Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report Highlights Editorials, Opinion Pieces on Medicare Legislation
The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report features a number of recent editorials and opinion pieces published in reaction to the Medicare bill (HR 1). Summaries of the editorials and opinion pieces appear below.
Editorials
-
Boston Herald: Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) "has talked and talked" for decades about the U.S. health care system, and on Monday, he and Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Edwards (D-N.C.) "could have been a part of improving that system for 40 million seniors," a Herald editorial states. However, the senators decided to object to the bill and "seniors won't soon forget that," the editorial concludes (Boston Herald, 11/25).
-
Dallas Morning News: Provisions in the Medicare bill that would provide preventive care coverage, expedite market entry for generic medications and link premiums under Medicare Part B, which covers outpatient services, to the incomes of beneficiaries "will help -- if the bill ultimately becomes law," a Morning News editorial states. The editorial adds that although "it has been a sight the last few days" as some Republicans and Democrats debate over the bill, the "politics aren't as important an element ... as the content of the bill" (Dallas Morning News, 11/25).
-
Des Moines Register: The Medicare bill, which seeks to "create competition" in the program to limit increases in expenditures, "won't work," a Register editorial states, The editorial adds that if the United States is "going to add another $400 billion to the national debt, it should be spent directly to pay for health care, not to subsidize" the health care industry (Des Moines Register, 11/25).
-
Investor's Business Daily: The Medicare bill is "pork-barrel politics on a grand scale, a $400 billion play for votes," an Investor's Business Daily editorial states. The editorial adds that although many Democrats object to the legislation, "it's a GOP bill in name only" and "is the biggest legislative triumph for Democratic doctrine in years" because the "commitment to seniors is open-ended; the cost-containment and competition are limited" (Investor's Business Daily, 11/25).
-
Long Island Newsday: "Elderly people desperate for government help to pay for medicines will be sorely disappointed by coverage that is meager, complicated and will leave them to the untender mercies of the insurance industry," a Newsday editorial states (Long Island Newsday, 11/25).
-
Los Angeles Times: The Medicare bill -- at a cost of $400 billion over 10 years -- is a "fiscal felony," a Times editorial states, adding that although the legislation is a "bonanza for the health care industry and employers ... it's far from clear the cost is justified." The editorial concludes that Medicare beneficiaries "need to look closely to see how this 'reform' affects them" (Los Angeles Times, 11/25).
-
Raleigh News & Observer: The criticism from some Democrats that the Medicare legislation "reflects a small-government ideology that hurts many Americans" is "a legitimate concern," a News & Observer editorial states. The editorial adds, "Sadly, some who have favored the Medicare overhaul ... seem to do so with a 'something is better than nothing' attitude. That's a sad commentary on the failure of those in Congress to come up with a drug benefit and reform that should have had unqualified support" (Raleigh News & Observer, 11/25).
-
San Francisco Chronicle: "America's seniors, 40 million and growing, need a Medicare system that covers prescription drugs," but the Medicare bill, which includes a prescription drug benefit, is "too flawed to support," a Chronicle editorial states. "Coverage is confusing. Cost estimates are unrealistic. Controls on drug makers are missing," the editorial adds (San Francisco Chronicle, 11/25).
-
Santa Fe New Mexican: Sens. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), "senior citizens themselves," should recognize that the prescription drug benefit included in the Medicare bill is "bogus," a New Mexican editorial states. The legislation, "for all the figures being tossed out to make it appear palatable, is a financial slap in old folks' faces," the editorial concludes (Santa Fe New Mexican, 11/22).
-
USA Today: "What's being sold this week as a Medicare prescription drug plan goes far beyond helping seniors buy medicine," as it would give private health plans $12 billion in subsidies to encourage them to participate in Medicare and would give $86 billion to encourage employers to retain drug coverage for retired workers if the drug benefit is enacted, the editorial says (USA Today, 11/25).
- Washington Post: "What is missing from the triumphant declarations" of lawmakers who support the Medicare bill "is any realistic understanding of the costs involved or any hint of the tradeoffs that may be necessary down the road," a Post editorial states. The editorial adds that U.S. residents "will be paying the price of this enormously expensive legislation for the rest of their lives," adding that lawmakers and President Bush should "devote some time to explaining just how they expect the nation to do it" (Washington Post, 11/25).
Opinion Pieces
- Laura Ofobike, Akron Beacon Journal: The Medicare bill currently before Congress is "an employers' benefit act" because it would give financial incentives to employers to encourage them to maintain retiree prescription drug benefits, Ofobike, chief editorial writer at the Beacon Journal, states. Ofobike concludes, "Congress listens when business speaks" (Ofobike, Akron Beacon Journal, 11/25).
- Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), Boston Globe: The Medicare bill is "a proposal to weaken a program that seniors and the disabled have trusted for nearly 40 years" and replace it with a "feeble prescription drug benefit," Kennedy, Kerry and the 10 House members representing Massachusetts write. "We cannot in good conscience vote to privatize or dismantle Medicare. We do believe that a better bipartisan plan should be pursued immediately," they conclude (Kennedy/Kerry, Boston Globe, 11/25).
- Thomas Oliphant, Boston Globe: The Medicare legislation means that "this meager program's costs are certain to skyrocket in the years ahead, undermining its protections," Globe columnist Oliphant writes. The "woefully inadequate provisions" of the Medicare bill "will spawn waves of anger," he says (Oliphant, Boston Globe, 11/25).
- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Dallas Morning News: The Medicare bill will not only provide a prescription drug benefit to beneficiaries for the first time, but it will also "bring Medicare up to modern medical standards," Hutchison writes. Although the bill "isn't perfect," it is "a good compromise and addresses some fundamental problems," she concludes (Bailey Hutchison, Dallas Morning News, 11/25).
- Paul Vitello, Long Island Newsday: The Medicare bill "makes few unconditional promises, except one -- and that is to the drug companies," Newsday columnist Vitello writes. Because the proposed drug benefit would not take effect until 2006 and the bill's details remain "sketchy ... by the time people figure out whether this is more good than bad, the Republican presidential re-election campaign ... will be over," Vitello concludes (Vitello, Long Island Newsday, 11/25).
- Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Manchester Union Leader: The Medicare bill is a "$400 billion subsidy over the 10 years" that "is not paid for," Gregg writes. When the baby boom generation retires, the "massive influx of seniors" will place a "dramatic" strain on the Medicare system, he says, adding that the Medicare bill would make "no significant attempt to address the reform issue" and in effect would enact "a tax increase that will cause our children and our children's children to have less of a quality of life than we have had" (Gregg, Manchester Union Leader, 11/25).
- Daniel Schorr, NPR's "All Things Considered": The Medicare legislation, which has "burgeoned" from its original idea of helping beneficiaries pay for prescription drugs, illustrates "how far the institutions of the pork barrel and the lobbyist have come," Schorr, NPR senior news analyst, says (Schorr, "All Things Considered," NPR, 11/24). The commentary is available online in RealPlayer.
- Daniel Mitchell, "Nightly Business Report": The Medicare legislation will make the United States more like Europe's "welfare states" with less economic growth and more unemployment, will prevent the extension in 2008 and 2010 of tax cuts and will create giant deficits and prevent legislators from enacting "simple and fair tax code like the flat tax," according to Mitchell, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation (Mitchell, "Nightly Business Report," WPBT2/Miami, 11/24). A transcript of the commentary is available online.
- Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Providence Journal: The Medicare bill "fragments coverage and provides subsidies, not directly to senior health care costs, but to the bottom lines of HMOs." He concludes, "Congress should ignore the pressure of drug and insurance companies and go back to work on this bill" (Reed, Providence Journal, 11/25).
- Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle: Although "there are reasons to support the Medicare bill," its $400 billion over 10 years cost "isn't credible," in part because the government "inevitably will expand benefits," San Francisco Chronicle columnist Saunders writes. She concludes, "Congress should have passed a bill to provide prescription drug coverage for poor seniors. Instead, it was goodies for all" (Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle, 11/25).
- Alan Murray, Wall Street Journal: Although allowing private health plans to administer the proposed Medicare prescription drug benefit "will have some effect in holding down drug prices ... it's not likely to do enough," Murray, Washington bureau chief of CNBC and co-host of "Capital Report," writes. Congress should take action next year on legislation that would create an "effective marketplace for prescription drugs and ... control spending without ruining the industry (Murray, Wall Street Journal, 11/25).
- E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: The debate over the Medicare bill "proves that congressional Republicans are ruthless and determined and that Democrats are divided and hapless," Washington Post columnist Dionne writes. Democrats "could have insisted on a much better deal," but "their negotiators sold out for a bill full of subsidies to HMOs that will make it harder to control drug costs," he concludes (Dionne, Washington Post, 11/25).