Toward the end of an informative editorial discussing the subsidies for the private insurers operating within the Medicare program, and the Republican support for these subsides, the NYT told readers: "the only explanation is Republicans’ ideological compulsion to provide a private option." Hmmm, the only explanation for the fact that Republicans keep voting to hand billions of dollars to insurance companies is an ideological commitment? Let me suggest an alternative possibility. Members of Congress run for election at regular intervals. They need campaign contributions and political support to win elections. Insurance companies are major campaign contributors and political actors. Their support or opposition can have a big effect on the outcome of elections. Perhaps some Republicans in Congress support subsides for the insurers, regardless of their political ideology (if they have one) because they want money and political backing from the insurance industry. Could that be possible? This does matter because debates on ideology often get abstract and confusing. The matter that is clearly at issue in this particular debate is whether the government will pay private insurers more money for Medicare beneficiaries (13 percent on average) than it costs to keep them in the public plan. There is no real dispute about this fact. How this relates to anyone ideology (or why anyone should care) is more difficult to determine.
--Dean Baker
