. However, she is also proposing an individual mandate, which will have to set a minimum benefit level. In Massachusetts that provision disqualified 150,000 existing policies—many because of high deductibles…

Mrs. Clinton would also put the federal government in direct competition with private health insurance industry by creating a Medicare-like government-run plan.

This provision gives all sides in the debate something. The single-payer advocates get a Medicare-like plan in direct competition with the private market and a chance to push the private plans out of existence. Those that favor a vibrant private market full of choices arguably get that.

And there’s more; much more. Yes, to figure it all out means that you all have to read quite a bit, but if we select the most important information for you, my guess is that it’s not too much trouble for you to take the time to read the posts and articles. After all, we’re talking about health care here.