Opinion | Editorials, Opinion Pieces Address Clinton Health Care Proposal
[Sep 20, 2007]

Summaries of editorials and opinion pieces that address presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) health care proposal appear below.

Editorials

• Albany Times Union: "Not all of the details" of Clinton's plan "have been worked out," but the "broad outlines of her plan are practical, the costs are fairly apportioned, and the balance between private and government roles is innovative and welcome," according to a Times Union editorial. The Times Union writes that there are "potential pitfalls, to be sure," including questions such as "how would the mandate to buy coverage be enforced?" and "Would those without coverage be denied treatment at the emergency room? That seems not only a severe penalty, but one that runs counter to society's obligation to care for those in need" (Albany Times Union, 9/19).
  
  
• Chicago Sun-Times: Clinton "certainly doesn't think" universal health care is an "impossible dream," and "if she succeeds in sparking a necessary and overdue debate on our health care system, maybe Americans won't, either," according to a Sun-Times editorial. Clinton's "history on the issue means her plan -- a far cry from her doomed 1993 effort that led to the Republican takeover of Congress a year later -- will receive far more attention and far more scrutiny than anyone else's" (Chicago Sun-Times, 9/19).
  
  
• Las Vegas Review-Journal: Clinton "either misunderstands or misstates the problems with her 1993 effort," which was "overly complex -- as any attempt by the government to take over a major slice of our relatively free-market economy would have to be complex," according to a Review-Journal editorial. The editorial continues, "But is the pursuit of a 'simpler' state-run bureaucratic compulsion -- telling doctors and hospitals to spend less money, deciding which sick people go to the front of the line and which to the back -- really the answer?" The Review-Journal recommends that politicians "encourage the lowering of prices that always follows free competition by urging" greater transparency in medical services pricing (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9/18).
  
  
• Manchester Union Leader: "Clinton claims she does not want to create a single-payer, government-run health system like Canada's," but "given half a chance, she'd impose exactly that," a Union Leader editorial states. The Union Leader continues, "Make no mistake. If a President Hillary Clinton had the votes, and that is a possibility, it'd be goodbye greatest health care system in the world, hello socialized medicine" (Manchester Union Leader, 9/19).
  
  
• St. Petersburg Times: Clinton "is very careful to talk about consumer choice and reassure patients who have coverage now that they could keep it and not change doctors," which "should go a long way toward developing a consensus," the St. Petersburg Times writes in an editorial. Republicans "will try to turn back the clock and scare voters into believing the former first lady is resurrecting a government-run plan that will fail again," according to the editorial. It concludes, "Clinton is wiser and more cautious now," adding, "the landscape has changed over the last 14 years," the "need for affordable, accessible health care for every American is even greater -- and voters are less likely to fall for campaign scare tactics" than in the past (St. Petersburg Times, 9/19).
  

Opinion Pieces

• Al Knight, Denver Post: After Clinton's reform efforts in 1994, "her husband promised the nation that everyone would soon be getting a card that would allow them to get health care," and while Clinton's "plan this time around is not quite so simple, ... the promised results are certainly similar," Post columnist Knight writes. He concludes, "As the debate over health care develops and the promises get more and more extravagant, it would be well to remember that while the demand for health care may be infinite, medical resources are assuredly not" (Knight, Denver Post, 9/18).
  
  
• Mitt Romney, Wall Street Journal: "Some of the details have changed, but at the heart" of the Clinton proposal are the "same flaws that sunk her first version" in 1993, Romney, a Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor, writes in a Journal opinion piece. According to Romney, the proposal would increase taxes, which would "slow down the economy and make the cost of her system grow even higher." He adds that a provision in her proposal to allow employers to select health plans from a network of private plans under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program or a public plan modeled on Medicare "is the gentle slope to a single-payer socialized medicine model." In addition, her "one-size-fits-all approach" to health care reform "ignores significant differences between people and the needs of 50 different states," Romney writes. He adds that health care reform should "keep faith in federalism, in private markets and in individual responsibility" (Romney, Wall Street Journal, 9/20).
  
  
• Rich Lowry, Washington Times: The Clinton proposal would make the "ramshackle" employer-sponsored health care system "worse" and more expensive with the addition of "regulations on insurers and a mandate on large employers to provide insurance coverage or pay a tax," Lowry, a syndicated columnist, writes in a Washington Times opinion piece. According to Lowry, the "employer mandate would only augment the current senseless system of people getting insurance through their jobs," and the "private insurance market would, in all likelihood, continue to break down." He adds, "And, of course, government will be there to keep increasing its market share" (Lowry, Washington Times, 9/20).