Take a look at the way Politico describes a public health care option:

Reid today was vague on whether he supported the public option, the most controversial and expensive aspect of President Barack Obama's health care push. Opponents of the public option have suggested that a compromise take place that would remove the public plan from the package.

Politico never got around to indicating what supporters of the public option think, which is a pretty glaring lack of balance.

But that isn't the only problem with this paragraph. Politico describes a public option as “the most controversial and expensive aspect” of health care reform. Well, gee, that sounds awful. Why would anyone support it?

Think about how differently that paragraph would read if Politico focused on the effects of a strong public plan rather than the costs. On the positives, rather than the negatives. Or if Politico at least included both.

This is typical of the way the media covers health care (remember the presidential primary debates, when the Democrats kept getting grilled about how much health care reform would cost rather than about what it would do?) And that anti-reform framing is a big part of the reason for the situation we're in.