Fredd Hiatt Slams Health Bill for Not Including Provisions it Includes
Fred Hiatt seems to really want to drive the Washington Post’s circulation down to zero so that the company can focus on its core competency in standardized test preparation. He wrote a column complaining that it’s a bad idea to rely on a public option to reduce health care costs, because including a public option can (through magic?) prevent congress from adopting other cost control measures. Not only does this not make sense, but as OMB Director Peter Orszag observes, Hiatt seems unaware of what’s actually happening on the Hill:
Fred Hiatt in today’s Washington Post is the latest of these naysayers, writing in his column that the two biggest steps that can be taken to reduce the rate of health care cost growth — changes in health care’s tax treatment and an independent Medicare commission — are missing. I agree with Hiatt on the potential substantial benefits in terms of cost containment from these two changes. But a note to readers who have not read their Washington Post the past few weeks: the Senate Finance Committee bill includes both of these measures.
Cost-control is important. The House’s approach to cost-control is focused on a robust public option. That’s a good idea. The Senate’s approach focuses on the excise tax concept and the independent Medicare commission. Those are also good ideas. The final bill should include all three. There’s no reason to deride the public option as your means of praising the other ideas.
16 Responses to “Fredd Hiatt Slams Health Bill for Not Including Provisions it Includes”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Stupid or lazy or evil?
October 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I usually go with “stupid and lazy,” but Hiatt is engaging in the type of slanted dishonesty that is too extreme and consistent to happen by accident.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/10/26/Missing-the-Boat-on-Cost-Containment/
Fixed link there.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Kaplan Test Prep Fred’s particularly sneaky in his use of a false dichotomy at the end of that piece.
The fundamental argument for the public option is that it will be run for the benefit of those it covers, not for the benefit of those offering the coverage.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Who’s got time to read their own paper when they’ve got column inches to fill?
What a tool.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Fred Hiatt meets the original Mayor Daley’s definition of an “honest” Chicago politician: –one who stays bought after he’s purchased.
Remember when WaPO was a newspaper? I am not sure most of you are old enough.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Looks like Reid will put an opt-out public option in the Senate version. Good news. As DTM has written I doubt the moderate Democrats will ruin Obama’s key legislation. It appears that those of us who were cautiously optimistic were right.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I’m an expat now, but I grew up in DC. The WaPo has never been a great newspaper, although in the 70s (thanks to Watergate) it was an important newspaper.
Now, if it weren’t for Eugene Robinson’s columns, I’d never bother reading it. Any editorial page that spotlights Krauthammer, Kristol, and Will is not a great newspaper.
Just as Fox News is the broadcasting arm of extreme conservatism, the Post seems determined to be its print arm. Its circulation has gone down 6.4% just in the past six months. Good riddance.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Fred Hiatt’s a right wing moron who doesn’t deserve the good journalists who still work at his paper.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Simon @6,
According to Wikipedia (with a citation to a dead-tree book), the originator of that quote is Simon Cameron, Lincoln’s first Secretary of War and later a Senator.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
I have nothing good to say about Fred Hiatt, but I still don’t grasp why providing an economic incentive to downgrade to a lower cost policy is good public health policy. My son has multiple disabilities, and I’ve been policy-shopping (and job shopping) for over a decade. If you buy a $12,000 policy instead of a $16,000 policy (because you need to avoid taxes), the difference in cost translates directly into lost benefits. Most people in the U.S. think that if they hold a “good” policy from a “reputable” insurer, if they become ill or disabled anything “medically necessary” will be provided to help them. Nope. Not true. The lower cost policy might not have a rider for prosthetics & orthotics, or for durable medical equipment, or for physical therapy. You then pay out of pocket for that and that does not go toward your insurance carrier’s tally of your “out of pocket maximum”.
Most people who experience medical bankruptcy actually HAVE health insurance. It’s these policies with gaping areas of coverage that create expenses that can cost $10K or more ON TOP OF all your other co-pays and so on. Everyone in this country is so naive.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Fred Hiatt seems to really want to drive the Washington Post’s circulation down to zero so that the company can focus on its core competency in standardized test preparation
Iglesias scores. Big. But he forgets that WaPost is expanding its core comps into event planning, parties and catering services.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
The WaPo opinion section is worthy of reading only for the cynical mockery it engenders. As noted elsewhere here, the columns are on the whole the product of flawed logic or venal obfuscation. Krauthammer, Will, Hiatt, Cohen, Applebaum…ugh, I mean, ha, ha! Apologies to writers of the odd thoughtful column that sneaks through.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:18 am
I just read a summary of the new Michael Jackson autobiography at http://www.autobiography.net and it looks pretty wicked. I ordered it from Amazon and am waiting for it and I’m going to see the movie when it comes out soon.
October 27th, 2009 at 3:51 am
Such interesting read and information, thanks for sharing this post. I will check back to read your other new posts. Please come visit my site City Guide Boston when you got time.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Jeneva,
The biggest reason for lack of insurance is the high cost. The biggest reason for the high cost of insurance is the high cost of health care. The biggest reason for the high cost of health care is the enormous amount of wasteful medical practices. The biggest reason for wasteful medical practices is overinsurance, which pays for unnecessary treatment. The biggest reason for overinsurance is the tax incentive.
As health care costs in general are held down, it becomes cheaper for insurers to cover more types of useful procedures. Without strong incentives to hold down costs, you’re going to find it harder and harder to find an employer provided plan that offers you what you want.
In your calculations, you should also keep in mind that there are provisions in the bill to avoid the catastrophic uncompensated expenses that currently bankrupt people.