Andrea Mitchell, please define "worried"

More from Andrea Mitchell:

Medicare has not controlled costs to the satisfaction of the fiscal hawks.  And people worried about the deficit say that Medicare is the worst possible paradigm for a new, expanded health care system.

Hmmm.  Do people who are really worried about the deficit say this -- or do people who say they are worried about the deficit say this?

See, Medicare has very low overhead costs, and Medicare costs have grown at a much slower rate than costs for private insurance.  To the extent that the Medicare system faces financing trouble, it is largely a result of a growth in health care costs, not of a flaw in Medicare itself.  

And the people who Mitchell is referring to oppose health care reforms that would do the most to control skyrocketing health care costs -- things like single-payer, or a public option.  And as Paul Krugman recently noted, "There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option."

So, aside from her apparent lack of understanding of why Medicare costs have increased, Mitchell is unjustifiably crediting critics of reform with being "worried about the deficit."  We don't know that they're actually worried about the deficit, or capable of understanding how it can be reduced.  All we know is that they say they are worried about the deficit.  So that's all Mitchell should say; anything else is mind-reading.

Actually, that's not quite right: She should also note that they oppose the very proposals that would do the most to keep the deficit in check.

(Also worth noting: It is not the case, as Mitchell suggests, that "people worried about the deficit" are united in the belief that Medicare would make a poor model for health care reform.)