"If you think the market will solely impact the means of provision of health care, I think you're misguided," Bohland said. "There has to be government oversight or you run the risk of creating large national insurance monopolies."
Democratic nominee Barack Obama also wants to increase competition, but essentially wants to use the government as one of the competitors. He plans to create a national health care insurance option similar to what U.S. government employees currently have. This includes a high benefit, low-cost insurance alternative for Americans who choose to purchase it.
This is not national health care, however, as many may wrongly believe.
There would still be premiums and deductibles to pay for the government-administered health insurance. However, the costs would be much lower than with other insurance plans.
In addition, the government would provide subsidies for those who could not afford the premiums on these options, so it would be accessible to all.
How would this plan affect the college student? The 20 percent who are uninsured would be eligible for coverage and perhaps more likely to sign up for the government-run health insurance. Another percentage may end up on national health insurance if, for example, their parents switch.
In addition, as graduates make their way into the job market, they could apply for the national health insurance and be covered, as there is universal eligibility. As with McCain's plan, portability of their insurance would be much easier since it would not be tied to an employer.
There are also arguments made opposing Obama's health care plan. One strong argument is in regard to the increased government control of the United States' generally capitalist-based system. Many may believe a strong government presence decreases or even eliminates the drive of the free market. It could be said that a bureaucratic superstructure would be created that would take away any incentive for people to care about how their health care works.
Of course, the most prominent argument against this plan is, as always, who will pay for it? Who finances a system
where people pay very little money and reap many benefits? The answer offered by Obama's plan includes efficiency changes to medical paperwork and more health awareness.
With such a system, many argue that the extra costs will have to come from the taxpayers.
These plans both have supplementary ideas and proposals, but overall, this is how each candidate hopes to address the growing health insurance crisis and some of the arguments against their proposed policies.
The goals of both strategies are quite similar: reduce insurance costs and increase insurance carriers.
In reality, these major changes may not be made immediately. The proportion of implemented policies to initial ideas is often lower when it comes to presidential appointments, since there are other branches of government that the president-elect has to contend with.
Continue Reading: « Previous12
Leave a comment 6 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Thanks for this piece comparing the McCain and Obama health insurance proposals. Not enough is being written about each. While your coverage is primarily accurate, as a long-time participant in the Federal government plan, I can say it would only be nationalized health insurance in the sense that each year the government negotiates contracts with a large number of health insurance companies. Our premiums go directly to those companies and we deal with them directly on claims, etc., not the government, so the cost to the taxpayers is minimized. The main advantage for the insured is the government stipulates that coverage is mandatory so concerns about age and pre-existing conditions are eliminated. I have chosen one of the lower premium plans and I pay about $250/month for my family for a good coverage plan. McCain's plan, on the other hand, seems to be a very big risk, i.e., losing presently provided employer coverage which the vast majority of those insured currently have. Then, it would put them on their own to negotiate their way through a panoply of plans. They would lose their group negotiating power and lose the age and pre-existing condition advantages of the current employer- and government-provided plans, resulting in even less people insured than today. Thanks again.
Reply to this Top
Wow, a balanced article on a political topic found in the CT. I commend you for presenting both sides of an issue fairly. This approach is too rarely seen in this paper.
Reply to this Top
Great article. Balanced. Just the facts. Very little opinion. Well constructed and written. I'll bet 90% of students had little or no understanding of the positions. They'll have a solid foundation if they read this.
Reply to this Top
I don't understand why can our government just open up the insurance plans currently offered to government employees to the public. I would sign up in a heart beat. There is no extra costs to tax payers.
Reply to this Top
Tax credits to buy private health insurance, McCain's plan, will not help most people who are uninsured. People who are uninsured not by choice tend to fall into two categories - 1) pre-existing conditions and 2) can't afford the premiums. People who are uninsured by choice tend to be young and healthy people who figure the premiums aren't worth it. In addition, many private individual policies are what is called "junk insurance." That is, insurance that provides completely inadequate coverage when something does go wrong, even something relatively simple and finite such as moderate injuries from a car crash. One of the major problems is the inability to form groups outside of an employer.
Reply to this Top
This whole nationalized healthcare is a joke. Half the people voting for Obama are doing so because they think the government can't handle things which is quite contradictory seeing as they wish to give the government MORE power and MORE of their money. This country was founded on the basis where you have the opportunity if you so choose to better YOURSELF on YOUR OWN. Why do people look to the government for help when its not their job? Because they're too lazy to get up and make a better life for themselves. I'm so tired of this free lunch bs. We're college students we will have health care because we are making a name and a place for ourselves to better our lives, our family's lives, and eventually our country's. Why should I pay for someone to get healthcare when they aren't helping themselves. I and others I know work, take a full class load, support myself AND pay for healthcare. It's not the greatest, but I know with hard work I will be fine in the long run. I suggest we publish something like THAT as a motivational piece rather than tell people that, "It's ok, we'll give more power to the government and they'll bail you out." Absolute crap...
Reply to this Top