A number of key writers noted yesterday that Bush’s criticism of Kerry’s health care plan had more angles than was initially apparent. It won’t get the kind of attention warranted for a discussion of whether Kerry was “mean” to Mary Cheney, but it’s worth following up on anyway.
Kerry reminded the debate audience Wednesday night that his plan includes allowing families to buy into the same health-care plan members of Congress give themselves. As a political issue, this seems like pure gold. I suspect most uninsured Americans resent the fact, once they’re made aware of it, that tax dollars finance lawmakers’ health care, and these same people would gladly buy into the system — and enjoy the options it provides — if it were available and affordable to them.
Bush, predictably, mischaracterized the whole thing.
“[Kerry] just said he wants everybody to be able to buy in to the same plan that senators and congressmen get. That costs the government $7,700 per family. If every family in America signed up, like the senator suggested, if would cost us $5 trillion over 10 years.”
First of all, Bush’s analysis is — surprise, surprise — completely wrong. As The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn explained, Kerry’s plan wouldn’t just give health care insurance away, so it certainly couldn’t cost what Bush is saying it would cost.
Notice the key phrase, though: “[B]uy into the same system” — as in, buy with your own money. People who enroll in Kerry’s program will have to pay premiums just like everybody else. Whether they pay it all on their own or have their employers subsidize those premiums depends on their particular job arrangement. But, either way, it’s not on the federal government’s dime.
Indeed, the only significant expenditure for the federal government would be the assistance Kerry has promised those individuals who, because of their low incomes, cannot afford these premiums on their own. He would also offer small businesses some tax credits to afford coverage. To be sure, that costs real dollars, about $385 billion over ten years, or roughly a third of the plan’s entire cost, according to a study by the Lewin Group. But that’s hardly $5 trillion. And, relative to other forms of assistance, it certainly seems like an efficient way to guarantee stable, high-quality health coverage to people who don’t have it now.
It sure does. That’s why Kerry’s kicking Bush’s butt on health care — one has a reasonable plan to expand access for millions of uninsured families, while the other has no plan at all.
But wait; it gets better.
Bush insisted that Kerry’s plan would be burdened by extraordinary costs. He’s wrong, but even if the numbers he used were right (which they’re not), it’d still be a recipe for health care savings in this country. As Atrios noted:
… I think Bush just made an extraordinary argument for some version of a mandatory single payer system.
According to the CBO, health care expenditures in 2002 were equal to $5,450 per capita. So, assuming Bush’s numbers are correct (and who am I to question him?), bring it on baby! $7,700 per family is a hell of a lot less than $5,450 per person. The health care revolution is here! Bush is its fearless leader!
Good point. Indeed, Matt Yglesias expanded on this to explain why the Kerry-according-to-Bush plan would create incredible savings.
Down to brass tacks, the 2000 census said there were 2.66 persons per household, which seems like the most relevant stand-in for family size under the circumstances. Bush, then, is charging Kerry with a plan to provide universal health care to the American people at a cost of $2,894.74 per person. Right now, total US health expenditures amount to $5,450 per capita of which approximately 44 percent is public sector. In other words, the government is spending $2,398 per person under the status quo system. Kerry’s “plan” would cost an additional $496.74 per person per year or (using 2000 census data) $139,793,517,586.44 per year. We’ll call that a $140 billion dollar increase in annual expenditures.
Admittedly, that’s a lot of money (comparable to the president’s health care bill) but in exchange we would (a) cover additional people, (b) provide all Americans assurance that they’ll never lose their insurance, and (c) relieve individuals and employers in the private sector of $3,052 dollars in annual health care expenditures. That’s a total of $855 billion per year. In other words, for every additional dollar you’d pay in taxes, you’d be saved $5 in health expenses.
Sounds like Bush accidentally articulated a single-payer system that would maintain choice and save everyone money.
Oops.