Economic Issues, Such as Health Care Costs, Top Concerns for Democratic, Republican Voters

Exit polls from New Hampshire indicate that economic issues have "overtaken all other issues as the top concern" in the presidential election for both Democratic and Republican voters, the Washington Post reports. According to the Post, voters "have different anxieties about the economy." Some voters have concerns about jobs or housing, and health care and energy costs "trouble large swaths of the population," the Post reports.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) "managed to tap into that anxiety" this week in her win of the New Hampshire presidential primary, as she "repeatedly cited her husband's record of producing 22 million new jobs while promising to make college more affordable and to ensure universal health care."

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is " the only whose economic message breaks from party orthodoxy with a more populist appeal on the plight of the working class, concern over income inequality and doubt about the effectiveness of free trade," according to the Post (Baker/Balz, Washington Post, 1/11).

Editorial
"Worries about health care" and other economic issues have "fed a growing sense of economic discontent across the country," according to a Kansas City Star editorial. The major Democratic presidential candidates "recognize the critical importance of improving the country's health care system," the editorial states, adding, "Such changes are essential to keep the American economy competitive and to curb the unsustainable growth in federal spending, notably in Medicare."

The editorial states, "In the weeks ahead, the candidates in both parties need to be more honest with the public about the difficult economic challenges facing the country," as "too many expensive promises have been made with too little discussion of the inevitable tradeoffs and sacrifices that would be required" (Kansas City Star, 1/10).

Opinion Piece
Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) is "leveraging the tragic story" of Nataline Sarkisyan -- a 17-year-old girl who died after Cigna refused to cover a lifesaving liver transplant that she required -- to "press his political attack on insurance companies and argue for European-style, single-payer health care," but he is "twisting the facts," Scott Gottlieb, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, writes in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

According to Gottlieb, data indicate that "U.S. transplant patients do quite well compared to their European counterparts" and have "significantly more opportunities to undergo transplant procedures, survive the surgery and benefit from new organs," regardless of their income levels. He adds that Cigna decided not to cover the liver transplant for Sarkisyan because the procedure "constituted an experimental use of a scarce organ." Gottlieb writes, "Ideally, everyone who can benefit from an organ transplant would receive one," but, "with more patients than available organs, some form of allocation procedure involving administrative judgments is inevitable."

Data indicate that the "government allocation procedures do a somewhat worse job, as far as health outcomes are concerned, than private allocation procedures" in the U.S., he adds. "Our system in the U.S. for allocating scarce resources remains imperfect" but likely is "superior to the single-payer systems that Mr. Edwards would have Americans emulate -- and certainly better than the facts that Mr. Edwards wants us to believe," Gottlieb concludes (Gottlieb, Wall Street Journal, 1/11).

Letter to the Editor
"Good intentions aside," a requirement that all U.S. residents obtain health insurance would "mean higher prices and fewer choices for Americans" and would not "solve the problems facing health care today," Kate Campaigne, a legislative specialist for health and welfare with the Heartland Institute, writes in a Journal letter to the editor in response to a Wednesday opinion piece. Such a requirement would "force Americans to buy insurance, regardless of its quality, cost or whether they need insurance in the first place," she writes, adding, "Consumers should have a choice of whether they want insurance and decide for themselves which plan best fits their needs."

According to Campaigne, the "so-called 'option' of government-run health care" would "drive out private insurers who actually have to compete for customers, leaving consumers with one choice: the government." She writes, "Most people think health care needs reform, and yet some of them suggest forcing dissatisfied consumers to buy a bad product," but this "makes no sense." Campaigne concludes, "The high cost of health insurance is a direct result of too much government involvement and 'solutions' like mandates" (Campaigne, Wall Street Journal, 1/11).