Summaries of recent editorials and opinion pieces on the health care proposal that President Bush announced in his State of the Union address appear below.

• Cleveland Plain Dealer: "Both conservatives and liberals have problems with" the Bush health insurance proposal, a Plain Dealer editorial states. However, such "knee-jerk intransigence won't help millions of Americans without coverage, nor will it assist employers who struggle annually to do what's right for their workers," the editorial states, adding, "If the president is finally serious about this issue, others should join the discussion" (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1/25).
  
  
• Eugene Register-Guard: The health care proposals that Bush announced in his State of the Union address are "almost perfunctory" and "a disappointment," according to a Register-Guard editorial. Bush "mentioned the need to secure the long-term financial stability of Medicare and Social Security, but he didn't put forth a detailed proposal -- let alone a grand compromise of the sort that will be needed eventually," the editorial states, adding, "Tinkering with the tax code won't help many of the 47 million Americans who are without health insurance" (Eugene Register-Guard, 1/25).
  
  
• Fort Worth Star-Telegram: The Bush health insurance proposal is a "wobbly Hail Mary pass late in his administration" that "will not get even close to any receiver -- and is likely to be blocked at the line," a Star-Telegram editorial states. According to the editorial, the proposal "creates an incentive for an employee not to have a policy that costs more than $15,000 for a family," although "few know how much their company-supplied policies cost" and most are "powerless to affect the premium costs, which are the result of complicated negotiations usually involving the employer, managed care companies and health care providers" (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 1/26).
  
  
• Kansas City Star: "Bush is correct in saying that federal tax laws should be changed to create a more level playing field for individuals and businesses buying insurance," a Star editorial states. However, critics of the proposal have "understandable worries," such as potential "changes that might encourage some companies to drop health care plans or eliminate reasonable benefits," the editorial states. The editorial concludes, "something other than tax breaks will be necessary to get millions of low-income Americans properly insured" (Kansas City Star, 1/26).
  
  
• Nashua Telegraph: The Bush health insurance proposal "raises more questions than certitudes about whether it's the way to go," a Telegraph editorial states. "The new system is a difficult concept to grasp, and it was clear that Democratic members of Congress weren't buying it," the editorial states, adding, "This is a plan that needs more illumination before any action can be contemplated" (Nashua Telegraph, 1/25).
  
  
• New York Times: The Bush health insurance proposal is "miles short of what is needed to fix a system where -- scandalously -- 47 million Americans go without health insurance," a Times editorial states. "It is a formula that will do little to reduce the number of uninsured Americans and has a high risk of producing pernicious results," the editorial states, adding, "The greatest risk in the president's proposal is that it would seem likely to lead many small- and medium-size employers to stop offering health benefits altogether on the theory that their workers could buy affordable insurance on their own." The editorial concludes, "Mr. Bush's plan would be unlikely to reduce the ranks of the uninsured very much. And if things went badly, it could actually increase their numbers. That's not the answer Americans are waiting for and not what they deserve" (New York Times, 1/26).
  
  
• Wilmington News Journal: The Bush health insurance proposal "has brought into view the big secret of our current health care system": Employers "pay all or part of the health insurance for about 175 million Americans" and "deduct those payments as expenses," but "employees do not have to count the value of their insurance as income," the a News Journal editorial states. According to the News Journal, "That's a two-way government subsidy. Ending or limiting that subsidy is seen as an important step in reducing health care costs." The editorial adds, "In other words, the more an individual pays, the more likely he will be frugal about using his health insurance" (Wilmington News Journal, 1/25).
  

Opinion Pieces

• Jim Jaffe, Baltimore Sun: A "logical follow-up" to the Bush health insurance proposal "might be to reverse course and withdraw support for other tax incentives that lower what people pay for medical services, and, economists tell us, thus increase demand and fuel inflation," Jaffe, a former House Ways and Means Committee staffer, writes in a Sun opinion piece. "The president has appropriately opened a sophisticated and long-overdue debate about whether tax policy should be used to make medical services a more attractive buy than other purchases," Jaffe writes, adding, "A conversation about the impact of the tax-favored accounts he has favored in the past would be a constructive next step" (Jaffe, Baltimore Sun, 1/26).
  
  
• Gregory Lopes, Washington Times: "It has been a dizzying month of calls for reforms, with conservative industry groups and liberal advocacy organizations joining forces on proposals to reduce the legions of the underinsured and uninsured," Times columnist Lopes writes in an opinion piece. "While the new attention is necessary, it may not be effective" because of differences on the issue between congressional Democrats and the Bush administration, Lopes writes (Lopes, Washington Times, 1/26).
  
  
• Cal Thomas, Washington Times: "Making health care more widely available, along with saving Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid sounds good, but anything with the words 'tax breaks' for businesses is unlikely to pass this Congress," nationally syndicated columnist Thomas writes in a Times opinion piece (Thomas, Washington Times, 1/26).