Apparently he didn't want to be left out. The other leading Democratic candidates have their plans out there already.
May 29, 2007, 12:17 pm
Obama’s Health Plan
By Kate Phillips
Barack Obama
Fresh off campaign stops in New Hampshire over the weekend, Senator Barack Obama traveled to the University of Iowa to outline his own plan to try to provide health insurance coverage for everyone.
According to advance text of his remarks, his proposal, like others, would try to lower the costs of insurance — he asserts a “typical family’s” premium would be reduced by $2,500 by his plan — through increased insurance competition, eliminating inefficiencies in the health system, having the federal government pick up part of the high costs of catastrophic coverage, driving down the costs of drugs and promoting preventive measures as well as better management of chronic illnesses.
Mr. Obama recommends paying for his proposal — his is modeled after the plan that covers federal employees — in part by using the tax revenue that would be recouped if President Bush’s tax cuts expired. (His campaign released estimates that an additional $50 billion to $65 billion in revenue would be needed, releasing research by the Urban/Brookings Tax Policy Center on how the money could raised through imposing higher taxes on people in the top income brackets. ) Update: See more on the cost implications below.
Two of his Democratic rivals, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, also cite the expiration of the tax cuts or their repeal as a means to pay for universal health coverage.
He would retain the private insurance system, but his plan would help those who couldn’t afford coverage through subsidies based on a sliding scale of their income. And all employers, except for very small businesses, would be required to contribute to employees’s coverage. His plan would create a National Health Insurance Exchange to monitor insurance practices.
Citing spiraling health care and insurance costs, Mr. Obama said:
Since President Bush took office, the single fastest growing component of health care spending has been administrative costs and profits for insurance companies. Coming in a close second is the amount we spend on prescription drugs. In 2006, five of the biggest drug and insurance companies were among the fifty most profitable businesses in the nation. One insurance company CEO received a $125 million salary that same year, and has been given stock options worth over $1 billion. As an added perk, he and his wife get free private health care for as long as they live.
Now, making this kind of money costs money, which is why the drug and insurance industries have also spent more than $1 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions over the last ten years to block the kind of reform we need. They’ve been pretty good at it too, preventing the sale of cheaper prescription drugs and defeating attempts to make it harder for insurance companies to deny coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition.
Here is a link to his full speech.
Last week, Senator Clinton offered her proposal, which covered some of the same themes. Mr. Edwards released his plan earlier this year.
Estimates of the cost of such a huge expansion of health care coverage — with an estimated 47 million Americans uninsured — prompts Republicans to say such proposals would be prohibitive. One G.O.P. candidate, former New York Mayor Rudulph Giuliani has called the Democrats’ proposals “socialized medicine.”
Update: A fact sheet and an analysis done by outside experts that were released by the Obama campaign today can be reviewed through the links in this paragraph.
Of the cost analysis, here is further elaboration from Dr. David Blumenthal, Professor of Medicine and Professor of Health Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, David Cutler, economics professor at Harvard and Jeffrey Liebman, a Harvard public policy professor. They were asked by the campaign to do this examination:
Even though the medical system as a whole will save money, extending coverage to all Americans will cost the Federal government money. Using our own estimates and those of respected economists such as Ken Thorpe and Jonathan Gruber, we estimate that the Obama health plan will require between $50 billion and $65 billion per year of new Federal funds when fully phased in. We give a range for the net cost because in a complex, $2 trillion health system, there is inevitably some uncertainty about cost and revenue implications of different elements. This $50 billion to $65 billion estimate is based on our most conservative estimate of efficiency savings. If efficiency savings turn out to be greater, then the federal cost would be lower.
According to estimates from the Urban/Brookings Tax Policy Center, $65 billion is roughly the amount of revenue that would be raised by restoring the top two personal income tax brackets and rates on dividends and capital gains to Clinton era levels, and retaining the estate tax with a $7 million exemption rather than repealing it.
In his interview with Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” in February, Mr. Edwards was pretty candid about the fact that taxes would have to be raised to pay for his plan. Here’s the exchange:
Q: You support universal health care: noble goal, but that’s 47 million more people. How much would that cost?
A: It’d cost between $90 and $120 billion a year once it’s fully implemented.
Q: Would you be willing to raise taxes in order to help pay for this?
A: Yes, we’ll have to raise taxes. The, the only way you can pay for a health care plan is there has to be a revenue source. The revenue source I’m proposing is, is first we get rid of George Bush’s tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year. And then, we need to do a much better job of collecting the taxes that are already owed.
Q: But you’d be willing to increase taxes to provide health care?
A: Yes, absolutely.
Obamas Health Plan - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog
Hillary recent went off on a socialist/communist tirade and Obama not to be outdone released plans for a socialized healthcare system. I've read numerous explanations of his plan so I don't think the media has it figured out just yet. Basically I've heard his plan involves payment from the government, businesses and the consumers.
My biggest problem with universal healthcare has to do more with socialism than anything else. The competition in the market is good. When government is paying for things they're going to feel more in control and be more open about laws. We're already banning foods, etc.
I don't mind offering something like Medicare to all US citizens at a premium based on their income, but I do have a problem with going "universal." That's where I draw the line.
05-29-2007, 01:52 PM
