Editorials, Op-Eds Address Bush’s Health Insurance Proposal, State Health Care Initiatives
- Saturday, January 27, 2007, 23:12
- Health Insurance
- 6 views
- Add a comment
Several newspapers recently published editorials and opinion pieces about a health insurance proposal that President Bush plans to announce on Tuesday in his State of the Union address, as well as other recent proposals. Summaries appear below.
Editorials
* Denver Post: The Bush proposal would “give tax breaks to people who buy modestly priced plans out of their own pockets and cover the cost of those breaks by establishing a new tax on a portion of higher-priced coverage that some workers receive from their employers,” but “we’re not convinced that going through the tax code is the best way” to help U.S residents obtain health insurance, according to a Post editorial. The proposal could encourage employers to drop health insurance for employees, “jeopardizing coverage for 160 million Americans,” the editorial states (Denver Post, 1/22).
* Washington Post: The Bush proposal “is budget-neutral and progressive,” a Post editorial states, adding, “By giving all insurance buyers a standard deduction, irrespective of the type of health coverage they choose, Mr. Bush would restrain medical costs and promote fairness,” the editorial states. However, “Bush could have made his proposal even more progressive by recommending a refundable tax credit that would be worth the same to everyone,” the editorial states (Washington Post, 1/23).
* Wall Street Journal: A decision last week by a Maryland appeals court that upheld a lower court decision to overturn a state law that would have required Wal-Mart Stores to increase spending on health care for employees “could spell trouble” for a similar Massachusetts law and a recent California proposal, a Journal editorial states. According to the editorial, the Maryland and Massachusetts laws and the California proposal all include “employer mandates or taxes aimed at changing employee benefit plans — in this case by requiring employers to provide health insurance” — and the Maryland appeals court ruled that no “reasonable firm … could be expected to choose to pay money to the state to avoid changing its employee benefit plan.” The editorial concludes, “We’re all for state policy experiments, but the ballyhooed health care reforms are policy blunders that won’t stand scrutiny in court, much less in the marketplace” (Wall Street Journal, 1/23).
* Washington Times: The recent California health insurance proposal and those of two separate coalitions indicate that the “political terrain” has taken a “turn leftward,” a Times editorial states. “All may now be signaling that they find market-based health care to be unacceptable,” but no “one is saying much about how we’ll pay for all this … which is where the rubber meets the road,” the editorial states. According to the editorial, “No one can reasonably oppose health insurance for every American in theory; it’s the statism and the lack of a workable plan which draw opposition” (Washington Times, 1/19).
* Washington Times: The recent proposal from the Health Coverage Coalition for the Uninsured would lead to “a measurable decrease in the number of uninsured” in the U.S., a Times editorial states. However, “it would also be staggeringly expensive (at least $45 billion over five years for the children alone)” and would not “fix the structural inefficiencies of America’s health care system” (Washington Times, 1/23).
Opinion Pieces
* Laura Ofobike, Akron Beacon Journal: “Every few years, the same cluster of issues — employers howling about costs, mounting individual debts from hospital bills, high rates of uninsured — captures the political imagination and produces reams of Big Picture policies from think tanks and politicians,” Beacon Journal chief editorial writer Ofobike writes in an opinion piece. “In the months to come, I suspect we’ll be wading through a mountain of policy plans on how, individually and collectively, we can get the most of our health dollars,” Ofobike writes. However, “much in current research reminds us, too, that striking that balance doesn’t always depend on elaborate policy initiatives or large amounts of money,” she writes, adding, “Sometimes, taking simple, low-cost, low-tech steps is all that is needed to make dramatic improvements, saving both lives and money” (Ofobike, Akron Beacon Journal, 1/23).
* Michael Cannon, New York Post: The Bush proposal would “dramatically reduce the number of uninsured, allowing tens of millions of Americans to save thousands of dollars a year on insurance,” Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, writes in a Post opinion piece. The proposal also would “encourage responsibility by limiting the amount of health insurance we can deduct from our taxes each year,” Cannon writes, adding, “Whatever else you might think about Bush … he’s the only prominent politician taking health care reform seriously” (Cannon, New York Post, 1/23).
* Marsha Mercer, Winston-Salem Journal: “With Medicaid and Medicare both facing fiscal crises and a presidential election looming, nobody expects a comprehensive medical insurance plan anytime soon,” Journal columnist Mercer writes in an opinion piece. “If President Bush and Congress join forces, they could accomplish something — and find they are irrelevant no more,” she adds (Mercer, Winston-Salem Journal, 1/21).
“Reprinted with 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.
About the Author
admin has written 6390 stories on this site.
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
