Jacob Hacker points out the triviality of the debate between Obama and Clinton over healthcare given that their plans are fundamentally similar. I part with Hacker on one point:
Senators Obama and Clinton’s proposals are so similar it’s hard to see how Mr. Obama can suggest that everyone will voluntarily sign up under his plan while Mrs. Clinton’s will impose unbearable costs on middle-income folks.
It’s easier to see if you think of markets. Clinton’s plan would provide private insurers with a captive market, unless they wish to purchase a government plan “similar to Medicare,” which would mean costly prescriptions. Under Obama’s plan, customers could still “exit” by not purchasing a plan.
Clinton started it with her accusation that Obama’s plan would leave 15 million people uncovered. She omitted that they would be uncovered only if they chose not to purchase insurance, not because they would not be eligible to do so. She would simply require them to do so.
Hacker points out that the MA plan managed to cover only about half the uninsured. That’s progress, but it shows that reforms still have a long way to go.
The other issues he raises is the continuation of coverage for the insured. When people switch jobs or lose their jobs, will either of the candidates’ proposals ensure that their existing coverage continues? Or will they have to switch plans? Will people need to purchase the very-expensive COBRA package, that allows their benefits to continue?
So long as cost-controls remain a policy objective, how will the candidates really cut costs? The current proposals are vague and cavalier about how this will be done.
