EDITORIAL EXEGESIS
"No matter who wins the Democratic presidential nomination, that candidate will have a significantly different prescription for the nation's health-care system than Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee. Which is a good thing, since that means the country is in for a debate involving real substance.
...[T]he Democrats are more interested in universal coverage, while the Republicans focus on cost containment. Those may be the points of emphasis, but McCain wants expanded access, too, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton claim they can rein in health-care costs.
One thing we've learned from state-based experiments in universal coverage: It's not cheap. In Massachusetts, taxpayer subsidies for its two-year-old program of mandated coverage will rise from $158 million in 2007 to $600 million this year and $870 million in 2009.
Lawmakers are now scrambling to impose new cost controls. On the menu: lower payments to doctors, hospitals and drug companies. Meantime, a similar plan proposed in California died in January when the independent Legislative Analyst projected the program would cost at least $4 billion more in its first five years than proponents first suggested.
By contrast, McCain's agenda would primarily expand choices for consumers. Among other things, he would allow Americans to purchase health coverage from a licensed insurer in any state; individuals could shop nationwide for an appropriate policy and compare prices. He would also allow membership organizations (like AARP) or other non-employers to sell group policies. Most dramatically, he would end the tax deduction that employers receive for providing health insurance; instead, individuals would receive tax credits they could use to either purchase policies or invest in Health Savings Accounts. They would no longer depend on their employers for medical coverage. Taken in combination, these proposals would give individuals more control of their health-care options."
Rocky Mountain News
No comments:
Post a Comment