|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Health-Care Reform: Universality But Not Equality
| Article
# : |
12148 |
|
|
Section : |
EDITORIAL
|
| Issue
Date : |
3 / 1994 |
1,424 Words |
| Author
: |
Morton A. Kaplan
Editor and Publisher |
In February, THE WORLD & I began running a monthly series of articles on President Clinton's health-care-reform program. It is one of the most ambitious programs initiated by any president, long overdue, and of serious interest to all Americans. President Clinton deserves much credit for this initiative. However, whether his plan deserves support is surely open to legitimate questioning. I shall critique in particular the equation of universality with equality.
I do not know whether anyone, including Ira Magaziner, has read the entire plan, and I doubt whether anyone fully, or even substantially, understands it, given its extremely complicated character. I am neither an expert in the area nor a person who has made a substantial effort to understand its intricacies. The queries I will raise in this editorial are those a modestly informed critic would be likely to raise. Furthermore, if I accuse the president of misleading language, I do not claim that he differs in this respect from most other political figures. Rhetorical misdirection is a common feature of politics.
It is likely false that we will have a choice of doctors under the president's plan. We may have a modified choice from among doctors who are members of one of the plans from which we will be required to choose. Choice of doctors is important to many Americans who have worked hard and successfully enough to afford it. For instance, the University of Chicago had two plans from which I could have chosen. One of the plans would have paid all my family's medical expenses with no deductibles for a nominal charge, if I agreed to use the University of Chicago Hospital for all local problems. This was a quite good deal, because it is a fine facility with fine doctors. However, because my wife wanted to continue to use her own physicians, I accepted a plan that had substantial deductibles, for which I paid more.
Post retirement, I have continued this plan, even though I pay 100 percent of the costs, rather than accept the Washington Times Corporation plan, under which the company would pay 80 percent of the costs. Will I be forced to pay for both under the Clinton plan, or even restricted from continuing the one I prefer? I suspect the worst from the government. After all, starting this year I will have to pay taxes on 85 percent of $14,000 of gross Social Security income, although my net income from Social Security, after my payroll deductions and the amount contributed by THE WORLD & I on my behalf are subtracted, is only $7,000.
I am highly suspicious of the cost
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
