A Times editorial bemoans a 79-20 Senate vote to repeal the ObamaCare tax on medical devices.
The editorial says "the money is crucial to providing health coverage to the uninsured." Then it goes on to say that Senator Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats "say they would support an actual repeal of the tax if another tax could be found to replace it. That could save the tax, because Republicans aren't interested in raising another tax, and the Obama administration already has its eye on potential replacement taxes for other, more important purposes, like investments in education and infrastructure."
It sure sounds like the editorialists are saying that "investments in education and infrastructure" are "more important purposes" than "providing health coverage to the uninsured." If that is indeed their point of view, you'd think maybe they would have shared it with Times readers in the course of all those editorials during the debate over ObamaCare. They might have saved a lot of trouble.
The editorial makes an assertion about the motives of the 79 senators who voted to repeal the tax, asserting that they (including Ms. Warren and Senator Franken of Minnesota) have been bought by the medical device industry and its lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions: "as long as the industry is willing to open its checkbook, it will always find lawmakers willing to do its bidding."
There's no consideration of the possibility that the tax might actually prove counterproductive, making medical care more expensive instead of more affordable, or of the possibility that the senators might have been swayed by the merits of the issue rather than by money.