This morning, the Washington Post urges the president to defend the Cadillac tax, “one of the most contentious — and most sensible — aspects of health reform.”

The tax would be applied on employer-provided, high-value health-insurance plans. And its rate could be high.

Senate version of the health-care bill would impose a 40 percent excise tax on insurance at or above $23,000 annually in 2013; the House contains no comparable measure. This so-called Cadillac tax would be paid by insurers but presumably its costs would be passed on to those who purchase such policies, both corporations and workers.

As it turns out, one reason the president might decide against defending the tax is that unions are against it, since the tax would be a serious burden for their members, who often benefit from high-value health-insurance plans.

Interestingly, the Post argues that without such a tax, workers who get these luxury plans without paying their full price will overconsume health-care resources, which will, in turn, jack up health-care costs.

So now I am left wondering why, over the last six months, the Washington Post has spent such a great deal of time supporting a health-care-reform plan that will continue to decrease the share of health-care costs paid by individuals by increasing the share paid by the government. I don’t get it.

By the way, I have an article in Reason this month on the millionaire tax, the House version of the Cadillac tax.