Yes, it's health care policy time, and the Washington Post is again telling readers that the effort to extend coverage to more children is "mired in an ideological fight over the proper role of government in health care." The immediate issue is extending coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), with the revenue coming from in part from higher cigarette taxes and partly from the elimination of subsidies for private insurers operating in the Medicare program. It seems that the question is whether we want to tax cigarette smokers more, a move that will also hurt the tobacco industry, and cut subsidies to insurance companies, in order to give more children health insurance. One might think that Republicans are opposed to such measures because they get substantial campaign contributions from the tobacco and insurance industries. But, no, the Post tells us right in the second paragraph that this is a debate about ideology. Those great political philosophers in the House, Senate, and White House are debating the proper role for government in the provision of health care. How does the Post know that these politicians are motivated by ideology and not the source of their campaign contributions? Well, that's what the politicians said. Is it too much to ask a newspaper reporter to simply be agnostic? They don't have to tell readers that politicians are working for their campaign contributors, but where do they get off telling readers that the politicians are not taking political positions to suit their contributors? The reporters do not know this and they are misleading their readers when they make such assertions.
--Dean Baker
