title: The Clinton plan: what happened to the tough choices?
abstract: This paper points out four difficult choices embedded in the Clinton plan. First, universal coverage is achieved, but with regressive head-tax financing on many workers-since the cost of the employer mandate ultimately will fall on workers' wages. Perhaps such an approach can be made politically acceptable. Second, cost containment is entrusted to global spending limits, which will limit the rate of improvement in quality. Third, the offering of choice among a variety of health plans of different costs and quality, although desirable in itself, may lead to inequity. Finally, the plan's financing will make it difficult for voters to tell what trade-offs they are making, because employer mandates and budget cuts disguise choices.
authors.affiliation: Health Care Systems Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
authors.forename: M V
authors.initials: MV
authors.lastname: Pauly
mesh_terms: D003256:Community Participation; D003361:Cost Allocation / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003363:Cost Control / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D017598:Efficiency, Organizational / Q000191:economics; D005380:Financing, Government / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006264:Health Benefit Plans, Employee / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D018166:Health Care Reform / Q000191:economics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006297:Health Services Accessibility / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D008489:Medical Indigency / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D009310:National Health Insurance, United States / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011057:Politics; D014481:United States