BCT Editorial – 2/8/05

This page was last updated on February 12, 2005.

No respect; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 8, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“‘Will work for health care?’

“When hard times occurred in the past, people could be seen carrying signs that read, ‘Will work for food.’

“It might be a sign of our times that ‘health care’ could take the place of ‘food.’

[RWC] The first problem with this editorial is that it equates healthcare and healthcare insurance. In any case, why shouldn’t we work for healthcare?

“The Associated Press reports that hundreds of men and women showed up to apply for US Airways jobs as baggage handlers and customer service representatives at Reagan National Airport, even though the top hourly wage was only $9.59.

“That top rate translates into $383.60 for a 40-hour week and $19,947 a year. The hourly pay for customer assistance representatives - $7.52 - would bring in $300.80 a week and $15,642 a year. Neither salary even begins to represent a living wage for an individual, let alone a family.”

[RWC] So what? If the wage is too little for the work expected, there will be too few applicants and the wage will rise. Are all jobs supposed to pay enough to support a family? If so, how big a family, how many cars, how many TVs, how big of a house, et cetera?

“The AP reports applicants at a job fair said the pay scales did not bother them because of the airline’s benefit plan, which includes medical and dental insurance and free travel.”

[RWC] Oh no, the applicants can actually add the value of the benefits to the wage and determine it’s fair compensation for the jobs. <g>

“But there’s more to this than US Airways’ attempt to staff its Washington operations via low-paying jobs. The eagerness with which men and women are seeking low-paying jobs because of the fringe benefits illustrates the plight of the working poor throughout the nation.

[RWC] In the first sentence of this last paragraph, the editorial implies US Airways is doing something wrong because the jobs in question are “low paying.” I suppose US Airways should overpay again to ensure a quicker demise.

The last sentence appears to disconnect wages and fringe benefits, as if fringe benefits are not really a part of your compensation package. Using what I pay for healthcare insurance alone (only for me and no dental insurance and free travel), the cost of healthcare insurance would add from 18% to 22% to the wages cited. That drives the $9.59/hour to $11.27/hour and the $7.52/hour to $9.20/hour.

“Hundreds of thousands of Americans are working in low-paying jobs, and most of these jobs don’t have health-care coverage or pension plans. If they do, they often require employees to pay for coverage, and many opt out because they don’t have the extra cash to do so.”

[RWC] The jobs are low paying because they have low economic value, requiring little or no training. Don’t interpret this as passing judgment on the jobs. Low economic value doesn’t translate into a “bad” job.

“Their ranks are about to swell. Because of rising costs and possible reductions in federal funding, many states, including Pennsylvania, are looking for ways to cut Medicaid costs.”

[RWC] The editorial skips over the fact that government interference is the prime reason healthcare prices – and thus healthcare insurance premiums – are increasing so fast. Eliminate government-provided healthcare coverage and tax benefits for third-party payer systems (“employer paid” insurance) and we’d be on the road to stabilized prices and more affordable healthcare.

“Knight Ridder Newspapers reports the Bush administration proposes to allow states to alter coverage without federal approval for ‘optional’ Medicaid beneficiaries - those who aren’t entitled to coverage by federal law but are covered anyway by most states.

“Such optional beneficiaries make up only 30 percent, or 15 million, of Medicaid’s 50 million enrollees. Of that 15 million, about 6 million are low-income working adults.

“These are men and women are going to work, thereby displaying a work ethic for their children to emulate. Yet they are the ones who are most likely to lose out when state governments start to cut Medicaid rolls, with the cruel irony being that welfare recipients will continue to receive coverage.”

[RWC] What about the ethics of having a family you can’t afford? I completely agree welfare recipients should not receive healthcare coverage, though I’m willing to bet that’s not what the editorial meant.

“We’re not ennobling the poor. Many people who are in that position are there because of bad lifestyle decisions. However, don’t those who are playing by the rules - working in low-paying jobs, paying their bills, staying together, raising their children - deserve more from the society to which they are providing valuable services?”

[RWC] But are these people truly “playing by the rules?” Is it playing by the rules to get married and have kids when you know you can’t support your family without handouts from your hard working neighbors?

Here’s a tip. When the Times writes “society,” you can substitute “government.” Government and society are not the same things, but liberals want us to believe they are.