Sen. Barack Obama has been taking hits for his ‘non-universal’ coverage approach to health care reform. His latest ads may indicate he is moving in the direction of ‘more’ universal coverage.
Policy geeks will recall the contretemps among the Democratic candidates over the universal coverage mandate. Obama doesn’t want to ‘force’ people to get insurance, while Clinton/Edwards believe a mandate is essential.
Obama’s point has been to focus on ‘cost’ first to reduce premiums, thereby making health insurance more affordable. In reality all three plans have essentially identical approaches to cost control – while Obama claimed his focus was different, the truth is the only meaningful difference was Obama’s plan did not require universal coverage while Clinton/Edwards’ did.
Given Obama’s big win in Iowa, it is clear that the difference did not hurt the Senator.
Or it could be Obama’s last minute TV ads (focused on his health care initiative) convinced caucus-goers that his plan really is universal. Because that is certainly the impression the ads gave.
It isn’t. Most analyses of the Obama plan indicate about 15 million will remain uninsured; while the Edwards/Clinton plans will theoretically cover everyone. (I know, it is highly likely some portion of the populace will always be without coverage – undocumented workers, folks changing plans, recent job or marital changes, and those on the fringes of society. But there will be a lot more covered by the Edwards/Clinton plan than by Obama’s.)
But that’s not the impression Obama’s ads gave.
The ad
— says Obama’s plan guarantees coverage for all Americans – but leaves out the part about not requiring coverage.
— claims it is the best, leaving viewers with the impression that the comparison is to his competitors, when the quote compared Obama’s plan to a single-payer system
— attempts to bolster the cost-cutting position by claiming the plan will save the average family $2500 – a figure calculated by his own advisers, based on a series of assumptions that are awfully similar to those made by Clinton and Edwards.
Unlike Clinton and Edwards, Obama appears to be less comfortable with governmental mandates and requirements. He’d rather encourage people to do the right thing than require them to.
That’s nice, and noble and all, but unrealistic. People don’t buy insurance unless they absolutely have to, and will do almost anything to avoid plunking down their cash (I’m speaking as one who sold insurance for years). Until the poop hits the fan, and then it is the most important thing in the world. And that’s where Obama’s plan breaks down. If everyone doesn’t participate, then payers will get hammered by adverse selection.
From here, Obama’s ads seem to indicate he is starting to recognize that inherent problem.
Jan
4
I agree with the statement that obama is trying to look nice and agreeable with his heathcare plan. But in reality everyone needs heath insurance but I think mandating is not exactly the answer if the price doesnt lower. I personally have health insurance because I need it but the price to get decent heath insurance is out of control even through the company my husband works for. We need to lower costs and work with the individuals who dont want to fork out the cash. Inticing them with lower cost coverage that fits individual need. I dont think any candidate is convincing us that they are going to work this into their plans they either want to make it manditory or dont really care.
Any plan that panders to the health insurance industry will not improve our health care miseries; the fundamental flaw of treating health care as a business commodity remains. When everyone comes to grips with the fact that, in our current system, the dollar bill is an obstruction to health care, maybe good solutions will evolve. Health care must direct the dollar bill as opposed to the reverse, which is our current modus operandi.
R. Garth Kirkwood MD
http://www.equalhealthcareforall.com
doctork@equalhealthcareforall.com
It is not as if you can socialize the costs of health care without socializing the coverage–spreading it out over a large population. The US has a LARGE population, so it might be possible to get economies of scale without the entire population, but then how to turn it into a mandate. The usual rich people’s opt outs will apply anyway, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t pay a basic tax for the privilege of being an American.