President’s Health Care Proposals Spur Reaction
Summaries of a number of recent editorials and opinion pieces on the health care proposal that President Bush announced on Tuesday in his State of the Union address appear below.
Editorials
-
Akron Beacon Journal: The Bush health insurance proposal "would encourage fairness and efficiency" but "has its limits and is not likely to reduce dramatically the number of uninsured," a Beacon Journal editorial states. "If his proposal is hardly the final word, it invites important questions for a country struggling to cope" with health care costs, the editorial concludes (Akron Beacon Journal, 1/25).
-
Christian Science Monitor: The "fixes to the tax code" that Bush proposed might "be inadequate to many Democrats who want a nationalized (and thus rationed) health care system ... but they are difficult to reject as starting points for joint action," a Monitor editorial states. A lack of consideration of the proposal by Democrats "means the national dialogue on health care will only be delayed another two years," the editorial states, adding, "It shouldn't take another election to again send the message that delay is unacceptable" (Christian Science Monitor, 1/25).
-
Colorado Springs Gazette: The Bush health insurance proposal "offers the possibility of making people act more like consumers in an increasingly competitive marketplace, rather than dependents who expect somebody else to handle their problems," a Gazette editorial states. "The idea brings market forces into the debate, but that could actually increase Democratic opposition," the editorial adds (Colorado Springs Gazette, 1/25).
-
Detroit Free Press: "Just as momentum is building for health care reform, Bush offered a plan that would leave in the lurch those who need it most, punish those who have good coverage and discourage employers from offering top-notch benefits," a Free Press editorial states. According to the editorial, most uninsured U.S. residents "don't make enough to pay enough taxes to be helped by the breaks ... or to afford coverage" (Detroit Free Press, 1/24).
-
Detroit News: The Bush health insurance proposal, although not "perfect," is "preferable to a nationalized system that would make delivery of services worse and increase costs," a News editorial states. "At the least, it should foster rigorous debate about improving our market-based health care system that, despite its flaws, still is the best in the world," the editorial adds (Detroit News, 1/25).
-
Newark Star-Ledger: The Bush health insurance proposal "is not likely to do what Bush claims, which is to persuade more employers to provide coverage and encourage individuals to buy coverage for themselves," a Star-Ledger editorial states. "Just as people who don't own a home can't take the mortgage interest deduction when they fill out their taxes, millions of the lower-income chronically uninsured ... would not be able to claim Bush's health insurance deduction, even though they need help the most," the editorial states (Newark Star-Ledger, 1/25).
-
Oregonian: "Bush is right" that current policies on taxes on health insurance are "regressive" and "unfair," an Oregonian editorial states. His "proposed solution raises some serious issues -- it would weaken traditional employer-provided insurance -- but it is a real effort to help millions of uninsured Americans afford their own coverage," according to the editorial (Oregonian, 1/24).
-
Philadelphia Inquirer: The Bush health insurance proposal "risks punishing people who have comprehensive insurance" and does not account for the fact that most U.S. residents "have little control over the cost of the health plans they're offered at work," an Inquirer editorial states. The editorial adds that tax deductions for health insurance would "provide exactly zero purchasing power" to "more than half of the uninsured" because "they pay no federal income tax and, therefore, cannot benefit" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/25).
-
St. Petersburg Times: The Bush health insurance proposal would "do little to insure the working poor and middle class" and could have "adverse" effects on the delivery of health care, a Times editorial states. The editorial states that the proposal "does show he has finally recognized health insurance as a significant issue," adding that "Congress should offer a counterproposal to keep the discussion going" (St. Petersburg Times, 1/25).
-
San Francisco Chronicle: The Bush health insurance proposal is "anything but big and bold," a Chronicle editorial states. "Bush proposed some changes in the tax code to eliminate 'unfair subsidies' that skew the cost of insurance," but House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health Chair Pete Stark (D-Calif.) has "already declared the Bush plan a nonstarter," the editorial adds (San Francisco Chronicle, 1/24).
-
San Jose Mercury News: The "warmed-over" health insurance proposal that Bush announced "is dead on arrival," a Mercury News editorial states. Bush "isn't going to be able to lead a national debate on health care," and "it's time for the 2008 presidential contenders to start offering ideas," the editorial states (San Jose Mercury News, 1/25).
-
Seattle Times: The Bush health insurance proposal is "worth consideration," a Times editorial states. However, "Democrats in the majority have already announced the idea dead on arrival," the editorial adds (Seattle Times, 1/24).
-
Washington Post: A "tweak" that would make the Bush health insurance proposal "much more attractive would be changing the proposed tax deduction ... to a tax credit," a Post editorial states. HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt on Wednesday "signaled the administration's openness to doing just that," the editorial states, adding that the proposal "sounds like a door opening to us -- and a door skeptical Democrats ought to be willing to poke their heads through" (Washington Post, 1/25).
- Winston-Salem Journal: Bush has "provided a good opening proposal on health insurance, even if it appears to have serious flaws," a Journal editorial states. "Now Democrats must respond positively ..., and the president must demonstrate that he understands he won't get everything he wants," according to the editorial (Winston-Salem Journal, 1/25).
Opinion Pieces
- Jeff Brown, Philadelphia Inquirer: The Bush health insurance proposal "relies on the free market to fix things without getting at the flaws that make the health care market so inefficient -- such as consumers' virtual inability to shop for care on the basis of price," Inquirer columnist Jeff Brown writes in an opinion piece. Brown concludes, "I'm with others who worry that middle-class workers with enviable plans would suffer a tax increase, all in the name of changes that won't do much for people who really need help" (Brown, Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/25).
- Terri Cullen, Wall Street Journal: The Bush health insurance proposal might not have the "intended effect of nudging uninsured people into buying coverage or prompting workers to drop out of expensive employer-sponsored health care plans and find more lower-cost coverage on their own," Journal columnist Cullen writes. She concludes that middle-income U.S. residents "would likely benefit most -- if the tax break is indexed for premium inflation -- since many are already seeking out more affordable coverage on their own" (Cullen, Wall Street Journal, 1/24).