I didn't take into account the healthy citizens who may 'opt out'.
That would make insuring the rest of the subscribers much more
expensive. This is especially true given the 80/20 rule; Where 80% of
the benefits are used by 20% of the payers.
Needless to say, I like Clinton's plan better. But, I also think
that people with pre-
existing conditions should pay a premium. And, the rest a flat fee
(with mandates)...
I still will support Obama, but he would be better served with a
Clintonesque mandate type plan.
Martin Levi
--- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "citation502" <citation502@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Ed, thanks, useful. Except I think his ultimate conclusion (Obama
> means no insurance, Clinton means universal insurance) is not only
> unreliable forecasting, it is vasatly over-simplified, to the point
of
> being worthless.
>
> WHEN we elect either of these president, the outcome of expanded
health
> insurance may not resemble either PROPOSAL identically, and what
will
> emerge is what the president, the majority in a Democratic
congress, and
> the leaders in both houses are able to get adopted.
>
> Will either Clinton's or Obama's proposals be tweaked before final
> passage? Of course. Will the details evolve as the process goes
> forward? Of course. Do we need one or the other of these persons
in
> the White House to make this happen? Yes, indeed.
>
>
> --- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Hochman" <eah01@> wrote:
> >
> > February 4, 2008
> > Op-Ed Columnist
> > Clinton, Obama, Insurance
> > By PAUL KRUGMAN
> >
> > The principal policy division between Hillary Clinton and Barack
> > Obama involves health care. It's a division that can seem
technical
> > and obscure — and I've read many assertions that only the most
> > wonkish care about the fine print of their proposals.
> >
> > But as I've tried to explain in previous columns, there really is
a
> > big difference between the candidates' approaches. And new
research,
> > just released, confirms what I've been saying: the difference
between
> > the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal
> > health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far
> short.
> >
> > Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs.
Clinton's
> > would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan
> > resembling Mr. Obama's — at only slightly higher cost.
> >
> > Let's talk about how the plans compare.
> >
> > Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to
everyone,
> > regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into
> > government-offered insurance instead.
> >
> > And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income
> > Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about
> > affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage
of
> > family income. And it also seems to include more funds for
subsidies.
> >
> > But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that
> > everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn't.
> >
> > Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes
> > affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.
> >
> > After all, we already have programs that make health insurance
free
> > or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that
> > they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever
reason,
> > to enroll.
> >
> > An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people
who
> > decide to take their chances or don't sign up until they develop
> > medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else. Mr.
> > Obama, contradicting his earlier assertions that affordability is
the
> > only bar to coverage, is now talking about penalizing those who
delay
> > signing up — but it's not clear how this would work.
> >
> > So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the
Clinton
> > plan. How big is the difference?
> >
> > To answer this question you need to make a detailed analysis of
> > health care decisions. That's what Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one
of
> > America's leading health care economists, does in a new paper.
> >
> > Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling
the
> > Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured,
at a
> > taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical
plan
> > with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured —
> essentially
> > everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the
> Obama-
> > type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-
> > type plan only $2,700.
> >
> > That doesn't look like a trivial difference to me. One plan
achieves
> > more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more
> > than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently
> > uninsured.
> >
> > As with any economic analysis, Mr. Gruber's results are only as
good
> > as his model. But they're consistent with the results of other
> > analyses, such as a 2003 study, commissioned by the Robert Wood
> > Johnson Foundation, that compared health reform plans and found
that
> > mandates made a big difference both to success in covering the
> > uninsured and to cost-effectiveness.
> >
> > And that's why many health care experts like Mr. Gruber strongly
> > support mandates.
> >
> > Now, some might argue that none of this matters, because the
> > legislation presidents actually manage to get enacted often bears
> > little resemblance to their campaign proposals. And there is,
indeed,
> > no guarantee that Mrs. Clinton would, if elected, be able to pass
> > anything like her current health care plan.
> >
> > But while it's easy to see how the Clinton plan could end up being
> > eviscerated, it's hard to see how the hole in the Obama plan can
be
> > repaired. Why? Because Mr. Obama's campaigning on the health care
> > issue has sabotaged his own prospects.
> >
> > You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates —
> most
> > recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a
> > striking resemblance to the "Harry and Louise" ads run by the
> > insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last
chance at
> > getting universal health care.
> >
> > If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve
universal
> > coverage, he'll find that it can't be done without mandates — but
> if
> > he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his
> > own words against him.
> >
> > If you combine the economic analysis with these political
realities,
> > here's what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic
> > nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that
> we'll
> > get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama
> > gets the nomination, it just won't happen.
> >
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder