WSJ ignores key data supporting "liberal-leaning" criticism of GOP health-care plan
SUMMARY: The Wall Street Journal cited only "the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund" to support a claim that a tax credit in a Republican alternative health-care reform proposal "wouldn't cover half of the cost of the average family's health-care premiums," but ignored relevant data from the Kaiser Family Foundation supporting the claim.
A May 21 Wall Street Journal article reported that a Republican alternative health-care reform proposal "would eliminate the tax break that employers receive for providing health-insurance benefits to their workers. Instead, it would give an annual tax credit of $2,300 to each individual and $5,700 to each family that they could use to offset the cost of their health insurance." The Journal later noted, "Karen Davenport, director of health policy at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund, said the Republican plan's tax subsidy wouldn't cover half of the cost of the average family's health-care premiums." But the Journal ignored relevant data supporting the claim that the Republican plan's tax credits would cover approximately half the cost of health insurance.
Indeed, in its 2008 Employer Health Benefits Summary of Findings, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated, "In 2008, the average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance are $4,704 for single coverage and $12,680 for family coverage, up about 5% from the 2007 average premiums."
From the May 21 Wall Street Journal article:
The government would run a health plan "with the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the post office, and the incompetence of Katrina," according to a summary of the Republicans' plan unveiled on Wednesday. Called the Patients' Choice Act, it would eliminate the tax break that employers receive for providing health-insurance benefits to their workers. Instead, it would give an annual tax credit of $2,300 to each individual and $5,700 to each family that they could use to offset the cost of their health insurance. Low-income families would get extra money to buy into private insurance plans.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) said the system of employer-based coverage is becoming "a 21st century relic" as companies become less generous with benefits.
President Barack Obama has tasked Congress with drawing up legislation to reduce health-care costs and expand health-insurance coverage. He and many Democrats want to create a new public insurance plan to help cover the uninsured and create competition for private insurers.
The Republican plan introduced Wednesday shares some things in common with measures Democrats are pushing. Both parties want to create insurance exchanges that make it easier to comparison-shop for health-care plans. They also want to shift health-care dollars toward preventing chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes, not just because it will make Americans healthier, but because prevention is cheaper than treating people once they get really sick.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who is leading the effort to draft a health overhaul, said that while this Republican measure meets many of his goals, eliminating the tax incentives for employer-provided health benefits "would destroy the employer-based health-care system we have today."
Karen Davenport, director of health policy at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund, said the Republican plan's tax subsidy wouldn't cover half of the cost of the average family's health-care premiums.

















Until somebody grows the spine to implement something resembling a single payer plan, this problem will just get worse.
Einstein
The WSJ provides plenty of criticism of the Republican Plan. Did not the MMFA interns read the last two paragraphs of the WSJ article?
Why the WSJ has to include any and all "studies" found by MMFA in order to print an article critical of the Republicans or otherwise be right wing misinformation is beyond me.
This is just another thinly disguised far leftist agenda promoting article to feed talking points to lazy left wing media pundits.
I don't know... maybe the Kaiser Foundation is paying MMFA for the plug?
I think that is telling.
For years I've been seeing national commentators and national newspaper articles identify conservatives and conservative think tanks every time they mention any one of them without the corresponding identification of those on the left. I don't recall you ever having a problem with any of the conservatives being identified as such.
It is also telling that you take MMFA at face value. Let me ask you, do you believe every thread you've read by MMFA since they started as unbiased and objective?
One last question. Do you prefer grape or cherry?
As for MMFA's objectivity? They are open about their bias, and cite all their source, leaving it up to you to decide if it's credible. That is EXACTLY what the WSJ DID NOT do in this case.
You really shouldn't make it so easy, AA.
Because I consider the gullubility of the audience and the effectiveness with which your lot has puched the "liberal = extremist, dangerous nonsense" nonsense over the years.
Looks like you've fallen for it too.
This country needs single-payer, period. In order to compete internationally, we must be on a par with countries around the world that do not force their companies to pay for their workers' healthcare. More than that, it is a moral imperative to remove the profit from healthcare. I must admit that knowing how many are profiting off my Multiple Sclerosis just makes me sicker.
If you were unfortunate enough to really need medical care, could no longer work like you did before (hence no longer able to afford the $1929 per month insurance premiums you are being charged by our current "benevolent" system), and were faced with losing your home, do you think then you might consider single-payer a good idea?