• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

If you feel like you know about President Bush’s timber company or Senator Kerry’s outspoken wife more than either candidate’s health care plan for America, then keep reading.

This election year finds 44 million Americans without health insurance and millions more threatened by soaring premiums. As costs continue to outpace inflation, many more individuals and businesses will forgo coverage. Fortunately, our two main candidates say they have a plan.

The various platform differences Bush and Kerry maintain include insuring the uninsured, making health care affordable, and dealing with high medical costs.

To cover the uninsured, Bush’s strategy relies on private sector insurance supported by tax incentives, such as tax credits of up to $3,000 to help lower-income families, as well as tax deductions for those who buy long-term policies.

Kerry’s plan, meanwhile, calls for private sector incentives with expansion in Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. He says he would offer subsidies that encourage more employers to provide coverage.

In addition, Kerry plans to establish a new health plan – similar to that which serves federal employees – available to individuals and businesses and funded with tax credits, according to the Lewin Group, a non-partisan consulting organization.

The candidates also want to make health care more affordable. On top of his tax credits, Bush wants to give small businesses greater bargaining power for low insurance rates by allowing them to join forces in “association health plans.” He would also reward individuals who set up Health Savings Accounts with a tax deduction for the premiums they pay for high-deductible insurance policies.

Kerry’s solution would use a federally funded “reinsurance” program to compensate employers for 75 percent of all medical bills above a catastrophic limit (a limit set by insurance companies that deals with high-cost emergencies). Without those costs, companies and group health plans could then pass the savings on in reduced premiums to all workers, as reported in the New York Times.

Then, there is the issue of escalating medical costs. Both candidates favor electronic medical records, disease management systems and malpractice reform to reduce expenditures. However, they butt heads over the issue of prescription drugs, which comprise almost one-fifth of health care spending.

The president doesn’t address prescription drugs beyond his Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003. In addition, he vocally opposes drug importation and supports a ban on government negotiations with drug manufacturers.

Kerry, in contrast, believes the United States should import cheaper drugs from abroad and use its purchasing power to negotiate lower prices with drug makers, according to the Lewin Group.

The plans in front of us are by no means sweeping. For personal or political reasons, the candidates have opted for incremental adjustments of the current structure over red-meat reforms. Nevertheless, they represent policies that translate into big numbers.

The Lewin Group reported that Bush’s plan will cover an estimated 8.2 million new people at a cost of $227.5 billion over ten years. Kerry’s plan is expected to do more by covering an addition 25.2 million new people, but will cost more – to the tune of $1 trillion.

Family out-of-pocket spending under Bush’s plan would increase by an average of $68 per year, yet decrease by $451 per year under Kerry’s plan, the group reported.

Health care is too big of an issue to sweep under the rug this election year. Without reform, expenditures will continue to soar unchecked, begetting greater uninsurance. The consequences will threaten our health, peace of mind and economic vitality.

Clearly, much is at stake. To be truly informed as decision makers, we should take the time to understand our leaders’ vision for our health. So, before punching that crucial chad on Nov. 2, make sure you know what you’re voting for.