The Register does a real disservice to its readers by putting up what is essentially a point/counterpoint article between the Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation. Both are conservative think tanks, with Cato also having a libertarian twist. They argue about mandating health insurance, with Cato against it and Heritage nominally for it.
As one of the major universal health care plans to come out of the states (Massachusetts in this case), it is certainly an idea to be debated. But is it too much to ask that a liberal viewpoint be heard as well? At the very least, most liberals can agree that such a system should allow people to buy into a government-sponsored program, such as Medicare or maybe some sort of state or federal employee benefits program. Also, the Heritage foundation plan completely skirts over issues such as mandating community rating or other things that would help people with preexisting conditions or other impediments to quality private health care. I’m sure we’ll hear a lot about these ideas in the primary, but our biggest paper shouldn’t be cutting out an entire half of the political spectrum on such an important issue.
3 Comments
And then they go and do this...
Their editorial on the topic is pretty much correct, ignoring one of these guys and disagreeing with the other.
drew-miller Mon 5 Mar 2:30 PM
their unsigned editorials support single-payer
I think this is a classic case of the Register not wanting to appear too “liberal,” so they publish some conservative garbage to “balance” their editorial position on health care.
The Washington Times would never “balance” their position by publishing an op-ed in favor of single-payer, but of course conservatives play by different rules.
desmoinesdem Mon 5 Mar 2:46 PM