The Post tells us that the insurance industry is opposed to allowing people the option to buy into a public health insurance plan because it: "fears that a government-sponsored program with the ability to set prices would have an unfair advantage and severely undercut the private market."
Does the Post have any evidence that the cost advantage of a public plan is either "unfair" or even that is actually viewed as "unfair" by the industry. Is there any reason that anyone should even care if the industry views it as unfair? Why not just save the space and leave out a word that conveys no information, although it does help advance the industry case.
Unlike many news organizations, the Prospect has remained staunchly committed to keeping our journalism free and accessible to all. We believe that independent journalism is crucial for a functioning democracy—but quality reporting comes at a cost. From Trump’s threat to the free press to Musk’s influence on our democracy, there is too much at stake in 2025 to stop now.
We’re behind on our goal to raise $75,000 to continue delivering the hard-hitting investigative journalism you’ve come to expect from us. Your support helps us maintain our independence and dig deeper into the stories that matter most.
We need you to make a year-end contribution today. Any amount helps secure our future and ensure we can continue holding power to account.
