Uh oh, ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we have a race. I don't think I was the only one stunned by Barack Obama's victory in the Iowa caucus last week. Obama has gained a well-deserved reputation as an inspiring speaker but it just didn't seem like it would be enough to convince voters that a young, one-term freshman Senator would be able to lead the country through wartime (or peacetime depending on how much of an optimist you are).
Well, apparently his words and message are enough to convince voters he's the right (wo)man for the job. In Iowa, Obama accomplished two critical things: turn out voters and have them buy his "hope and change" message. Just look at the numbers.
Democratic Party officials said almost 240,000 Iowans turned out for the 2008 Iowa Caucuses compared to 124,000 in 2004, and under 60,000 voters in 2000. In other words, an incredible turnout.
The Washington Post cited some critical numbers from the National Election Pool that election watchers should be paying close attention to. “Half of the voters who turned out Thursday night said they were looking for a candidate who could bring change to the country while just a fifth said they most prized experience in a potential nominee,” the Post reported. “Half of those change-oriented voters backed Obama in the caucuses and helped propel him to victory.”
The National Election Pool found that 57% of Democrats said they were participating for the first time: roughly 40% chose Obama over Clinton, John Edwards and the rest of the Democratic pack.
Was Iowa an anomaly or the beginning of a trend?
The answer, at the moment, appears to be: trend. There's no question that the momentum Obama seized in Iowa is carrying straight over to New Hampshire. Obama has been down by a large margin for some time due in large part to the number of New Hampshire officials and political influentials who have endorsed Clinton. He narrowed the gap significantly after Iowa, and now two polls show him ahead by double digits as the voting takes place toady.
And how will voters react to this Clinton moment the day before the primary? Will they see Bill Clinton or Ed Muskie?
Assuming the Iowa numbers hold up for the rest of the Democratic Primary season, and a Democrat is elected President, what would an Obama White House mean for US health care policy? It could be a significant departure from a Clinton II Administration.
Some political observers argue that it doesn't matter which Democrat is elected President, since a Democratic victory means a big push for health care reform, and the differences among individual plans are less important than the political impetus of a Democratic landslide.
I don't necessarily think that will be the case. You may see a lot less reforming action under Obama than you would Clinton.
After reviewing both Clinton and Obama's health care proposals, it's patently obvious which one is further along.
Hillary's universal health care proposal is much closer to policy and more comprehensive than Obama's. Clinton emphasizes choice among four options: 1) keep the plan you have 2) buy a new plan from a for-profit insurer 3) pick a plan from the options available to members of Congress through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), or 4) choose a public plan option similar to Medicare.
The program would provide small businesses and other employers with tax credits for buying into the system to help offset coverage costs. There are other pieces, such as Health IT, electronic medical records and a pay-for-performance-like bonus system, that are included in the Clinton plan.
As noted by the LA Times earlier this year, the most obvious sign that Clinton is closest to having a universal health care proposal that could satisfy everyone at the table was an acknowledgment from the America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) of the proposal's possibilities. AHIP represents 1,300 US insurers and dueled bitterly with the Clinton Administration in the early 1990's over "Hillarycare," eventually derailing the universal health coverage proposal in its entirety.
This is what AHIP has to say about Hillarycare Version 2.0: They praise the employer tax credit and say Clinton's reforms may be acceptable as long as they are linked to a mandate for individuals to buy coverage. That's very different than the "Harry and Louise" response to Hillary Clinton's proposal more than a decade ago.
Obama's plan for reform looks to be more in the idea stage compared to the Clinton plan. And anyone that has dipped their toe in the political waters in Washington will tell you it's a long journey between idea and policy.
For example, Obama's program would really offer one option, the FEHBP-like choice, under his proposal. Not bad. Obama also calls for the creation of a National Health Insurance Exchange to act as a watchdog arm for Americans. Here's a description of the NHIE from Obama's website:
"The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance
market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to
ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible.
Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and
stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will
require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public
plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would
evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of
services, public."
That's a proposal that seems a lot closer to idea than policy action. The NHIE would also monitor what insurers do with their profits. The plan will "force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration."
Moreover, where Clinton's plan delves into specifics, Obama offers very general solutions to complicated issues.
On the State Children's Health Insurance Program: "Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function."
On enrollment into a new government plan: "Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage."
Still, Obama has a highly respected domestic policy team, many of them ex-Clinton officials. Harvard health economist David Cutler is one of Obama's top health advisers, along with David Blumenthal, director of Harvard's Institute for Health Policy. Cutler has co-authored papers with former FDA Commissioner and CMS Administrator Mark McClellan. Here's a look at some of his papers.
Maybe most importantly when it comes to the odds on serious health care reform happening in 2009, universal health care is Hillary Clinton's issue. It's the issue where she has the most experience and the most visible political wounds to show for it. For Obama, "coverage for all" seems to be more of a classic Democratic tenet he's running on--not necessarily his issue.
Simply put, Clinton's health reform plans are in policy stage, Obama's are in idea stage. So if you're looking at which candidate is most ready to reform health care, it's Clinton, not Obama.
2 comments:
"So if you're looking at which candidate is most ready to reform health care, it's Clinton, not Obama."
To say that those of us involved in the therapeutics industry are single issue voters based solely on healthcare policy is totally ludicrous. Of course Hillary has a more detailed healthcare plan. On the other hand she has had plenty of opportunity over the last eight years to speak out about the reverse-robin hood economics of our government and wanton spending on the military industrial complex but has consistently brought to the senate all the principled force of a wet noodle. To believe that somehow her more detailed healthcare plan should offset her beltway-insider safe-play tactics is misguided at best.
Secondly, and more importantly, as a scientist, the issue of healthcare is largely a straw man. The real danger facing the the pharmaceutical and therapeutics industry is a lack of innovation. Furthermore it turns out that in part our nation's security is by proxy determined by energy policy. This issue again can only be resolved by innovation. So the real question we should be asking and talking about is "Which candidate will help to engender innovation". Who plans to cut taxes for alternative energy and biologic startup companies? What about NIH grant funding? How about some policies designed to give incentive to corporate sponsorship of acedemic programs (such as BP and Berkeley)
Drew at BioNext Review
Ah, an Obama man. I certainly did not say, nor mean to say, that the biopharma industry are single issue voters. However, your well-articulated points are well-taken. Still, you are mistaken to think that serious health care reform on the scale of universal coverage is less important to the biopharma industry than everyone's favorite buzzword, innovation. Universal coverage would do more for the health of biotech and pharma than anything you discussed in your comment. More NIH funding? Really? Last I checked the institutes get almost $30 billion a year. Tax cuts for start-ups? Small potatoes. There are 47 million uninsured Americans. Now imagine all of those people have drug coverage. That, to me, is the big picture and you need not look any further than Medicare Part D to see what a government-run drug benefit can do for biopharmaceutical companies. Also, I wanted to point out which candidate is most ready to tackle reforming the system. Based on a review of both plans, I think Hillary has the plan most ready to be put into action as President, not First Lady or freshman Senator from NY. Now, you can argue that the forces against her would be salivating over a chance to fight Hillarycare again. But that is different from what you are saying.
Anyway, I enjoyed reading and thinking about your comments.
Best,
Ramsey
Post a Comment