C-J incoherence on the House health care proposal

Here is the Washington Post's balanced assessment of the House's health care proposal...

In contrast, here are the editorialists of the C-J with a dog's breakfast of incoherence and strange preferences for health care reform. My comments will be interspersed below...

The bill would require almost all Americans to obtain health insurance...

restricting freedom

...prohibit health insurers from denying people coverage because of pre-existing conditions...

increasing premiums (and dealing with symptoms rather than the underlying problem; see: Cochrane's work)

...mandate larger companies to cover their employees...

increase the cost of labor, and thus, unemployment (a brilliant idea during a recession, huh?)-- or reducing wages so that the mandate is compensation-neutral

...provide subsidies to enable qualifying households to buy coverage, expand free health care under Medicaid to lower-income Americans...

taxes up from both of those

...crack down on insurance company abuses, such as lifetime limits and many premium disparities...

translation: more regulation; higher premiums

Here's the funniest/saddest line:

It does too little to contain the rise in health costs...

I suppose you might put it that way, but I doubt that they intend it to be interpreted tongue-firmly-in-cheek.

And then we get to a biggie for the C-J-- not only unmitigated access to abortion, but subsidies for it as well.

Moreover, in an 11th hour compromise, House leaders agreed to a stipulation that a public plan and federal subsidies couldn't be used to pay for abortions. That provision is grotesquely unfair to women, for whom abortion is a legal right and a medical procedure central to giving them control over their own reproductive systems...

Then, the C-J tries to lay blame on "mostly congressional Republicans and insurance company officials, who want to kill meaningful reform. They say the nation can't afford reform, when actually it can't afford not to have reform."

Hey, look in the mirror and point at your Democratic colleagues. And actually, the question-begging is what sort of reform we ought to have.

They close by pointing to the "bravery" of Rep. Joseph Cao, the only Republican to vote for the House bill. But somehow Rep. Ben Chandler comes in for criticism of his "political courage", since he opposed the bill.

It's hilarious that they see both opposition and support as acts of courage!