Newspapers Continue to Offer Endorsements for Bush, Gore

With Election Day one week from tomorrow, a new wave of newspaper endorsements in the presidential race between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush has arrived. Here is a brief summary of the latest editorial endorsements that address health care issues:

• Baltimore Sun: Bush has not "address[ed] the nation's underfunded Medicare program," according to a Sun editorial. On Bush's view that the private sector can help seniors obtain affordable prescription drugs, the editorial says "[h]e's being overly optimistic, and a bit naive," and favors Gore's "detailed and cautious" approach. Gore's drug plan "would be a Medicare benefit, giving seniors hassle-free help in lowering their pharmacy expenses" (Baltimore Sun, 10/29);
• Kansas City Star: While Gore "wants a strong patients' bill of rights, to punish managed care abuses, Bush spent years fighting such legislation in Texas, although he now claims credit for supporting it" (Kansas City Star, 10/28);
• Miami Herald: The editorial commends Gore for pledging to spend "nearly twice as much as Bush to help seniors buy prescription drugs through Medicare, something many older Americans desperately need." It states that Bush's plan for private coverage is "questionable" (Miami Herald, 10/29);
• New York Times: Bush's tax cut proposal "would negate the next Congress' once in a century opportunity to move the country toward universal health care and stabilization of Social Security and Medicare" (New York Times, 10/29);
• Norfolk Virginian-Pilot: The editorial notes that "Texas ranks last among the 50 states in percentage of children insured," because Bush placed a higher priority on a tax break for oil companies than on children's health. Bush's "priorities left not one but tens of thousands of children behind," the editorial states (Norfolk Virginian Pilot, 10/29);
• Philadelphia Inquirer: Addressing which candidate would better serve the needs of poor children, the editorial states that "Texas ranked worst in the nation in the number of its most vulnerable citizens who lacked health insurance." The Inquirer concludes, "Poor children stand a better chance of receiving a strong federal hand lifting them to the table of prosperity under a President Gore" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/28);
• Pittsburgh Post- Gazette: The Post-Gazette favors Gore on the issue of Medicare because he is the only candidate who "would make prescription benefits an integral part" of the program (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/29).

• Chicago Sun-Times: Arguing that Bush's health care plan is "more sensible," the editorial states that Gore's plan for a Medicare prescription drug benefit "would likely make the government the largest purchaser of prescription drugs, leading to government-controlled pricing." This shift "ultimately would discourage the very [pharmaceutical] research that has brought help to millions of people suffering" from life- threatening diseases. It states that Bush's plan to help the uninsured "goes farther in real dollars," and Gore's idea of a "plan that pays for health insurance for everyone is the kind of nanny government that has failed repeatedly" (Chicago Sun- Times, 10/30);
• Chicago Tribune: "Bush would venture [a Medicare] overhaul and encourage cost containment through competition" (Chicago Tribune, 10/29). Note: You will need to register for a password to view this article;
• Cincinnati Enquirer: An Enquirer editorial states that "Gore wants to nationalize health care incrementally, like the plan hatched by Hillary Clinton and rejected by the American people" (Cincinnati Enquirer, 10/29);
• Contra Costa Times: A Times editorial favors Bush's market based-approach to the issue of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries as opposed to Gore's governmental solution (Contra Costa Times, 10/29).