The three presidential candidates all have different ideas for health care programs. I’ll let you decided which one you agree with…

——————————————————————–

Barack Obama: Obama is offering a sweeping plan that would provide every citizen a means to have health coverage and calls on government, businesses and consumers to share the costs of the program.

Obama’s plan retains the private insurance system but injects additional money into the system to pay for expanding coverage. It would also create a National Health Insurance Exchange to monitor insurance companies in offering the coverage.

Those who can’t afford coverage would get a subsidy on a sliding scale depending on their income, and virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers. The plan that would be offered would be similar to the one covering members of Congress.

His package would prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

In all, Obama said, the typical consumer would save $2,500 a year.

For more information, go to http://www.barackobama.com/2007/05/29/obama_offers_universal_health.php

——————————————————————–

Hilary Clinton:  her American Health Choices Plan covers all Americans and improves health care by lowering costs and improving quality. It speaks to American values, American families, and American jobs.

It puts the consumer in the driver’s seat by offering more choices and lowering costs. If you’re one of the tens of million Americans without coverage or if you don’t like the coverage you have, you will have a choice of plans to pick from and that coverage will be affordable. Of course, if you like the plan you have, you can keep it.

The plan provides tax credits for working families to help them cover their costs. The tax credits will ensure that working families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for health care.

No discrimination. The insurance companies can’t deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.

It’s portable. If you change or lose your job, you keep your health care.

For more information, go to http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

——————————————————————–

John McCain:  John McCain believes we can and must provide access to health care for every American. He has proposed a comprehensive vision for achieving that.

An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people’s needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.

While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will also have the option of receiving a direct refundable tax credit – effectively cash – of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

He plans to lower drug prices, provide higher quality and cheaper care for chronic diseases, promote coordinated care, expand access to health care, use information technology to reduce costs, reform the payment system to cut costs, promote the availability of smoking cessation programs, encourage states to lower costs, pass medical liability reform, and bring transparency to health care costs.

For more information, go to http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm

Summary

Health care and health insurance costs are rising far above the inflation rate. More than 45 million Americans do not have health insurance, and millions more have insurance that does not adequately cover them or their families. This issue affects not only low-income families, but middle-class families in part because employers who offer health insurance have dropped from 69% in 2000 to 60% in 2005. Estimates of the percentage of U.S. government funds that go toward health care vary, on the high end at 20% of government revenue, but just about all parties in the debate agree that the government’s contribution to American health care is large and growing.

Yes: Support Universal Health Care

Health care is a basic human right that most developed nations provide for their citizens. It also makes economic sense. Millions of uninsured individuals exact huge “hidden” costs on the American economy when they skip preventative care and treatment needed for chronic health conditions, which eventually may result in direct and indirect public expenses. Universal health care could also reduce the severity of epidemics by reducing the number of disease carriers. 

Contrary to popular belief, government-managed universal health care would be more efficient and provide better health care than the current private system, which ranks far behind the health care systems of most developed nations in quality and efficiency. In fact, the U.S. private system has an incentive to deny care in order to trim costs. Furthermore, the current system uses approximately one-fourth of all revenue for administration, and millions of dollars more go to middlemen and agents, rather than into health care. And since the U.S government already foots a huge amount of the bill for health care, it makes sense to let it directly control the expenditures and ease the burden on private companies that provide health insurance.

No: Against Universal Health Care 

Providing universal health care is not a government responsibility, nor can the government provide health care more efficiently than the private sector. In fact, universal health care plans will reduce efficiency because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork, which could lead to fewer doctor-patient visits, increased wait times, poorer quality care and decreased treatment flexibility. Furthermore, government-mandated procedures will reduce doctor flexibility and lower pay in the medical profession, which in turn would discourage talented people from pursing medicine or important medical research. 

The insurance industry would also be hard hit, certainly losing thousands of jobs. And even though the new health care bureaucracy could absorb some of those jobs, the creation of this new infrastructure could cost billions.

No heath care system is 100% fair, but at least in the current system healthy people who take care of themselves are not expected to subsidize those with illnesses that stems from poor heath choices, such as smoking, lack of exercise, alcohol and drug abuse, and obesity.

This information is courtesy of www.vajoe.com

Universal health care is health care coverage which is extended to all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region.  Universal health care programs vary widely in their structure and funding mechanisms, particularly the degree to which they are publicly funded.  These systems require government involvement, typically in the forms of enacting legislation, mandates and regulation. In some cases, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system, but many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care.

This information was provided by Wikipedia.org.  For more information go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Public Preference: Current System or Universal Coverage?

Current system: 32%

Universal coverage: 62%

Universal, with waiting lists for non-emergency treatment: 39%

Universal, with limited choice of doctors: 35%

Current Satisfaction Among Insured Americans

Satisfied with current costs: 64%

Dissatisfied with current costs: 34%

Future Worries Among Insured Americans

Worried about future affordability: 59%

Not worried about future affordability: 40%  Haves, Have-Nots Income Insured Uninsured $50K and up: 90% 8% Less than $50K: 79% 21% Less than $20K: 69% 31%

This is an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll conducted by telephone Oct. 9-13, 2003, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults.