In Debate on Health, It’s Coverage vs. Cost

New York Times by Robert Pear | Oct. 6, 2009 (News Analysis)

As Democrats prepare to take up health care legislation on the floor of the Senate and the House, they are facing tough choices about two competing priorities. They want people to pay affordable prices for health insurance policies, but they want those policies to offer comprehensive health benefits. Full Story »

Posted by Derek Hawkins - via Google News (Health), Publish2 (Politics), Tom Friedman, NewsRack (Health Care)

See All Reviews »

View

4.1

by Manfred Ostrowski - Oct. 6, 2009

Robert Pear tries to present a somewhat balanced account of the ongoing health-care debate. His alternatives, "coverage" vs. "cost", may strike a nerve and might make sense superficially, but one feels like the debate should go about "social responsibility" vs. "profit", alternatives which seem to underlie the conflicting approaches.

Can the U.S. afford health insurance for the many uninsured? I think the answer is "yes". In a rich country which spends vast sums for its military and for rescue packages for financial institutions, there should be enough left to help those who cannot afford expensive health coverage.

The chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, said he was trying to “strike a balance between affordability and proper coverage”.