Avoid having to check back. Subscribe to Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review and receive an email each time we post.

Monday, February 4, 2008

When it Comes To Health Care Policy It Really Doesn't Matter Which Democrat Or Which Republican Wins Their Nomination

With "Super Tuesday" upon us, I am once again bringing back a post that argues there is little difference among the candidates in each of their respective parties.

My suggestion is that you not cast your caucus or primary vote for a candidate based upon their health care reform plan.

From “thirty thousand feet” the leading Republicans are offering much the same health care policy ideas—a more vibrant market serving a more responsible consumer who would control his health care choices in a system that doesn’t need to spend more money.

And, from that same "thirty thousand feet," the two remaining Democrats are all offering about the same thing--$100 billion+ in new annual spending to guarantee access for virtually all Americans to existing public and private health plan options as well as some new ones created by the government.

Republicans support an open marketno mandates and less insurance regulation—believing that the market must first get costs under control by developing new and more efficient offerings for people in the private market based on consumer-driven principles and new and more efficient and appealing options for people who have public coverage as well.

Democrats call for shared responsibility—often mandating employers and consumers to participate in their near universal system made up of Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, private individual coverage offered through government-run marketing structures, a Medicare-like government plan option for those under age-65, and existing employer plans.

I hate to say that it doesn’t really matter which of the Democrats, or Republicans, wins their separate primary battles. But in terms of the nits health care policy it really doesn’t.

Sure there are differences in their health care policy proposals. Among the Democrats, Obama doesn't have an individual mandate to buy coverage while Clinton does. Among the Republicans, McCain uses a tax credit to help people buy coverage while Romney talks about tax deductions.

But remember, these are political proposals--generally just a few pages long. The real health reform process will eventually have to go through the legislative "sausage factory" that is Congress and I will suggest that the starting point from one Democrat compared to another, or one Republican compared to another, is hardly material.

As you prepare to vote in your state's caucus or primary, I would recommend that you focus on the other issues that are important to you, the "electability" of each of the candidates, and perhaps most importantly on the issue of health care, which of these candidates can finally break the health care reform logjam and get something done.

Whoever the eventual nominee is in each of the parties, we will have a Democrat and a Republican offering a dramatically different approach to American health care security.

The general election is where the big decision will be made on health care--and everything else.

You can see my analysis of each of the candidates plans by using the index in the right column.

6 comments:

Merrill said...

Your comments that's there is little difference between the candidates in each party, only between the parties. That's a good thing, since it means we'll have a meaningful choice. But it should be pointed out that the Rs won't be backing individual insurance for those who have workplace-based coverage in the general election. They may be ideological, but they're not stupid.
Merrill
GoozNews.com
p.s. I added your site to my blogroll recently. Glad to have found it.

jcb2 said...

No body ever mentions the thousands of people employed in the healthcare industry...not to mention the Billions of dollars they contribute to the American economy. I. for one, would like to see comments about how to address this issue. The government needs to stay the hell out of healthcare...try pushing lifestyle changes with incentives for improved health that can come about as a result of a "healthier " lifestyle.

Nancy B said...

Agree with jeb2 on wanting to see defined comments on healthcare, costs and spending. And because I am almost of that age, and work with the over 65 population now, I am appalled by the candidates generic discussions on Medicare and the older population rising health costs. This generation always seems to fall in the forgotten category. At some point, we need to address this since they are the one of the prime groups of people, who, if healthcare coverage is defined and paid for, with a focus on prevention and disease management, we might actually see a reduction in costs.

Enjoy your blog

gas28man said...

Bob, while I agreed with you when you first posted this, and still do for the most part, Hillary made a highly relevant comment in her interview with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.

She said her plan contains a mandate for everyone to buy coverage, while Obama's plan doesn't. She said whoever gets the Republican nomination will be able to neutralize the healthcare issue if Obama is the Democratic nominee because they'll be able to say "My plan doesn't cover everybody and neither does his." With her individual mandate, she'd be able to say her plan covers everybody and draw a winning point of distinction between herself and the Republican.

Of course, as regards Iraq, the opposite is true. Hillary voted to authorize the Iraq campaign, and so did McCain, so she's neutralized on that one. Obama wasn't in the Senate yet, but was vocally opposed from Day One, so he has the winning position.

So it's still ix of one, half dozen of the other within the Democratic party, though not for the reasons you first advanced.

Kathleen O'Connor said...

Could not agree with you more. We just finished as survey in two different states showing a good deal of consensus on health care issues, which neither party wants to recognize right now.

It is very clear the public doesn't want what either party is proposing.

See: http://www.codebluenow.org/the-pulse/washington-state-results-new/CBN%20Pulse--IA%20and%20WA%20by%20Voting%20Record%20FINAL.pdf

Kathleen O'Connor
CodeBlueNow!

Kathleen O'Connor said...

You are right on target. Neither party is addressing issues that is of interest and concern to the public.

We have found more consensus exists than the parties would lead us to believe. Our statistically valid research findings can be found on our website:
http://www.codebluenow.org/the-pulse/washington-state-results-new/CBN%20Pulse--IA%20and%20WA%20by%20Voting%20Record%20FINAL.pdf

It will be very interesting to see what the final candidates come up with.

Keep up the good work.

Kathleen

Blog Archive