And now for something completely different...

For the Clinton campaign, things just haven't been looking too hot lately.

After losing her lead in Superdelegates and being generally regarded as out of the race, Hillary Clinton looks to put up a fight in Oregon, where the next close primary will take place on May 20. And this time, its not about gas taxes or mortgages—surprise! Clinton plans to use health care as her weapon of choice.

Although her means are unclear, the end goal of Clinton's proposal is that all Americans be required to purchase health insurance, including the 47 million currently without coverage.

On the surface, the idea of universal health care seems great—when everything from prescription drugs to a five-minute follow-up appointment to brain surgery costs so much, who wouldn't want health insurance? But we have to flex our economic muscles and dig deeper than that to consider the additional costs and benefits of extending coverage.

First, we have to look at the composition of those who currently do not have health insurance, since those are the people most affected by a potential policy change. Current law provides coverage to the elderly, disabled, military families, veterans, children, and the poor via Medicare and Medicaid. Therefore those without coverage are mainly those in the lower middle class bracket who do not qualify for government provisions. Primarily these are people who do not have expendable income. Forcing these people to pay for health insurance may force them to sacrifice in other areas of their budget. Despite the fact that Clinton proposes that the cost will be a fixed percentage of income and subsidies or tax breaks would be available in order to make coverage "affordable," there will still be those who simply do not want to spend on health insurance. This can lead to negative externalities, although the extent of these externalities is dependent on the cost of required health care. For example, if the cost is high enough, cutting the amount of income spent on food could lead to greater fast food consumption and increases in obesity. This would increase the demand for health care, increasing its cost and creating a vicious downward spiral. Cutting on rent may force families to seek cheaper housing in areas with lower-quality public schools, decreasing the rates of return to both physical and human capital. And lastly, if money to be saved was spent on health insurance, savings would decrease.

Secondly, we must take into consideration the problem of moral hazard. This is already a problem: there is the tendency for those with health insurance to seek treatment when it is not needed, or seek treatment beyond what is needed. Moral hazard would only increase with universal coverage. These inefficiencies cause increases in both the costs to doctors and the health industry, and consequently, cause the price of insurance to rise.

Lastly, there is the problem concerning the inability to opt out. Low risk individuals forced to purchase health insurance would be subsidizing the higher risk individuals, and would not be granted the option to discontinue coverage.

In light of these costs, there are benefits to universal coverage that cannot be ignored. First of all, those in need of treatment who cannot currently afford it, will now be capable of getting the medical attention they need. In addition, the costs to the government associated with more expensive emergency care will be reduced as a result of more routine care. In response to the opt-out problem, one could argue that universal coverage prevents low risk individuals from leaving high risk individuals in their own pool.

After considering these costs and benefits, however, I do not believe that every American should be required to purchase health insurance. Obama's health care initiative is not as extreme as Clinton's: he would only require children to have coverage. This is more economically reasonable given that adults without insurance could still opt out and moral hazard would not increase to the same extent as with universal coverage. Obama also proposes the provision of affordable health insurance for all, but does not mandate its purchase. Because the increase in the price of health insurance explains much of the decline in insurance coverage, providing affordable insurance, but giving consumers the ultimate choice to purchase insurance or not, would allow for increased coverage without inefficiencies associated with those who do not want insurance but would be forced to purchase it under Clinton's plan.

However, the problem I find with his plan is that it closely parallels the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that was enacted in 1997 under President Bill Clinton. SCHIP is designed to provide coverage for families with children in the income bracket discussed earlier—that is, the lower middle class who does not qualify for Medicaid. With SCHIP, I fail to see the need to spend resources enacted a policy to cover all children. This is because children in low income families are already covered by Medicaid, children in lower middle income families are covered under SCHIP, and those in middle income or higher income families can afford private health insurance or medical treatment. Therefore, while Obama's plan might be more efficient in comparison to Clinton's and I support any effort to provide more affordable insurance, I find his coverage requirement for all children unnecessary and excessive given programs already in existence. These resources would be better served addressing more pressing issues.

Maybe they should stick to gas taxes and mortgage crises.