A Washington Post editorial this morning criticized efforts in Maryland and other states to force large employers (especially Wal-Mart) to pay for their workers' health care. The article contrasted these efforts with the approach being followed in Massachusetts, which it asserts is "a state that is trying to responsibly address rising health-care costs."
This is an interesting assertion. Massachusetts recently passed a law that required all its residents to have health insurance. There were some limited subsidies in the bill plus some restructuring of the insurance market, but there was nothing that would work in any obvious way to control health care costs, or at least nothing that was reported in the Washington Post.
So, if we believe (with the Post editorial) that there were important provisions for controlling health care costs in this bill, then we should be furious with the Washington Post for failing to report on them. Alternatively, we could believe that the Post editorial board is just making things up to support its case.