GOPers Think US Health Care Rocks

Health Care Issue Could Help Clinton
An economic downturn or recession could help Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) win the Democratic presidential nomination because of "one of her perceived strengths: that she would be better than [Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.)] at controlling surging health care costs," according to pollsters and health care industry experts, Reuters reports.

According to Reuters, health care and other economic issues helped Clinton to win the March 4 Ohio Democratic primary, and Clinton hopes to "repeat her success" in the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, in part by "focusing on her $110 billion universal health care plan as the U.S. economy stumbles." A Quinnipiac University poll of Pennsylvania Democratic voters found that Clinton leads Obama on the issue of health care by a 56% to 38% margin.

"When voters say they are worried about the economy, health care is what an awful lot of them are really worried about," Clay Richards, an assistant director at the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said, adding, "They see Clinton as the candidate with far more experience in the field." Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said, "Pennsylvania has traditionally had an older female electorate which is the number one group of voters for Clinton, number one group of voters for health care, and the number one group of voters who tend to think Clinton is better on health care."

However, "experts question whether health care or any single issue will dramatically alter the state-by-state race for delegates to the party's nominating convention in August, where the candidate for the November election will be chosen," Reuters reports (Szep, Reuters, 3/20).

Opinion Piece
Democratic presidential candidates have proposed an expansion of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to all U.S. residents, but such a plan is "very expensive" and "gives people little reason to be value-conscious health care shoppers," Merrill Matthews, executive director of the Council of Affordable Health Insurance, writes in a Washington Times opinion piece.

According to Matthews, the "most appealing part of FEHBP to many proponents" is the "heavily subsidized, rich benefits package," but that "comes with a really big price tag." He adds, "Not surprisingly," Democratic candidates have remained "characteristically vague about" the cost of an expansion of FEHBP.

In addition, supporters of an expansion also cite the choice among a "wide range of policies with varying benefits" offered by private health insurers through FEHBP that is "supposed to produce competition among the health plans, keeping quality high and prices low," Matthews writes. However, he writes, the federal government "exercises pretty heavy oversight" on health plans offered through FEHBP, a practice that might "prevent plans from being too innovative in their benefit design."

Matthews concludes, "Covering the uninsured is going to cost money -- a lot of it" -- and, in "a time of tight federal and state budgets, is it prudent, or even honest, for politicians to promise to give the uninsured some of the most expensive coverage available? And is it reasonable to ask taxpayers, striving to cover their own insurance and medical care, to pay for it" (Merrill, Washington Times, 3/20).

The health care debate in this election involves starkly different views of the U.S. health care system," says Robert Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. "One party sees it as lagging other countries across a broad range of problem areas while the other party sees the system as the best in the world with a more limited range of problems."