WaPo Minimizes Medicare Part D disaster

The Washington Post has a piece this morning by Christopher Lee and Susan Levine describing the developing "Doughnut hole" in the Medicare Part D program. I've described how this program works here. To summarize, the plan basically covers 3/4 of prescription drug costs up to a total cost of $2250. After that, drug costs are totally out of pocket until you hit $5100.

I'm happy that the Post is talking about this issue, because it's one of the most noxious features of the program. What concerns me is the language they use when describing the nature of the problem:

going without drugs is "painful"

3 million senior are in this situation, rather than the anticipated 7 million

beneficiaries are "better off than they were before the plan"

seniors can "choose their plans more carefully"

the doughnut hole is a "temporary break in coverage"

Why does this article annoy me so much? Well let's pretend that someone drops a nuke on New York City. How would the same author describe this event?

New York suffered "serious damage." There were lots of casualties, but "less than the U.S. experienced in WWII." Survivors are suffering "medical conditions." People are advised to stay out of the city. Some critics say that New Yorkers "should have known better than to live in terrorist target" and that "this is an opportunity to diversify our economy."

How would Levine & Lee like it if they were given major surgery and then denied pain medication or antibiotics because it was "too expensive." After all, people survived for thousands of years without such things. And hey, if they die, them's the breaks, right?