Health Insurance for All - Everything You Need to Know

The universal health insurance issue currently being debated by Senators Clinton and Obama is complex, multi-faceted and the total effects and costs are actually unknown, although cost estimates have been made. The cost estimates are often based on the political philosophy of the institution that is studying the issue.

Is it possible for the common voter to wade through the maze and arrive at any type of conclusion based on facts? The reality is, probably not, as the so-called experts often disagree. Former Senator Edwards stated that costs to the government would be in the range of $100-120 billion annually, while Clinton and Obama are quoting $50-65 billion annually.

Those numbers are huge, but what does it mean to the average family? What can be saved? Will a family or individual pay less for insurance, yet more in taxes? Will the rich simply be charged more and the monies raised from them be diverted to pay for the health insurance for the average person? Obama and Clinton state that approximately $2500 per family will be saved, based on the fact that families now pay about $10,000 annually. Individuals pay about $3600 annually, so their saving would be in the order of about $800.

I've spent the last week reading about the various programs and estimates in an effort to determine if I and hence the average American family will be better off with universal health insurance. Here is my take.

Clinton and Obama are running for office and touting their programs in an effort to attract out votes, so I discounted their estimates and believe that Edwards' numbers are probably closer to what it may actually cost. If that is reasonable, it means the savings to the average family in health insurance would be halved to about $1250 for a family and $400 for an individual. That savings is still something which is attractive.

I read the text of H.R. 676, a bill in congress that spells out a National Health Insurance Program. It is sponsored by Congressman (D) Conyers of Michigan and co-sponsored by 88 other Democratic members of Congress. It seems to spell out what Clinton and Obama are endorsing.

A few things bothered me. The first thing was that it said all "residents" of America would be covered and their social security number would be used to verify their coverage. I sure would feel more comfortable is it said all American "citizens".

Secondly, it said that the health insurance program would be covered by a higher tax on the top 5% or wage earners. Ok, that's not the average so that sounds alright - nothing better than to let others pay. But that wasn't all. It also said that a "modest" tax will be necessary for wage earners (that's me) and the self-employed (that's my plumber, electrician and other small businesses that I frequent). Now modest is the key word, and it remains undefined, but suffice it to say, the bottom line is that income taxes will increase. The reader can apply their own numbers here, but I figured the "average" family pays about $6000 per year in income tax and a "modest" increase might add 10-15% to that amount, so the increase might be about $600-900 more. Now the real family savings is reduced somewhere in the neighborhood of $300-600 per year.

The final funding aspects of this proposed universal health care bill said that a tax would be imposed on stock and bond transactions. While most people are not involved directly in stock and bond transactions, their retirement accounts are, whether they be in a bank, a company retirement fund, a 401k or some other retirement fund. What this means is that the return on that investment in our futures will cost more. Will that eat the final $300-600 savings that one might realize with the universal health care programs of Clinton and Obama?

I read many other analyses and reports. One stated that the costs of administration for private health insurance are about 14% of the costs. That 14% multiplied by billions is another huge number. However, I couldn't help but wonder if the government could really manage universal health care for less than that? Where I live, local government often turns to private contractors because they say it will save money. Clinton and Obama say the federal government will save us money.

I did this "common man's analysis" in a sincere effort to try and determine for myself if this universal health care was a good thing or not. It is after all one of the factors that will determine how I vote for the next President.

I hope others look at the issue from their individual perspectives. For me, I assume health care is going to "cost what it costs", in other words while there is obviously room for efficiencies the costs will remain essentially the same and will rise over time. I am thankful that our health care system has resulted in a better quality of life in America. I guess it's up to me - big screen TV, newer car, bigger house or health care for my family? My analysis once again proved "there just is not any free lunch."