Apparently the actual review occurred in the journal Health Affairs, but their site didn't list the actual articles, just the abstracts, so I'll use this
TownHall.com article that summarizes:
| Quote: |
John McCain's health plan won't lower the ranks of the uninsured. Barack Obama's fails to curb the soaring cost of health care, meaning initial gains in helping more people buy health insurance would eventually be undermined.
...
The critiques, published in the journal Health Affairs on Tuesday, reflect fundamental disagreements over how to improve access to health coverage. They also sound warnings about what could go wrong with each candidate's plan.
...
They said employers would be less likely to offer coverage if they knew their workers could get it elsewhere. In all, the authors projected that 20 million people would lose their employer-sponsored insurance under McCain's plan, while 21 million people would gain coverage through the individual market _ little more than a wash.
And as monthly insurance premiums rise and the tax break stays the same, even that gain would erode.
...
"Any major expansion of coverage will be costly, and the Obama promise of affordability would require new, large, and rapidly growing federal subsidies that are unlikely to be sustainable, fiscally or politically," said the authors.
Obama would also require all but small businesses to make a "meaningful" payment for health coverage of their workers or contribute a percentage of payroll toward the cost of the public plan offered through the exchange. The authors said that either way, job losses or pay cuts would result. |
So, it appears the bottom line is that both plans stink.
Health Affairs also had an article showing the "ideal" plan, that was basically a combination of the two (but again, all I could read was the abstract).
General