Editorials, Opinion Pieces Discuss Health Care Proposals Of Presidential Candidates

Main Category: Health Insurance / Medical Insurance
Article Date: 03 Oct 2007 - 11:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

Summaries of several editorials and opinion pieces that address the health care proposals of presidential candidates appear below.

Editorials

• Augusta Chronicle: Presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) have announced health care proposals that "lean ... on businesses when it comes to their employee health insurance -- in a climate where businesses already are compelled to raise premiums or drop coverage altogether," according to a Chronicle editorial. Polls indicate that "few of us are clear about the proposed solutions and how they will affect us," the editorial states, adding, "We have 13 months to rectify this." The editorial concludes that "if any presidential candidate can come forward with some real, common-sense solutions on health care, let's hear them" (Augusta Chronicle, 9/30).
  
  
• Providence Journal: "Politicians in campaign mode tend to be generous with promises of new benefits but stingy with the details on how they would be paid for," a Journal editorial states. However, during a recent debate sponsored by AARP, "Democrats running for president did offer unusually specific sources of new money to go with the proposals," and, "more often than not, they involved higher taxes," the editorial states. According to the editorial, "government programs tend to cost a lot more in the real world than in the dream phase," and "talking about costs is an important first step and a change for the better over the 'wouldn't it be nice' kind of campaign promises that the public has become used to" (Providence Journal, 10/1).
  
  
• St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "The need to change how health care is provided and paid for has been acknowledged by business groups, labor organizations, health care professionals and even the insurance industry," in part because of the "uneasy realization on the part of millions of people who have insurance that their coverage is far less stable than it was and significantly more limited," a Post-Dispatch editorial states. According to the editorial, recent changes "to the structure and extent of health care coverage may not be apparent yet" to many U.S. residents, but the "effect of those changes is exactly what the opponents of health care reform in 1994 said they were worried about: Patients needing care, including some with insurance, who can't get it." The editorial concludes, "Suddenly, health care reform isn't such a radical idea" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9/30).

Opinion Pieces

• Ezra Klein, Los Angeles Times: The major presidential candidates have announced health care proposals, and "it's worth taking a more sober look at what the candidates are promising to do about the issue Americans rank as their most important domestic priority," Klein, a staff writer for American Prospect, writes in a Times opinion piece. Klein writes that the proposals announced by Republican candidates "make it easier to choose to forgo health coverage or to buy less of it" and that those announced by Democratic candidates "make it easier to buy comprehensive health insurance." He concludes that "voters will have to choose between the two" (Klein, Los Angeles Times, 9/30).
  
  
• Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), McClatchy/Charlotte Observer: The Clinton proposal "would put health insurance in reach of all while lowering costs, improving quality and preserving choice, Maloney writes in a McClatchy/Observer opinion piece. The proposal "offers the guarantee of health insurance for every American while sharing the costs among all stakeholders, expanding the choices that are available and building on what works in the current system." She concludes, "That's the right prescription for American families and the economy" (Maloney, McClatchy/Charlotte Observer, 10/1).
  
  
• Sally Pipes, McClatchy/Charlotte Observer: Clinton "talks about choices, but her plan is about limiting them, not expanding them," Pipes, a health care adviser to presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and president and CEO of the Pacific Institute, writes in a McClatchy/Observer opinion piece. "Clinton's plan would increase taxes, create new government-provided insurance, bolster federal regulation, mandate that individuals purchase approved insurance policies and mandate that large employers pay for such policies," according to Pipes. The "health care future" that Clinton and her supporters "envision" would leave U.S. residents with "higher taxes, packed in a government-designed health plan and limited in our ability to access new technology," Pipes writes, adding, "No thanks!" (Pipes, McClatchy/Charlotte Observer, 10/1).
  
  
• Lawrence Hunter, South Florida Sun-Sentinel: Clinton "claims that we need a government takeover of the health care system because 47 million Americans remain uninsured," but "that's a grossly misleading figure," Hunter, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Innovation, writes in a Sun-Sentinel opinion piece. "The vast majority of Americans have coverage that gives them reasonably affordable access to the best health care system in the world," according to Hunter. He concludes, "As the debate on Sen. Clinton's plan unfolds, voters should resist the imposition on America of a system that has already failed throughout the world" (Hunter, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/29).
  
  
• Jonah Goldberg, USA Today: Clinton "claims history isn't repeating itself with her new health care plan" because she has "learned from her mistakes" that U.S. residents "don't want government-run health care," but she "might want to study her mistakes a bit more closely because her alternative is to provide government-run health insurance, which ultimately is the same thing," Goldberg, a syndicated columnist and editor-at-large for National Review Online, writes in a USA Today opinion piece. The proposal would "yank insurance regulation from the states and impose a series of federal mandates on employers, individuals and insurance companies," and "Clinton claims she would make her system affordable by regulating both premiums and benefits, offering tax breaks and subsidies to the poor and middle class and ... offering a fallback government-run plan that would compete with the private plans," Goldberg writes, adding, "The Democrats insist this doesn't amount to government-run health care, but it would be more honest to say that it doesn't amount to government-run health care right away." In contrast, Republican presidential candidates "have collectively pushed a number of reforms that would expand consumer choice without necessarily expanding government," such as "changing the way health care is taxed and using government purchasing power more efficiently," Goldberg writes, adding, "None of these plans is perfect, but all recognize that the federal government cannot simply impose a solution without creating the sorts of problems that plague all other single-payer systems -- rationing, long lines and ever-higher taxes" (Goldberg, USA Today, 10/2).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.