Editorial, Opinion Piece Address Issues Related to Health Care Proposals of Democratic Presidential Candidates
A recent opinion piece and editorial address issues related to the health care proposals of Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.). Summaries appear below.
- Jon Hall, Kansas City Star: States are "supposed to be laboratories where we see what public programs work," but, rather than wait for the results of the recently implemented Massachusetts health insurance law, which requires all state residents to obtain coverage, Clinton included such a mandate in her health care proposal, Hall, a computer programmer, writes in a Star opinion piece. According to Hall, in addition to "questions of expense and feasibility," the "larger issue is one of principle: The 'individual mandate' is profoundly un-American" and amounts to an "'existence tax' -- a tax on being." In an "ominous sign for Clinton," a proposal similar to the Massachusetts law failed to pass in the California Legislature, Hall writes, adding, "It was the model for HillaryCare 2.0" (Hall, Kansas City Star, 3/3).
- Washington Post: The disagreement over a requirement that all U.S. residents obtain health insurance "represents the central policy difference" between Clinton and Obama, and, although "we find the arguments for the individual mandate more persuasive, this is an issue on which reasonable candidates can differ," a Post editorial states. "The problem is that" neither Clinton nor Obama "is being particularly reasonable in campaign rhetoric," the editorial states. According to the editorial, claims by Clinton that Obama is not "for universal coverage" are "unfair," as he has said that "universal coverage is his goal," although he "disagrees ... about the best way to get there." In addition, claims by Obama that Clinton would require all residents to obtain health insurance, regardless of whether they can afford coverage, or pay penalties are "even more unfair," the editorial states. Clinton has "given Mr. Obama an opening by being deliberately squishy on key details, such as enforcement," but her proposal "envisions limits ... on how much of their income people can be required to pay for insurance," according to the editorial. The editorial states, "There are legitimate questions" about both proposals, such as "whether they make unrealistically low assumptions about the ultimate price tag" and "unrealistically high assumptions about how much they can save by bringing costs under control." The "current argument has implications for health care debates long after the nomination battle is concluded," and the "candidates' time would be better spent explaining how their visions are achievable, not taking potshots at each other," the editorial concludes (Washington Post, 3/4).
