Editorial Opinions Related to Health Care in
the Presidential Election
Story by The Washington Post
The following are summaries of an editorial and
several opinion pieces related to the election.
-
Michael
Kinsley, New York Times: "The
purpose of a party platform is pandering ... to the faithful, under the
assumption that only they will read it," and the Democratic Party
platform includes a large amount of "code" language on health care
and other issues, Time
columnist Kinsley writes in a Times
opinion piece. According to Kinsley, the plank on health care contains
"mystery phrases that suggest a triumph for one side in some obscure
policy battle." Kinsley writes that, amid a "frenzy of health care
promises -- basically, after the plan is fully implemented in 2050, no one
will be permitted to get sick -- the Democrats advocate 'creating a generic
pathway for biologic drugs.'" He adds, "Whether this is a triumph
for health and common sense or the miserable handiwork of a drug industry
lobbyist (or both!), I have no idea." In addition, although
"ordinarily it is not possible to overuse the word 'American' or to
overpraise this great country and its magnificent people ... the Democrats
may have found a way in promising a health care system that is 'uniquely
American,'" Kinsley writes, adding, "A uniquely American health
care system is what we've got" (Kinsley, New
York Times, 8/10).
-
Paul
Krugman, New York Times: The
platform states that Democrats support access to health care for all U.S.
residents, but whether Democrats can "deliver on that commitment"
remains undetermined, Times
columnist Krugman writes. In "principle, it should be easy,"
Krugman writes, adding, "In practice, supporters of health care reform,
myself included, will be hanging on by their fingernails until legislation
is actually passed." According to Krugman, the "easy" part
about "guaranteed health care for all" is that "we know that
it's economically feasible," as "every wealthy country except the
United States already has some form of guaranteed health care." He adds
that the "politics of guaranteed care are also easy, at least in one
sense: if the Democrats do manage to establish a system of universal
coverage, the nation will love it." However, Krugman writes, "it's
hard to get universal care established in the first place" because of
"three big hurdles." Democrats must win the election,
"overcome the public's fear of change" and maintain focus on
health care amid the "many problems crying out for solutions,"
according to Krugman (Krugman, New
York Times, 8/11).
-
Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette: Both of the major presidential candidates will "move
toward the political center" as the election nears, but, "on
health care, the contrasts are stark and indicate the difference between the
two candidates -- Obama is all about mandates, while McCain relies more on
market forces," according to a Post-Gazette
editorial. The editorial states, "How the two major parties view health
care points to a difference in basic philosophy," as "Democratic
plans stressed providing increased, preferably universal, access to health
care, while GOP proposals addressed costs, believing more Americans could
get health insurance if health care was more affordable." The Obama
health care proposal has a number of problems, the editorial states.
"Employer mandates also would do little to address the cost of health
care" and "likely would boost the prices charged by insurance
companies and health care providers," according to the editorial. In
addition, "government mandates to require health coverage is mission
creep," the editorial states, adding, "That's when bureaucrats and
politicians see their meddling isn't producing the desired results (usually
because it can't), so they pile on more mandates requiring more
comprehensive coverage." The editorial states that Obama also
"demonstrates bad judgment with his ideas on pharmaceutical
pricing." The editorial concludes, "The way health care is
provided in this country doesn't work well for everyone," but
"improving it for those on the lower end of the economic ladder doesn't
have to come at the cost of making it worse for everyone else" (Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette, 8/10).
-
Timothy
Noah, Washington Post: The U.S. health care system will change during the
next four years because the "current patchwork is coming apart at the
seams," Noah, a senior writer at Slate,
writes in a Post
opinion piece. According to Noah, the conclusion by some observers that the
"federal government -- which already provides taxpayer-funded health
insurance to the elderly, the destitute and increasingly to minors -- should
extend health care coverage to everyone" is "bulletproof"
(Noah, Washington
Post,
8/10).
Return to September Newsletter
|
