Obama Healthcare plan vs. Clinton Healthcare plan - Essay Example

Since Hillary has no mechanism for enforcing the individual mandate she proposes, Obama regards the mandate as a bluff. John Edwards, whose plan includes mechanism for enforcing the individual mandate that he has proposed, supported Obama’s criticism of Hillary and Hillary’s criticism of Obama. In the Edward’s proposal, proof of insurance will be required when income taxes are paid and when health care is provided. Thus, Americans will be compelled to buy health insurance. The Edward’s plans make provision for families without insurance and those that lose coverage.

The former will be enrolled in plans such as Medicare and Medicaid while the later will be enrolled in other plans. The issue is not enrolling people in private health care plan but getting people to participate in the plan. Thus, the Obama plan makes perfect sense given that it resist individual mandate, which may be unattractive to a large number of people and may not easily be enforced. The President’s Medicare Plan: A Trojan Horse to Ration Health Care? Medicare, with $30.8 trillion in long term unfunded obligations, could cease to exist if the runaway cost is not reined in.

The problem is how Medicare cost should be controlled. Two options are available: changing the structure and culture of Medicare through empowering patients to make health care decisions that lead to best results, in addition to forcing plans and providers to compete for the money; and top-down bureaucratic control of the cost of health care services. Of course, these options will reduce the cost but will simultaneously reduce the quality of health care. The first option, which was taken by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, has been described to give Medicare patients control over cost of services and freedom to choose how they access these services.

The result according to Heritage’s Robert Moffit and James Capretta is value in return for the dollars. President Obama opted for the second option: tightening the top-down bureaucracy and reducing Medicare payment to doctors and hospitals, in addition to reducing providers’ reimbursement rates. This option leads to reduced senior access to doctors. Under the second option, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will be strengthened to rein in cost of Medicare while improving the quality of care.

The White House planned to equip IPAB to promote prevention without shifting cost to seniors. Though reducing doctors’ salaries will reduce Medicare cost as envisioned by the second option, according to British Physician Anthony Daniels strengthening IPAB to focus on prevention will be unsuccessful at addressing the fiscal problem The fact that Congress continues to delay in reducing doctors salaries suggests that the second option is not politically attractive. Pursuing health care reforms that put bureaucrats in charges will reduce patient access to care.

The second option should be repealed to avoid such outcome. Will Obama’s health care plan mirror the 1994 Clinton failure? Former President Bill Clinton key policy plan in 1994 was a