Washington Post reporter Perry Bacon, on the health care legislation passed by the House and the Senate:

At the core of it, the Democratic plans don't do a lot for people who already have insurance, a point the Republicans will make repeatedly.

Oh, really? Here's the Washington Post's report on Senate passage:

Senate Democrats approved landmark legislation just after sunrise Christmas Eve that would transform the nation's health-care system by requiring people without insurance to obtain coverage and protecting those who have it from the most unpopular private insurance practices.

...

The bills' scope is vast, but Democrats are counting on consumer-friendly provisions -- including some that would take effect right away -- as selling points to a skeptical public. In the Senate bill, sick uninsured people with preexisting medical conditions could immediately obtain private coverage through state-based high-risk insurance pools, and insurers could no longer deny coverage to children under age 18 with preexisting conditions. Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees would become eligible for tax credits to purchase insurance for their workers. Adults 26 years old or younger could remain on their parents' policies.

Six months after enactment of the plan, co-payments and deductibles on preventive services, including physical examinations, immunizations, and mammograms, would be eliminated for everyone. Insurers would be barred from dropping beneficiaries when they become sick and from imposing lifetime limits on coverage.

But Bacon's claim that the legislation doesn't “do a lot for people who already have health insurance” doesn't just ignore specific provisions that directly help people who already have insurance -- it ignores the fact that they may not have that insurance forever, and it ignores the indirect benefits that stand to gain from refrom. Here's a Washington Post overview of what health care reform could mean for people who already have insurance:

• If you're employed at a small business, you and your employer could gain the option of buying coverage through an exchange, in which insurers would have to offer a minimum set of benefits, and factors such as health status would not count against you. The government might help your employer pay for health benefits.
• If health-care reform succeeds in making care more efficient - a big “if” - your costs may rise more slowly than they would without reform. You could get better care as a result of efforts to increase coordination among providers, identify and encourage best practices, automate medical records, avoid unnecessary tests and procedures, and reduce medical errors.
• With expanded coverage for the uninsured, you and your employer could experience a reduction in what some call the hidden health tax you now pay to cover the cost of care that hospitals provide without compensation.
• If you leave or lose your job and have to buy your own insurance, you could face much better options than those now available to you (see explanation for people who buy their own insurance). Having new alternatives could make it easier for you leave a job in which you feel trapped; if you get laid off, it could save you from joining the ranks of the uninsured.

You can't just ignore these things when assessing whether reform would “do a lot for people who already have health insurance.”