New Studies Report Wide Disparity in Health Care Plans

[druidity33]

Source: Washington Post

Barack Obama and John McCain are both proposing more than $100 billion a year in spending for health care, but the candidates' plans have vastly different goals, and vastly different outcomes.

New studies from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the policy journal Health Affairs suggest that Obama's proposal would eventually cover more than 34 million of the roughly 47 million Americans currently without insurance, while McCain's would cover at best 5 million uninsured.


<snip>

Both proposals would face an uphill climb to becoming law. Virtually all congressional Democrats are opposed to McCain's health care vision, which they believe would destroy the employer-based health care system and replace it with one that benefits the young and healthy but not people who are older or sick. (Health insurance companies charge much higher prices for people who are older or have chronic illnesses.)

With the federal budget deficit increasing and a huge list of other projects already proposed, it's not clear that a Democratic Congress would push through Obama's health-care plan either. Some congressional Democrats are already touting more modest goals, such as making sure that all children have health insurance.




Read more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/new_studies_report_wide_dispar.html

---

I didn't see this elsewhere in LBN or GDP, hope it's not a dupe. They don't have a link to the actual study in the WaPo article, but the difference in coverage is HUGE. 34 million vs. 5 million?

We should be hammering that home.

:shrug:

[chill_wind]

1. Looking forward to the debates. K & R

[druidity33]

3. me, not so much...

It's likely to be as tortuous for me as watching bad karaoke.

How anyone can stomach muddler McLames speechifying is beyond me... i don't have cable TV anyway, and Satellite internet is spotty. I'll catch the excerpts afterwards and read the live blogs during. Besides, every time i hear him say, "My friends..." i feel like i'm going to be sick on the floor.

When is the first actual debate?

[chill_wind]

10. Sept 26-- here's the schedule

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/06/presidential-debate-schedule-set-moderators-chosen/

[druidity33]

11. thanks... nt.

[demodonkey]

2. SIngle Payer Healthcare for ALL including long term care. WE MUST DO THIS!

HR 676 introduced by John Conyers. DEMAND NOTHING LESS.

[druidity33]

4. Already phoned my Rep

about that bill. Maybe he needs a reminder, i just voted for him in his Primary yesterday.

He's a solid Dem but i have called his office too many times to ask him to sign on to Kooch's Impeachment bills. Unfortunately he still thinks there are "more important" things to work on. The office staffers know my name now...

:shrug:

Cheers.

[happygoluckytoyou]

5. oh oh TIME TO GET OUT THE REPUBLICAN TRUTH SQUAD

Republicans are rebutting what they describe as smears against Palin. Last week, McCain's campaign formed a "truth squad," which includes current and former GOP politicians who agree to speak with reporters

YEEHAH... call in the TRUTH PATROL

[druidity33]

6. I'm sure

they'll come up with some counter studies real fast...

[Loge23]

7. Obama's is clearly spelled out on his WS

The biggest differences for me are:
McCain's would require a tax on the benefits paid by the employer. Essentially, we would be charged for the benefit as earnings.
McCain would then mail out $2500 checks to everyone to "offset" the tax.
Result: Take the $2500 and find your own cheaper insurance - thereby creating an insurance bonanza for insurers!

Obama would take the tax cut on +$250K incomes and redistribute this to create a national health care policy. Obama claims that his plan would save Americans the $2500 in the form of lower premiums.
Obviously there are many more significant difference. Please read his plan on his website for a detailed explanation.

The net result would clearly be more insured individuals on the the Obama plan. Folks on this site, including myself, would argue that the free market insurance model has resulted in increased profits for the insurers and more and more uninsured Americans - particularly the middle class. While a government solution is not necessarily the best solution, the alternative has proved to be ineffective and exclusionary. After all, we provide economic socialism to the billionaires in the form of bailouts; why not take care of our own?

[happygoluckytoyou]

8. FREE MARKET? a misnamed situation where the owners of the wealth pretend you have choices

[druidity33]

9. i agree

I am not disparaging Obama's plan. It is perhaps the best we can do right now. We will see what is possible when the eventual legislation is introduced.

As for McLame's plan, forget it. It's a piece of shit. We know it. They know it, and the American people know it. We've ALL been affected by crappy Insurance companies at this point and CHANGE is in the air.

I was merely pointing out that there was no link for the study on the WaPo site yet. I think it's important to make sure ANY study's methodology and credentials are sound before relying on it too faithfully.

:shrug: