From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Advantage... Clinton (Health care plans)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:04:46 GMT


Subject: Report: Clinton's health reform would save money, insure more people


	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Gov. Bill Clinton's plan to overhaul the nation's
health care system would save more money and provide health insurance to
more Americans than President Bush's proposal, a bipartisan report
concluded Thursday.
	The nation would spend $2.2 trillion more on health care over the
next 12 years under Bush's proposal compared to Clinton's, and 27
million Americans would still have no health insurance, according to the
report from Families USA, a non-profit health care reform advocacy
group.
	The report was prepared for the group by a bipartisan panel of
current and former officials from Republican and Democratic
administrations and based on an analysis conducted by Lewin-ICF, a
Washington health care economics consultant.
	At least 30 million Americans lack health insurance and the cost of
health care has been rising rapidly in the United States, making health
care reform a major issue in the presidential campaign.
	Bush's proposal calls for providing tax credits to families to buy
health insurance, requires insurers to provide coverage to all employers
requesting it and prevents insurance companies from denying individuals
coverage.
	Clinton's plan would require businesses to either provide health
insurance for employees or pay into a publicly sponsored, privately
operated insurance program. Clinton's plan also calls for establishing a
National Health Board that would control costs by setting an annual
budget for health care.
	Bush's plan would save $31 billion in spending on health care by the
year 2000 while the Clinton plan would save $211 billion, the report
said. By the year 2005, the Bush plan would save $46 billion compared to
a savings of $481 billion under Clinton's plan, the report said.
	That translates into the nation spending $10,398 per family for
health care under Bush's plan in the year 2000 compared to $9,219 under
Clinton's plan, a savings of $1,179 per family, the report said. By
2005, the savings would increase to $2,267 per family under Clinton's
reforms, the report said.
	``All in all, the bipartisan panel found a striking difference in
costs between the two presidental candidates' health plans,'' Ron
Pollack, the group's executive director, said at a news conference.
	While Clinton's plan would provide health insurance to all Americans
by the year 2005, Bush's plan would leave 27 million Americans without
insurance, the report said. In addition, Bush's plan would leave 11.8
million more Americans ``underinsured'' than Clinton's plan by the end
of the decade, the report said.
	``Gov. Clinton's plan provides health insurance for all Americans,
despite its lower price tag,'' said Pollack, who stressed that the
report was not intended as an endorsement of either candidate.
	The report noted, however, that both candidates' plans lack
sufficient details on key issues, including long-term care.
	The panel did not analyze Ross Perot's health care reform proposal
because it lacks sufficient detail, Pollack said.
	The panel included Stuart Altman, who served in the Nixon and Ford
administrations and is currently chairman of the Medicare Prospective
Payment Assessment Commission; Charles Edwards, who also served in the
Nixon and Ford administrations; Karen Davis, who served in the Carter
administration; Arthur Flemming, who served under Nixon, Ford, Carter
and Eisenhower, and Philip Lee, who served under Johnson and is chairman
of the Physician Payment Review Commission.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc