About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

WSJ ignores key data supporting "liberal-leaning" criticism of GOP health-care plan

May 21, 2009 12:22 pm ET

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.

16 Comments

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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (May 21, 2009 12:26 pm ET)
      1  
      You mean the Republicans actually have a health-care plan? Damn...! ;>)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 21, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
        1  
        Yes. It's called "Pay or die."
        Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (May 23, 2009 12:18 am ET)
             
          More like give the insurance oligarchs your money and we'll still watch you die.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 21, 2009 12:43 pm ET)
      2  
      Here's the thing... either plan is useless unless it forces insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Of course, that means they'll just raise their rates, further reducing the impact of the proposed tax credit.

      Until somebody grows the spine to implement something resembling a single payer plan, this problem will just get worse.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 21, 2009 2:22 pm ET)
        3  
        Agreed. The for-profit model has failed, and fails mroe every year. The MARKET can not be expected to fix something when it has a 30 year trend of getting steadily worse.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (May 21, 2009 2:26 pm ET)
          3  
          "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
          Einstein
          Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (May 21, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
        3
      Another laugher by MMFA.

      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?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (May 21, 2009 3:12 pm ET)
        1  
        What's your opinion of the GOP plan?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 21, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
        3  
        How does it feel to lack all critical thinking skills? Is it a good feeling? The problem here is that in saying "liberal-leaning criticism" rather than citing the actual study, they rob the criticims of it credability and objectivity, and make it easy to dismiss as "just some liberal BS." No... it's actually TRUE. But they betray that truth buy not citing the evindence that supports it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (May 21, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
            4
          I wonder why you think the term "liberal-leaning" robs the criticism of it's credibility and objectivity?

          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.



          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 21, 2009 7:41 pm ET)
               
            That story about people being labeled "conservatives" was debunked by MMfA in one of the first articles they put up when they started operations. I'm not surprised you keep re-telling the lie.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (May 22, 2009 10:59 am ET)
                1
              Hahhaa... forgive me if I do not take your memory at face value.

              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?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 22, 2009 12:32 pm ET)
                2  
                You don't have to take it at face value you can LOOK. IT. UP. I know that REAL conservatives hate doing actual research (such a liberal activity) but it's amazing how much you can learn by it.

                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.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 23, 2009 8:02 am ET)
                   
                I cant believe I am reading a brainwashed hiveminder like YOU infer someone ELSE is drinking the Koolaid. You have no sense of irony whatsoever
                Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 22, 2009 12:30 pm ET)
            2  
            I wonder why you think the term "liberal-leaning" robs the criticism of it's credibility and objectivity?

            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.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by issy (May 22, 2009 12:06 pm ET)
      4  
      The Republican plan is just a joke. There is nothing in there that will substantially improve anyone's healthcare coverage. They put all of the emphasis on how individuals can maintain their health, but no specifics how those of us who have pre-existing conditions (that came about through no "lifestyle" choices we made) are going to be covered adequately or "affordably."

      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?
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.