getting back to the issues, proposed healthcare policies seems to be the greatest delineation among the candidates, so I have copied the WSJ article in toto, as the article may be subscriber only content, and, hence, possibly not accessible were I to post a link to non-subscribers
not a particularly strong issue for me, but wondered how the rest of you thought about it
Parties' Split Most Apparent on Health Care Democrats, Republicans Differ
Over Roles of Government
And Market to Revamp System By LAURA MECKLER
April 19, 2008; Page A4
Washington
As the presidential candidates respond to increasing economic anxiety about many issues, some of the sharpest differences in this fall's debate are expected to involve health care.
While the Democratic candidates want to use government as a lever to aid the 47 million people in the U.S. without health insurance, Sen. John McCain would rely much more heavily on the free market. The likely Republican nominee has begun charging that his Democratic rivals "want government to take over the health-care system."
SHARP CONTRASTS
•
Campaign Issue: Democrats and Republicans differ widely in their proposals for reforming the U.S. health-care system.
•
Democrats' Approach: The two candidates want to use government as a lever to aid those without health insurance.
•
Republican View: John McCain would rely more heavily on free-market forces.
With Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama focused on their own contest, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former candidate John Edwards, has stepped in and begun attacking the McCain plan.
Though Mrs. Edwards says Democrats aren't proposing government-run health care, she finds it ironic that Sen. McCain is so averse to it given that he has had nothing but such coverage since birth. A young John McCain was first insured as the son of a Navy man, then as a Navy officer himself and finally as a member of Congress.
"He has not spent a single day not protected by a federal health plan, not a single day of his entire life, and yet he denigrates this care," said Mrs. Edwards, who recently joined the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress as a senior fellow.
While Sen. McCain agrees with the Democrats on some issues, such as climate change and, after some initial resistance, aid for struggling homeowners, differences on taxes and other economic issues, including health care, are likely to be a sharp contrast.
The Democrats' priority is to cover all, or nearly all, the uninsured, except for several million illegal immigrants. Both candidates would have government set up a marketplace where people could buy coverage from private companies or the government, with subsidies for lower-income earners. The candidates also would bar insurance companies from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions or charging them more.
While Sen. Clinton would mandate that everyone be insured, Sen. Obama wouldn't -- a difference that has been a source of debate between them.
Sen. Clinton has charged that Sen. Obama's plan would leave millions of citizens uninsured; Sen. Obama has countered that people will get insurance once it is affordable. Many health economists agree with the New York senator, but Sen. Obama's position might be easier to defend in a general-election debate.
While Sen. McCain regularly attacks both Democrats together, he has made clear he is particularly prepared to attack Sen. Clinton on the issue of mandates, which, he says, bolsters his argument that Democrats are heavy-handed and would leave citizens with less choice.
The Arizona senator dismisses the fact that people could choose which health plan to sign up for under either Democrat's plan. "If you mandate, as Sen. Clinton wants to do, then, yeah, you've got a choice, but you still have a mandate. That's like saying, 'You're going to be executed -- do you want a knife or a bullet?' " Sen. McCain told reporters aboard his bus.
Sen. Clinton's policy chief, Neera Tanden, replied: "That's a great choice of words when literally people are dying."
McCain aides concede that their case against Sen. Obama could be weaker, given that the Illinois senator's plan doesn't have mandates.
Sen. McCain doesn't think it is up to government to ensure that all citizens are insured. He simply wants to give people more control and, like Sen. Obama, says people will buy insurance if it is affordable.
The centerpiece of his plan is severing the link between health insurance and employment. Under existing law, citizens get a tax break on the cost of their health insurance only if it comes through an employer. That partly explains why 170 million citizens get insurance through an employer.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0418171613.gif Sen. McCain would replace the existing tax break with a refundable tax credit ($2,500 for an individual; $5,000 a family) that would go to all citizens with insurance, no matter how they got it. The result would likely be an erosion of employer-sponsored insurance and an increase in plans bought on the open market.
"The biggest fear people have when they lose their job is losing their health insurance," Sen. McCain said last week in an economic speech. "I have proposed comprehensive reforms that will lead to innovative, portable insurance."
Democrats say his plan would be great for young, healthy people who could get a good deal on their own. But he hasn't solved the difficulty faced by older people and people with pre-existing conditions buying insurance on the open market.
Mrs. Edwards notes that the McCain plan could leave both him and her out were they forced to seek insurance on the open market. Both have had cancer, and insurance companies typically won't offer insurance to people applying on their own who have had serious medical problems.
Sen. McCain said last fall that he would help people with particularly expensive health-care needs by offering special subsidies administered through Medicaid, the state-run health program for the poor. But how that would work or who would qualify is unclear.
Sen. McCain also would let people buy health insurance across state lines. That would allow health-insurance companies to escape state regulations they don't like, such as rules allowing for appeals when companies deny coverage and rules requiring insurers to cover people with various conditions or to cover particular types of treatments. The companies would likely gravitate to the states with the regulations they most favored.
The result is that health-insurance companies would all operate out of states with few regulations, effectively stripping state rules built over decades, Mrs. Edwards said. "We can expect all our health-care policies to be written in states where little is required of them."
