Several Newspapers Examine Health Care Proposals of Major Presidential Candidates

Several newspapers recently examined the health care proposals of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). Summaries appear below.

• The Honolulu Star-Bulletin on Thursday examined the views of three University of Hawaii professors on the Obama and McCain health care proposals. The professors raised concerns about both proposals (Altonn, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 10/16).
  
  
• The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Friday compared the Obama and McCain health care proposals. According to the Journal Sentinel, although the candidates "generally agree on the problems in the U.S. health care system" and have proposed similar measures to "make the system more efficient," their overall plans "differ fundamentally in their approach" (Boulton, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/17).
  
  
• McClatchy/St. Paul Pioneer Press on Thursday examined how, although Medicare and other entitlement programs "long have been considered the nation's fiscal time bomb," Obama and McCain "have no comprehensive plans to overhaul the systems and are campaigning almost as if they don't notice them" (Lightman/Hall, McClatchy/St. Paul Pioneer Press, 10/16).

McCain Would Not Freeze Scientific Research Funding
McCain would exempt funding for scientific research from a proposed freeze on federal spending, McCain senior policy adviser Ike Brannon said on Tuesday at a briefing sponsored by Research! America, The Hill reports. The proposed freeze on federal spending includes "a specific carve-out for spending on science," Brannon said, adding, "You'll definitely see, under John McCain, more spending on research."

According to Brannon, McCain would increase funding for NIH and other federal agencies that conduct scientific research and finance the proposal with reductions in spending for other programs. Brannon said that McCain "hopes to be able to find savings from earmarks, from unnecessary subsidies and from other programs that could then be applied to research" (Young, The Hill, 10/14).

Editorials, Opinion Pieces
Several newspapers recently published editorials and several opinion pieces that addressed the Obama and McCain health care proposals. Summaries appear below.

• Paula Lantz/Mark Peterson, Detroit Free Press: The "unraveling of the health care system" in the U.S. "threatens our future well-being," and McCain and Obama have announced "radically different" proposals for "fixing the health care system," Lantz, a professor and chair of the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, and Peterson, a professor of public policy and political science at the UCLA School of Public Affairs, write in a Free Press opinion piece. According to the authors, "McCain's plan rests on the ideological proposition that the market will solve most of the crisis," and such "market-reliant strategies go against a mountain of academic evidence," as they "ignore what the vast majority of health economists say: Health care markets do not work like other markets." They add, "McCain's plan would end up feeding the very market forces that produced the anemic insurance protection, rising costs and failures at disease prevention and health promotion that currently plague the American health care system." Meanwhile, "Obama's plan is not a magic bullet that totally fixes the badly broken system either," but "he recognizes the reality and the complexity of the problem" and "proposes a pragmatic and layered approach, with a mix of public and private insurance options," the authors write. They conclude that, although Obama and McCain both "have plans to avert the further erosion of the health care system," the "evidence is clear" that only "one -- Obama's -- works" (Lantz/Peterson, Detroit Free Press, 10/17).
  
  
• M.J. Andersen, Providence Journal: The issue of "health care bores the socks off of most people," but the "problem is taking us over the falls," as health care costs and the percentage of U.S. residents without health insurance continue to increase, Journal columnist Andersen writes. Obama and McCain both have announced health care proposals, and "Obama's plan would cover the most people and go far toward paring the ranks of the uninsured," Andersen writes. Meanwhile, the McCain proposal, which would "cost almost as much," would "encourage employers to drop coverage and push workers to buy insurance on the open market," according to Andersen. He added that the proposal would "make it harder for the sickest people to get coverage" because "it relies heavily on private insurers, which would be working overtime to screen applicants" and "administrative costs would soar." The next president also needs to "attack costs," in part by "studying the effectiveness of various treatments, and make that information public," he adds. According to Andersen, whether Obama or McCain could "afford to proceed" with his proposal remains uncertain amid the current economic downturn. He writes, "Substantial reform is unlikely until the nation gets its financial house in order," and "out-of-control medical costs are one reason the house is such a mess" (Andersen, Providence Journal, 10/17).
  
  
• John Young, Waco Tribune-Herald: The presidential candidates during their second presidential debate answered a question about whether they consider health care a right or a responsibility -- Obama said "right," and McCain said "responsibility" -- and their answers were "revealing," Tribune-Herald columnist Young writes. In response, Young asks, "If it's a responsibility and not a right, why do we pay for the treatment of anyone who shows up at an emergency room door needing treatment?" He adds, "If it's a responsibility, why call an ambulance when a beggar passes out, hits his head on a curb and goes into convulsions?" He writes, "Because health care is a right," adding, "Only the politics of self-interest and self-delusion hold otherwise." According to Young, the "delusion is that we think we're saving money within today's system" when "we pay dearly for the health care of the uninsured, just not in ways that would spare those in need much suffering and would deliver us all from higher costs." Young writes, "Since the Clinton administration made some bold entreaties and the insurance industry helped shout it down, no one has stepped up to do anything on a national level to curb the soaring rate of the uninsured" (Young, Waco Tribune-Herald, 10/16).
  
  
• Wall Street Journal: "If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it," a development that could allow the passage of broad health care reform in the next two years, a Journal editorial states. The editorial states, "A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave." According to the editorial, Obama seeks to "build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income," and such a program "would never be repealed." The "commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm," but "as U.S. health care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both," the editorial states. In addition, Obama "wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security," a move that "would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program," according to the editorial. Certain "events -- such as a recession" -- could "temper some of these ambitions," but "Americans voting for 'change' should know they may get far more than they ever imagined," the editorial concludes (Wall Street Journal, 10/17).
  
  
• Washington Post: U.S. residents should elect Obama president, in part because of his health care proposal, as a "better health care system ... is crucial to bolstering U.S. competitiveness and relieving worker insecurity," a Post editorial states. According to the editorial, "McCain is right to advocate an end to the tax favoritism showed to employer plans," as the "system works against lower-income people, and Mr. Obama has disparaged the McCain proposal in deceptive ways." However, "McCain's health plan doesn't do enough to protect those who cannot afford health insurance," the editorial states. "Obama hopes to steer the country toward universal coverage by charting a course between government mandates and individual choice, though we question whether his plan is affordable or does enough to contain costs," according to the editorial (Washington Post, 10/17).

Broadcast Coverage
WAMU's "The Diane Rehm Show" on Friday featured a news roundup that included a discussion of recent comments that Obama and McCain have made about health care. The segment includes comments from Andrew Sullivan, senior editor of New Republic and a columnist for Time Magazine; Jerry Seib, executive Washington, D.C., editor of the Journal; and Karen Tumulty, a reporter for Time (Rehm, "The Diane Rehm Show," WAMU, 10/17).