Kerry has said to pay for his health plan he would eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the highest 2 percent of wage earners, but policy analysts have said that plan wouldn't raise enough money to pay for Kerry's ambitious programs.
"Everyone agrees with America's resources we have too many uninsured people," says a policy analysis at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. "But all Democrats really mean when they say, 'We need to address the uninsured,' is to have government pay for it," which is notoriously inefficient and expensive.
There are other problems with Kerry's approach, not the least of which it involves more government involvement.
Some experts have said that subsidizing employer-provided health insurance with tax breaks won't necessarily lower rates. In fact, they say, government guarantees of funding – such as taxpayer-funded college loans – actually cause prices to rise, because institutions and facilities on the receiving end know they will be paid.
And inevitably, these experts say, if the federal government is calling the shots there is likely to be a whole new range of regulations and red tape employers, employees and insurance companies will have to negotiate. That will mean higher costs for patients and providers alike.
'Key Issue' for 2004
Still, it remains an important issue. As in the case of Ralston, Thorpe also believes in the primacy of health care in this year's presidential matchup: "Health care is likely to be the key domestic policy issue of the 2004 presidential campaign," he told Scripps Howard News Service.
Joe Antos, a health policy expert for the American Enterprise Institute, told NewsMax.com Kerry's plan "spends a lot of money" but involves the federal government and could lead to a wealth of new restrictions.
"If the government says it will pay for all health care costs above $50,000, it's going to want to know how you got there," Antos said. "That means there will be a lot of people – auditors, examiners, and the like – looking over a company's [medical] expenses.
"That's a short step away from the government having an national price list," Antos said.
Regarding Kerry's lack of specifics, "details are minor things that you worry about if you get elected," Antos said with a chuckle. But overall, "he wants to spend a lot of money to cover a lot of people, and he makes no bones about it."
"To a lot of business people, [Kerry's plan] probably sounds really good," Antos said. "A lot of business owners might imagine, 'Well, this is going to give me some real relief.'"
However, he says, "if the government is taking over after a certain amount, nobody is going to be concerned about the kind of care those people are going to receive."
Though in many venues health care in the U.S. isn't stellar to begin with, Antos speculates "if no one has clear responsibility financially or any other way," patients who must now deal with government officials will likely become very frustrated very quickly.
"You have to remember, this is the government speaking," Antos said. "If they're going to be picking up the tab after a certain amount, they're going to want to know how they got to that point to begin with." That will "unleash an army of auditors, checkers and other bureaucrats," because Uncle Sam's first instinct "is not to believe you."
Antos says Americans "would like to see some improvements" in the nation's health care system, but the changes "cannot come all at once." The system is too large and too complex to do that.
"We might have to make big changes," he said, "but they should be done over time."
'HillaryCare' Returns
Some Republicans say the GOP has already gone too far in expanding the government's role in health care – even to the point of reinventing "HillaryCare," the pet name given by critics to a plan introduced by then – first lady Hillary Clinton, during her husband's first presidential term.
Detractors panned the plan as a massive version of socialized medicine that would eventually consume one seventh of the giant U.S. economy.
"In a late-night vote. . . the Republican congress managed to do what Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy tried to do ten years ago: take the next big step toward socialized medicine in America," Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, wrote July 1, 2003. "More specifically, Congress voted for a huge expansion of Medicare that enriches pharmaceutical companies, fleeces taxpayers with billions in new spending, and forces millions of seniors to accept inferior drug coverage."
"A better approach would utilize Medicare Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) to provide flexibility and choice," Paul – himself a physician – wrote.
David Gratzer, writing for The Weekly Standard, says Kerry hasn't done much to "distinguish himself" on the issue of health care.
"Since the collapse of HillaryCare, Democrats have avoided sweeping initiatives. Kerry, thus, proposes small ideas, and a whole lot of them. Most notable about his effort, however, is the price tag," Gratzer says. "The basic problem with KerryCare is its impracticality."
Michael F. Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies at the libertarian think tank CATO Institute, said of Kerry's health care plans: "Americans should beware."
"Kerry's platform represents perhaps the greatest threat to health care and patient sovereignty since the Clinton health plan," he says.
Though the Massachusetts Democrat says his plan will reduce costs and improve access to health care and health coverage, Cannon said "his two-pronged health plan would have the opposite effects, for it would bring America several steps closer to a system of socialized medicine, with all the increased costs and rationing of care that follow."
Noting that Thorpe, a former Clinton administration health official, found Kerry's plan would cover millions of Americans, Cannon said they "may be disappointed with what they get." |
