What commentators are saying about House passage of health system reform

A sampling from newspapers across the nation shows editorial writers' and others' views on the Affordable Health Care for America Act, its provisions and its potential impact.

Moving toward reform

Passage of the House health bill marks a historic moment in the long-sought effort to bring a sense of order to America's health care system, but while it moves the ball farther down the field than at any time since the 1960s, it doesn't ensure success. Passage in the Senate will be more difficult, and any bill that ultimately clears Congress will look different from the one passed [on Nov. 7] -- and that could be good. But it was a start -- not a perfect one, by any means, but one from which negotiators from the House and Senate may ultimately be able to craft a bill that meets the nation's obvious health care needs while reducing the runaway costs of mediocre care. Buffalo (N.Y.) News, Nov. 14

Half done on health reform

If it began to move away from the fee-for-service payment system that rewards doctors and hospitals on the quantity of procedures they perform, rather than on the results of the treatment, that would help. If it reduced the biggest single loophole in the revenue system -- the tax-exempt status of employer-provided health benefits -- that would help a lot. Otherwise, while congratulating one another for an overdue piece of social legislation, lawmakers could end up condemning our children to a far worse financial future than they deserve. Washington Post, op-ed columnist David S. Broder, Nov. 13

Health care's hurdles

The House passed a sweeping health care reform bill Saturday [Nov. 7] despite the opposition of [all but one Republican] as well as 39 mainly centrist Democrats. This illustrates both the success and the failure of the Obama administration and House Democratic leaders on this issue. On the one hand, they've sold lawmakers in both parties on the need to rein in rising health care costs. But on the other, a significant minority on Capitol Hill -- and a sizable portion of the public -- don't see the connection between controlling costs and extending affordable insurance to all Americans. Los Angeles Times, Nov. 9

Government-run regardless

Even without a public plan, the reform bills under consideration would impose such rigid control on private health plans that it would amount to a government-run health care system -- even if the insurance companies remain technically under private ownership. ... The federal government will be running all private health plans -- individually purchased plans starting in the year 2013 or 2014 (depending on which bill) and employer-sponsored plans starting five years later. Furthermore, the House bill also empowers -- actually, requires -- the health choices commissioner to determine the premiums private health plans can charge. The bill states, "The Commissioner shall deny excessive premiums and premium increases," but nowhere does the bill define what "excessive" means. That would be entirely up to the discretion of the commissioner. Washington Times, Robert A. Book, senior research fellow in health economics at the Heritage Foundation, Nov. 16

The ban on abortion coverage

When the House narrowly passed the health care reform bill on Saturday night [Nov. 7], it came with a steep price for women's reproductive rights. Under pressure from anti-abortion Democrats and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, lawmakers added language that would prevent millions of Americans from buying insurance that covers abortions -- even if they use their own money. The restrictions would fall on women eligible to buy coverage on new health insurance exchanges. They are a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a woman's right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors. New York Times, Nov. 9