The Washington Post published an incredibly stupid, illogical, and intellectual inconsistent editorial about health care reform.
The editorial board wants Obama to push for an extremely unpopular tax on health benefits that he campaigned against. A significant number of Democratic senators have said they can't vote for a bill that includes a new tax on health benefits. As a result, demanding the inclusions of a tax on health benefits would end up killing health care reform.
But in the very next paragraph they tell Obama to drop his support for the very popular public option that he campaigned for, because it might “drag down health reform or make it impossible to secure Republican votes.”
The Washington Post is telling Obama to insist on including a policy he is against, even though it would end up killing the chances of passing reform. Yet, they are also telling him that he should give up on a policy he strongly supports, because it might kill reform.
You can ask Obama to support good policies regardless of their likelihood of passing the Senate. In that case, he should be pushing for a tax on health insurance benefits and a robust public option. Or you can promote compromise to make sure even an imperfect health care reform bill gets passed. If that is your argument, you ask him to pushing for a tax on health benefits. It is the one policy, even more likely than the public option, to end up preventing the passage of health care reform.
The health insurance companies are strongly against the public option because it is designed to create a competitive pressure that would reduce their profits. I guess we find out what a $25,000 ticket to a off the record private “salons” can buy the health insurance lobbyists at the Washington Post. A few hundred thousand will get you an intellectually inconsistent and dishonest attack on the public option.