It's the issues, stupid - health care comparison

Obama health plan outperforms McCain plan in coverage and efficiency according to the EPI

In response to marvelous interest in comparing real issue positions between this year's Presidential candidates, I previously outlined a talking-point comparison of many issues pertinent to the U.S. over the next decade, or at least the next four years. This particular article covers significant differences between the candidates on one of the most important issues facing our nation today - health care.

Below is my summary of a report created by the Urban Institute/Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center (TPC). This likely is the only such report available at the moment (at least the only unbiased analysis of both plans), providing an evaluation of each candidate's plans and the effect each plan would have on costs and coverage outcomes for millions of Americans.

The summary below is simply my watered down version of a summary by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), and is not my own "spin" on the plans. The results are as expressed by an EPI Memorandum of the research conducted by the TPC, dated May 23, 2008. EPI is an independent economic analysis research firm. In a nutshell:

1) Obama's plan costs more (20% more; or 1.6 trillion versus McCain's 1.3 trillion)

2) McCain's plan would provide incentives for private insurance, but would discourage employers from providing coverage to employees (20 million less will have coverage from their employers over the next 10 years)

3) McCain's plan covers only 5% more of the current uninsured, while Obama's plan covers 47% of the uninsured (42% more coverage for only 20% more in cost; you do the math!)

While Obama's budget requires the U.S. to spend about 20 percent more on healthcare than McCain's plan, Obama's plan provides more "bang-for-the-buck", covers more of the uninsured and underinsured, and offers more services than the McCain plan.

The McCain plan would include reducing tax incentives for employers, creating a ripple effect which most likely will result in a reduction in employer-offered healthcare services. Additionally his plan would encourage purchasing plans with less health coverage than the typical healthcare plan today (I guess when your wife is a gazillionaire, you don't think about health insurance all that much).

Costs for the plan start far higher under the McCain version, even though the Obama plan ends up spending more over a full 10-year period. And, as expressed in this unbiased and non-political examination of both plans, nearly 20 million people will get LESS insurance options through employers under McCain's plan that have coverage now. A much larger overall increase in uninsured coverage will come from increases in employer premiums and other employer-paid plans.

Obama's plan is based on a large "national pool" of insurance, which will not discriminate based on current health status. This is probably the biggest flaw I see in the system (but what the heck do I know I'm not an economic analyst after all). I do see, however, the potential for fluctuating health care rates to potentially hike far higher than anticipated, given a national pool with no discriminating conditions.

Want more of the details? See the EPI's full report.

Information is provided as a service of

Copyright © 2008 by The Economic Policy Institute. All rights reserved.

Readers may redistribute this material to other individuals for noncommercial use, provided that the text, data, and all HTML code remain intact and unaltered in any way. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission. If you have any questions about permissions, please contact EPI at publications@epi.org. Other questions or concerns about this Web site can be directed to webmaster@epi.org.