Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Disagree on Health Care Policy

[Guest guest]

Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Disagree on Health Care Policy

Written By: Grace-Marie

Published In: Health Care News

Publication Date: February 1, 2008

Publisher: The Heartland Institute

A heated debate is taking place in the Democratic presidential primary

between U.S. Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) over

whether the federal government should mandate health coverage for

individual citizens.

The Democrats' difficulty in agreeing on whether to impose a mandate

requiring individuals to obtain health insurance strongly suggests it

would be a very heavy lift for the next president. None of the

Republican presidential candidates is advocating a mandate, so a

bipartisan deal would be difficult indeed.

In arguing for her plan, Clinton told an Iowa audience, " If we don't

have universal health care, we will be betraying the Democratic

Party's principles. "

Tactical Disagreement

Obama shot back before a different Iowa audience: " Until she clarifies

what exactly she intends to do to enforce this mandate ... this is

more of a political point that she's trying to make than a real point. "

The Illinois senator would require children be insured but not adults.

He says costs to consumers are the real issue.

" The reason Americans don't have health insurance isn't because they

don't want it, it's because they can't afford it, " Obama said.

Inside Fighting

Former Sen. (D-NC) deserves credit for being up-front

about his plan: He would require proof of insurance when income taxes

are paid and/or when medical treatment is provided, and he would

assign families that don't have insurance to a coverage plan. The

government would withhold tax refunds or use collection agencies and

garnish wages to go after people who could afford to pay premiums but

refused.

At least he is honest about the amount of government intrusion he is

proposing.

You know this issue hits the jugular when liberal columnist

Krugman weighs in. He points out that under the Obama plan, " healthy

people could choose not to buy insurance--then sign up for it if they

developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn't turn

them away, because Mr. Obama's plan, like those of his rivals,

requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone. "

Krugman accuses Obama of " attacking his Democratic opponents from the

right--and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform. "

Massachusetts Mandate

Those advocating health insurance mandates on a national level would

do well to consider how Massachusetts' experiment with an individual

mandate has gone. The answer is, not so well.

Not surprisingly, the free or nearly free health insurance available

to people making less than $30,000 a year ($60,000 for a family of

four) is going like hotcakes. It is so popular, in fact, the program

may exceed its budget by $150 million. The State of Massachusetts Web

site shows 133,000 of the estimated 207,000 people eligible for the

heavily subsidized coverage have already enrolled.

But it's not going so well for those who aren't eligible for the state

subsidies. The great majority of them either remain uninsured or are

asking for waivers that would exempt them from the mandate. So far,

only about 10,000 of the more than 215,000 uninsured Massachusetts

residents who aren't eligible for subsidies have signed up for

coverage with the Commonwealth Connector system.

Further, insurers expect to raise rates in Massachusetts 10 percent to

12 percent in 2008--twice the national average. And people who have

signed up for coverage are complaining they are having trouble finding

physicians who will see them.

" The state's experience should be instructive to the presidential

campaigns, and to officials in California, where Gov. Arnold

Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has proposed a similar plan, " The New

York Times reported in late November.

We couldn't have said it better.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22575