To be more precise, it called offering a Medicare type government-run health plan to all Americans a "potentially radical idea." It's not clear why extending a 40 year-old program on a voluntary basis should be viewed as a radical proposition. Admittedly, it is possible, if not likely, that it will undermine the current system of private insurance, if the vast majority of workers and employers opted into the public plan, but what is so radical about giving people a choice? Isn't that what conservatives always advocate? The article is also kind enough to tell readers that "some health experts argue that it is hard to imagine the savings the Democrats are touting without some painful measures, such as allowing insurance companies to restrict the kind of procedures or the choice of doctors that Americans have." Of course there are some health care experts who say such things, but there are also many health care experts who point to the fact that United States spends more than $200 billion a year administering its private health care system (including additional administrative costs incurred by providers as a result of dealing with multiple insurers). There are also health care experts who point to the fact that the United States could save close to $100 billion annually if it paid the same prices for prescription drugs as people in other wealthy countries. The Post article did not present the views of these health experts.
--Dean Baker
