The Washington Post did some serious editorializing in a piece on the prospects for a public health insurance plan being included in the health reform bill. It described the battle over a public option as "an ideological storm for Democrats." How does the paper know that this is an issue of ideology? There are good reasons for believing that a public plan will reduce health care costs, including an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office and a report from Lewin Associates that was widely circulated by the Republicans. If one group of representatives wants to go with a lower cost defense contractor than the one favored by another group of representatives would the Post describe this as "ideological storm?" There could be an issue of ideology here or could be the case that some people want lower cost health care while others want to support the insurance industry. The Post does not know which is the case and therefore should not be editorializing. It goes beyond editorializing later in the article when it asserts that Republicans: "remain almost universally opposed to the proposal as a high-tax, government-run insurance plan." Is that so? What taxes are projected to be increased as a result of a public plan? The proposals all call for the plan to be paid for by the premiums paid by its beneficiaries. The Republicans might denounce the plan as being a "high-tax" plan just as they accuse President Obama of establishing death panels, but that does not mean it is the real reason that they oppose it. This should have been reported by saying what the Republicans claim while providing readers with the additional information that the proposals for a public plan currently being debated do not call for tax increases to subsidize a public plan.
--Dean Baker
