Wants to make health insurance affordable to nearly all Americans by giving vouchers to the poor and tax deductions to the middle class. No one would be denied coverage or lose benefits by changing jobs.

COVERAGE:

Wants universal coverage. Would require all employers to offer health benefits to workers and their families. The poor and unemployed would be covered through a publicly financed insurance pool.

Extending benefits to the 36 million Americans who have no health insurance at all is a primary goal for both candidates. But both plans leave big questions unanswered.

Administration officials admit that up to 5 million people probably won’t be covered-and critics say the Bush plan, which would limit federal subsidies to $3,750 a year for a family, can’t possibly cover the medical bills of those with chronic illnesses.

Clinton promises to cover virtually everyone. But he doesn’t say how he’ll pay for it, and he provides no specifics on a crucial feature-his call for government subsidies to help small businesses offset the costs of medical insurance for their employees.

HOW IT WOULD WORK:

Most Americans would get “coordinated care” through HMOs. Insurers would be required to offer “basic” medical coverage at the tax-subsidized price. Consumers could buy additional coverage if they chose.

HOW IT WOULD WORK: Doctors and hospitals would join insurance companies in “local health networks” that would negotiate fees and supervise patient care. A new National Health Board would design the “core benefit” package.

Both Bush and Clinton would dump major responsibility for health care on state governments. Both count heavily on insurance-industry reforms to make health coverage affordable. Both assume millions of Americans will join consumer cartels like HMOs, and both are appallingly vague.

Bush’s plan sticks closer to the status quo. Critics say his reforms lack teeth, and he does not define just which medical services would be covered by “basic” health insurance.

Clinton’s “core benefit” package includes almost everything: hospitalization, physicians’ services, prescription drugs, mental-health care and preventive care. But critics say he straddles the basic issue-does he want to reform the free-market system, or impose top-down government control?

CONTROLLING COSTS:

No cost controls. Savings will result from administrative streamlining, emphasizing preventive care, limiting malpractice awards, insurance industry reforms and the adoption of “coordinated care:'

CONTROLLING COSTS:

The National Health Board would set state and national budget targets. Each state would then decide how to keep its spending within budget. The states could impose price controls if fee negotiations at the local level failed to curb medical-cost inflation.

The flip side of the health-care crisis is soaring costs: total U.S. health spending is now $800 billion a year and rising. The trick is to cut costs without denying necessary care to anyone. That means someone must decide what’s necessary, and that’s why both candidates want to make HMOs a key part of the system: these cartels would make case-by-case decisions on care.

Bush would impose a further limit by setting a fixed dollar amount for federal tax subsidies to lower-income Americans. That means some people would still face the dilemma of paying large medical bills out of pocket or doing without care.

Clinton wants to limit costs through price and fee negotiations at the local level–the states could use price controls as a stick. Given the complexity of the U.S. health-care system, many experts think price controls won’t work-and some say the state and federal governments will wind up holding the bag.