Clinton, Obama differ slightly on health plans

Sens. Obama and Clinton both say they make reducing the number of people without health insurance - 47 million - a cornerstone of their health plans. Their approaches are so similar that some health experts say this is not the issue that will help most voters decide between the two Democrats. The real fireworks will come in the fall when one of them faces Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, whose proposal is starkly different and represents a greater departure from the status quo. . . . Both Clinton and Obama say they want to build on the current mix of public and private health insurance to make coverage universal and affordable. Both say they would offer tax subsidies to help people buy insurance, require most employers to help pay for insurance, and limit insurance company profits. Individuals and small businesses could join big groups to buy private insurance or a Medicare-like public plan.
The big difference between the two is that Clinton would require everyone to have health insurance and Obama would mandate it only for children.

Clinton Details Premium Cap in Health Plan

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an interview on Wednesday that if elected president she would push for a universal health care plan that would limit what Americans pay for health insurance to no more than 10 percent of their income, a significant reduction for some families.
In an extensive interview on health policy, Mrs. Clinton said she would like to cap health insurance premiums at 5 percent to 10 percent of income. The average cost of a family policy bought by an individual in 2006 and 2007 was $5,799, or 10 percent of the median family income of $58,526, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. Some policies cost up to $9,201, or 16 percent of median income. The average out-of-pocket cost for workers who buy family policies through their employers is lower, $3,281, or 6 percent of median income, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research group.

Will mandating the purchase of health insurance lead to universal coverage?

The biggest domestic-policy difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama almost certainly concerns health care. Mrs Clinton proposes individual mandates, which would require people to buy health insurance. To help the poor afford it , she promises subsidies from the government.
Boosters of the individual-mandate approach, with which Massachusetts is now experimenting, hope that it would lower average costs by forcing the many young and healthy people now currently without coverage to buy a health plan. As Mrs Clinton pointed out this week, such people do get health care, but in the most expensive way—by turning up at emergency rooms uninsured.
Maybe not, if a report issued by the official Centres for Medicare and Medicaid on February 25th is to be believed. The government's actuaries calculate that even without any new universal-care scheme, spending on health care in America will reach nearly 20% of GDP by 2017, up from about 16% last year, with Medicare spending nearly doubling over that period.

About Those Health Care Plans by the Democrats

While Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama fight over who has the better health plan for the uninsured, they say little about a more immediate challenge that will confront the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican: how to tame the soaring costs of Medicare and Medicaid. The two programs, for older Americans and low-income people, cost $627 billion last year and accounted for 23 percent of all federal spending. With no change in existing law, the Congressional Budget Office says, that cost will double in 10 years and the programs will account for more than 30 percent of the budget.

In Health Debate, Clinton Remains Vague on Penalties

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton inched closer Sunday to explaining how she would enforce her proposal that everyone have health insurance, but declined to specify — as she has throughout the campaign — how she would penalize those who refuse. Mrs. Clinton, who did not answer Senator Barack Obama’s question on the topic in a debate last Thursday, was pressed repeatedly to do so Sunday by George Stephanopoulos on the ABC program “This Week.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos asked a third time whether she would garnish people’s wages, Mrs. Clinton responded, “George, we will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it’s that or it’s some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments.” She then added that the focus on enforcement clouded a more important point, that her proposal to cover the uninsured was superior to Mr. Obama’s because she would mandate coverage for all, while he would require it only for children.
What might seem a mundane debate over health policy has taken on outsized importance in the approach to Tuesday’s voting because it is one of the few substantive differences between the two leading Democratic presidential candidates. . . . Polling has found that health care is a top concern of Democratic voters, and that they rank covering the uninsured as more important than reducing health costs or improving quality.

Clinton unveils universal health care plan

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton called for universal health care on Monday, plunging back into the bruising political battle she famously waged and lost in her husband's administration on an issue that looms large in the 2008 presidential race. "This is not government-run," the party's front-runner said of her plan to extend coverage to an estimated 47 million Americans who now go without. Her declaration was a clear message to Republicans, the insurance industry, businesses and millions of voters who nervously recall what sank her effort at health care reform 13 years ago — fear of a big-government takeover.