Editorials, Opinion Pieces Address Issues Related to Health Care Overhaul

Summaries of several recent editorials and opinion pieces that address issues related to health care reform appear below.

Editorials

• Boston Globe: Recent support from the health insurance industry for guaranteed health insurance for all U.S. residents in combination with an enforceable requirement that all residents obtain coverage "could bring the country closer to universal health care" and "lead to a debate in which insurers are not working to sabotage agreement," a Globe editorial states. According to the editorial, President-elect Barack Obama, who has proposed a health care plan that does not include such a requirement, should "be open" to the proposal from the health insurance industry. The editorial concludes that the "Obama administration should seize the opportunity the insurance industry is presenting and finally get the nation to yes on universal health coverage" (Boston Globe, 12/4).
  
  
• USA Today: "Any serious attempt to rein in spending" must target national security and "big benefit programs," such as Medicare and Medicaid, which, when combined, account for 77% of the federal budget, a USA Today editorial states. According to the editorial, the decision by Obama to nominate as the new director of the White House Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, who as director of the Congressional Budget Office has "built a reputation for thinking seriously about how to restrain rising health care costs," was "heartening." The editorial states, "Washington is awash with lists of potential budget cuts, and everyone knows where they are," adding, "What's needed is the political will to aim at the elephants, not just at the flies" (USA Today, 12/4).

Opinion Pieces

• Marie Cocco, Denver Post: The proposal by Obama to use the "compromised" employer-sponsored health insurance system "as the basis for health insurance revision is folly," syndicated columnist Cocco writes in a Post opinion piece. "Tightening regulation of the insurance industry and creating a new, government-based plan to make coverage available to those who cannot afford to buy it from private insurers -- the essence of Obama's campaign proposal -- would only add another layer of complexity and, eventually, cost," Cocco writes. In addition, she writes, "Only a single, government-financed system can eliminate the administrative waste, unfairness and economic burden of our current health insurance scheme," concluding, "Timidity is no longer an option" (Cocco, Denver Post, 12/3).
  
  
• Jonathan Gruber, New York Times: Health care reform "is good for our economy," Gruber, a professor of economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Massachusetts Health Insurance Connector Authority board member, writes in a Times opinion piece. One of the "most effective ways to" promote spending is to "give states money to enroll more people in Medicaid" and SCHIP, a move that would "free up state money" for public works projects, "spending that could create jobs," Gruber writes. "Expanded insurance coverage would also drive demand for high-paying, rewarding jobs in health service" and "stimulate more consumer spending, as previously uninsured families would no longer need to save every extra penny to cover a medical emergency," according to Gruber. He writes that "rather than sit back and lick our wounds, we must move toward healing them," adding that "health care reform that features universal insurance coverage is an important place to start" (Gruber, New York Times, 12/4).
  
  
• Robert Bixby, Washington Post: "Although this year's budget deficit, likely to top $1 trillion, can be largely explained by temporary factors, shortfalls of this size will become routine and ultimately unsustainable if nothing is done to close the projected gap between government revenue and spending on federal health care and retirement benefits," Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, writes in a Post opinion piece. An analysis conducted in 2007 by the Department of Treasury "found that promised Medicare benefits over the next 75 years will exceed dedicated revenue and premiums by $34.1 trillion in net present value," he writes, adding, "The longer this situation persists, the bigger the bailout that future taxpayers will be left to finance" (Bixby, Washington Post, 12/4).
  
  
• Sebastian Mallaby, Washington Post: "The growth of U.S. government" needed to help end the current economic recession "need not be an economic disaster," and government "can be rendered more efficient by cutting out unneeded spending" in Medicare and other entitlement programs, Post columnist Mallaby writes. According to Mallaby, entitlement program spending "must be revisited" because a "government that faces legitimate pressure to grow can't afford big retirement benefits for people who are too young or too wealthy to need them." The federal government cannot "tolerate a situation in which, after adjusting for variation in demographics and labor costs, some states spend twice as much on health benefits per retiree as other states find adequate," Mallaby writes. He adds that "to get away with big government, you must have smart government" (Mallaby, Washington Post, 12/4).