In an article appearing in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal, writer Laurie McGinley stated that the 2008 presidential candidates’ plans are not detailed enough for voters to be able to tell what kind of effect the plans would have on their finances or their actual health care.
“The challenge: None of the plans is detailed enough to show exactly how consumers’ wallets — or quality of care — would be affected,” McGinley wrote. “The opportunity: Because the difference between the two parties is stark, voters have a clear choice of approach.”
The article goes on to discuss the various candidates’ health care plans, as well as the major difference between the Democrats and the Republicans: universal health care.
Conclusion?
All of the candidates seem to want to give Americans better-quality, more affordable health care. The only difference is in their methods, with the Democrats generally favoring a single-payor system (or at least an option), and the Republicans are generally looking to solve the problem of affordability through various tax schemes. McGinley’s article is a well informed, easy-to-understand general primer on presidential health-care plans.
