Reply #19: Obama’s health plan leaves 22 millions out and is twice as expensive as Hillary’s that covers all [View All]

[CompSciStudent]

Hillarys plan kick ass and give her plenty of ammo in the weeks to come. Hillary’s plan is far superior over Obama’s, both ethically since it covers everyone, and it’s also fiscally sound.

Paul krugman writes about Hillary vs Obama’s health plan in an op ed dated Feb 4th:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

He refers to a new study by Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T, one of America’s leading health care economists,

He dissected both plans and "Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700."

Krugman writes; "As with any economic analysis, Mr. Gruber’s results are only as good as his model. But they’re consistent with the results of other analyses, such as a 2003 study, commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that compared health reform plans and found that mandates made a big difference both to success in covering the uninsured and to cost-effectiveness.

And that’s why many health care experts like Mr. Gruber strongly support mandates."

"If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html