This newspaper loathes needless government intervention. But it also thinks that it is wrong for a country as rich as America to have tens of millions of people without health insurance. Beyond them is the much larger number of people who fear falling into that postion through losing their jobs; and the larger number again who cnnot get affordable insurance because they have an existing medical condition, or because they are too old, or because they have exhausted the "lifetime caps" imposed by insurance companies. The health reform plan represents the last chance, perhaps for decades, of erasing one of the least creditable differences between America and the rest of the industrialized world.
--The Economist Magazine, March 20th, 2010
I find it intriguing that the leading popular economics magazine, though usually anti-government, would take this position. Written before the bill has been passed, the last two lines from the article need our attention also:
Mr. Obama's bill does a morally desirable thing in expanding health coverage, and it does a bit on costs. That is, on balance, enough for it to deserve to pass.
The economist, first published in 1843 emphasizes its mission: to take part in a "serious contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress."