Several Recent Editorials, Opinion Pieces Address Health Care Provisions in Economic Stimulus Package

Several recent editorials and opinion pieces discussed health care provisions in an economic stimulus package under consideration by President-elect Barack Obama and Congress. Summaries appear below.

Editorials

• Boston Herald: "It's reassuring to hear" Obama "promise an overhaul of Social Security and Medicare as he did Wednesday," as "it will be harder to wean the economy from a big federal stimulus package than it was to pass it," a Herald editorial states. The editorial states, "Obama's stress on effectiveness, and his new waste-fraud-and-abuse watchdog ... will be helpful but won't make a large dent in the future spending problem," adding, "For that, the huge Medicare and Social Security obligations will have to be tackled, and the details Obama proposes will be critical" (Boston Herald, 1/9).
  
  
• The Hill: "News that the budget deficit could hit $1.2 trillion is shocking -- so shocking that it might deflect what should be a grateful focus on President-elect Obama's declaration that entitlement reform would be 'a central part' of his efforts to control spending," according to an editorial in The Hill. According to the editorial, "Obama has not given any details yet of how he proposes closing the massive fiscal gap, and his first hints are that he will focus as much on Medicare as on Social Security." The editorial states, "The incoming president ... recognizes the urgent need to control entitlement spending to avert a fiscal wreck now upon the nation" (The Hill, 1/8).
  
  
• New York Times: "Concern over swelling deficits should not stop Congress from taking steps to revive the economy," but "rising deficits -- coupled with long-term budget problems driven mostly by the rising cost of health care -- make it imperative to get the most from every dollar that is spent on stimulus," according to a Times editorial. The editorial continues, "That means spending less money for tax cuts for business and high-income Americans, and more for government programs like, say, unemployment relief and aid to states." According to the Times, "When the economy recovers, the nation will face a far more difficult task than deciding how to spend its way out of a slump." The editorial continues, "As a nation, we will have to right the country's severe long-term budget imbalance," which will include reforming health care (New York Times, 1/10).
  
  
• San Francisco Chronicle: The Obama campaign "was fueled by his perceived honesty, intelligence and inspirational vision," all of which he will need as he seeks to enact an economic stimulus package, according to a Chronicle editorial. The stimulus package "is, in short, a gamble," but "business as usual is not an option in this economy," the editorial states. According to the editorial, "Obama's first-blush solutions are a little of everything: tax credits for business, rebates for most families, and spending on energy efficiency, alternative fuels and computerized medical records." The editorial adds, "He's also promised no pork-barrel earmarks and possible cuts to Social Security and Medicare, ideas bound to draw heat in Congress" (San Francisco Chronicle, 1/9).

Opinion Pieces

• Bruce Rueben, Miami Herald: An "increase in federal matching money for Medicaid [should] be included in any economic recovery package," particularly for "those states experiencing the greatest level of economic stress," Rueben, president of the Florida Hospital Association, writes in the Herald. He adds, "Extending help to the states based on this tiered approach would ease the burden on those who are taking care of the most vulnerable." Rueben writes, "Without such help, the consequences could be truly devastating" (Rueben, Miami Herald, 1/9).
  
  
• Gail Collins, New York Times: "There are some things on which" Democrats and Republicans "can work together very nicely," Collins writes in the Times. However, she continues, "there are some things about which the two parties are supposed to disagree." She writes, "During the presidential campaign, Obama talked constantly about creating a national health insurance program while [Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)] said the government should just give people tax breaks for buying their own policies." According to Collins, "the Democrats' job now is to figure out how to make sure the current economic crisis is solved in a way that allows him to deliver on his promise to do something big and ambitious about health care," while the "Republicans' job is to try to limit the big spending to tax cuts and short-term building projects." If a final stimulus bill passes "by 80 or 90 votes, it's probably going to be because it's a watered-down mess" (Collins, New York Times, 1/10).
  
  
• Bob Herbert, New York Times: One of the most imminent reasons that the stimulus is needed is because of job losses, Times columnist Herbert writes. He continues, "Each new surge of job losses is an additional violent assault on the already profoundly damaged economy," as "idle workers do not pay taxes and that ratchets up budget deficits at the federal, state and local levels" and "draw[s] down unemployment benefits and further strain[s] the Medicaid rolls." According to Herbert, "the way to create jobs is through infrastructure investments (building and repairing roads, bridges, tunnels and water and sewer systems); and by investing in 21st-century clean energy initiatives, in public transportation systems, and in school construction; and by providing access to health care for the millions who don't have it" (Herbert, New York Times, 1/10).
  
  
• Paul Krugman, New York Times: Obama should "scrap his proposal for $150 billion in business tax cuts, which would do little to help the economy" and "scrap the proposed $150 billion payroll tax cut as well," Times columnist Krugman writes. He adds, "Money not squandered on ineffective tax cuts could be used to provide further relief to Americans in distress -- enhanced unemployment benefits, expanded Medicaid and more." Krugman continues, "And why not get an early start on the insurance subsidies -- probably running at $100 billion or more per year -- that will be essential if we're going to achieve universal health care?" (Krugman, New York Times, 1/12).