In the fallout from the retracted “memo” story, much attention has been devoted to Politico's failure to verify its story before posting it and on its less-than-transparent sourcing.

Equally important, however, is the Politico's effort to hype its short-lived story as some sort of bombshell that destroyed congressional Democrats' health care reform arguments.

Here's the original article's headline:

EXCLUSIVE -- Democrats plan doc fix after reform

And here is the beginning of the article, which asserted that statements in the memo “undercut” Democrats' “message that reform lowers the deficit” and repeated GOP claims that “Democrats were playing a shell game” by not including the “doc fix” in the cost of health care reform:

Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, but are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform. The plans undercut the party's message that reform lowers the deficit, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO.

Democrats removed the so-called doc fix from the reform legislation last year because its $371-billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit. Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the doc fix from the bill, Democrats were playing a shell game.

In an article tonight about the Politico retraction, Politico's Craig Gordon characterized the supposed “doc fix” revelation as “explosive,” writing:

The memo's most explosive statement is that Democrats planned a so-called “doc fix” to Medicare reimbursement rates later this year, but don't want to talk about it ahead of Sunday's vote because it's going to cost billions.

But just 21 minutes later, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith seemed to contradict that. Smith wrote that he would be “surprised” if the memo turned about to be a “fabrication” because it “wasn't really all that explosive.”

I'll repeat that: The memo Politico had earlier hyped as an “exclusive” that “undercut” a central Democratic health care argument “wasn't really all that explosive.”

And Smith is right.

Even if the information in the memo is accurate, there is simply nothing dishonest or misleading about not including the “doc fix” in the health care reform bill or in estimates of health care reform's cost. As The Washington Post's Ezra Klein explains, it is an issue that predates the reform debate and that is likely going to have to be resolved whether on not the health care bill passes:

The short version: In 1997, Republicans passed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate into law. The provision created a simple equation meant to hold down Medicare costs and cut doctor payments when they rose. But the provision was passed when Medicare's costs were uncommonly low. Suddenly, SGR was forcing huge cuts rather than the modest adjustments that had been intended. So legislators began voting to delay implementation rather than cut doctor payments.

The first delay was passed in 2003, under Republicans. Then again in 2005, also under Republicans. Then in 2006, under Republicans. Then in 2007 and 2008, under Democrats. For those keeping count at home, this is a policy in a Republican bill that Republicans delayed three times and Democrats delayed twice. What's needed is to reform the system so we stop delaying it. And we will need to do that -- and this is important -- whether or not health-care reform passes.

To put this slightly differently, imagine you're buying a new house. But your old house needs $20,000 in roof repairs. You will have to pay for those repairs whether you move or whether you stay, because you can't have your roof caving in come the next heavy rain. Are your roof repairs part of the cost of the new house? If you think so, then you agree with [Republican congressman Paul] Ryan. If not, then you don't. The SGR problem predates health-care reform and exists irrespective of health-care reform's fate. Attempts to lash the two together are nonsensical.