Published: Jun 28, 2004
Modified: Jun 28, 2004 7:25 AM
Kerry, Bush differ on health care
By LAWRENCE M. O'ROURKE, News & Observer Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The differences between the health care policies embraced by President Bush and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry are wide and very expensive.
Perhaps the most glaring example of the contrast is how to provide health insurance to the estimated 44 million Americans who lack it.
The president would spend $90.5 billion over the next 10 years on a plan that would bring health insurance to about 2.1 million people.
The Kerry plan would cover 26.7 million people, more than 10 times the number under the Bush plan. And it would cost $653 billion between now and 2014, or more than seven times the cost of the Bush plan.
THE LATEST
Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry might cancel plans to speak to the U.S. Conference of Mayors rather than cross a police officers' picket line.
Kerry spokesman David Wade told reporters that Kerry would not give his scheduled speech this morning because of protests at the conference. "He's never crossed picket lines in his time in public life," Wade said.
The Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, which has a history of endorsing Republican presidential candidates, is seeking a raise of about 17 percent over four years. Boston's Democratic mayor Thomas Menino has offered 11.9 percent.
The Associated Press
"Health care is likely to be the key domestic policy issue of the 2004 presidential campaign," said Kenneth E. Thorpe, professor of health policy at Emory University in Atlanta.
The smaller Bush proposal would fit into the president's overall campaign theme by not interfering with the president's plan to expand tax cuts and reduce the federal budget deficit, according to James Capretta. Capretta managed the Bush administration's health and education policy at the Office of Management and Budget until last month. He resigned then to become an adviser on health policy to the president's re-election campaign.
"The president plans to cut the federal budget deficit in half over the next five years, mostly through spending cuts," Capretta said. "That would require reform in entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, as well as controls on domestic spending."
Kerry would pay for his more costly plan by eliminating future tax cuts for the top 2 percent of taxpayers and would shift part of the cost of his health insurance plan from Washington to state capitals, said Sarah Bianchi, national policy director for the Kerry campaign. Bianchi said Kerry would "strike a new compact with the states."
But many states may not want the compact or be able to afford it.
Kerry would have the federal government pay the full cost of health insurance for the 20 million children enrolled in Medicaid.
In return, states would have to agree to expand the coverage of children in families with income up to 3 times the poverty level, cover their family members if the family's income is less than twice the poverty level, and assure that very poor adults without children receive health insurance.
Kerry says that the swap of health care responsibility between the federal government and the states would save state taxpayers "billions of dollars."
The Bush plan would rely on lowering the price of health insurance. The president would provide a tax credit or cash equivalent to people under 65, exclusive of two groups: Those with employer-sponsored health insurance or covered by Medicaid would not be eligible for the credit.
Bush would allow individuals buying high-deductible plans to take a deduction on their income taxes for the premiums they pay, even when they don't otherwise itemize deductions.
The policies covered under Bush's plan would be required to have a deductible of at least $1,000 for a single policy and $2,000 for a family policy.
Capretta, Bush's health care adviser, said that health care, while an important part of Bush's campaign, would not be one of its top three priorities. Capretta said the president would stress the international war against terrorism, protection of the homeland, and job growth.
Jason Furman, director of economic policy for the Kerry campaign, said the Massachusetts senator would "fight for his proposals" through elimination of currently planned future tax cuts on the very wealthy.
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1378177p-7500941c.html
This is a typical example of someone pointing out the absolute worst-case scenario regarding so-called 'free health care' in order to push a political agenda. First of all, Canadian health care is not free, we are taxed for it, that's where the money comes from. Second, due to some of these problems, re: long waiting lists, understaffed hospitals, a new tax has been implemented that comes off of every working person's paycheque. Third, nobody is forcing any Canadian to rely completely on our 'free' health care. OHIP, our health plan, covers necessary treatments, such as MRIs, seeing specialists, etc. IN FULL if you need to go to the US. The article is not only biased, but full of misinformation, i.e., not mentioning all the facts regarding our health care system. Yes, the idea of free health care is a myth. Now, what would you Americans prefer, more widely availible health care, with a two-tiered system, or 'no new taxes'?
)
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace