BCT Editorial – 1/20/06

This page was last updated on January 24, 2006.

Bad medicine; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 20, 2006. This editorial was originally posted on the Times website but is no longer. I don’t know if the removal was intentional or an error.

As you read this editorial, remember all of the Times editorials advocating a taxpayer-funded healthcare system. The reasons this editorial bashes the subject program are 1) the program doesn’t pay for 100% of prescription drug purchases for everyone, and 2) Republicans pushed through the plan, not Democrats. If these two facts weren’t true, I doubt you’d see any criticism – at least not severe – from the Times.

As I’ve stated numerous times before, I oppose this plan as well as any other taxpayer-funded healthcare program.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Medicare prescription drug program is poorly conceived and too costly

“The largest expansion of the welfare state is turning out to be a major headache for some Medicare recipients and pharmacists in Pennsylvania and other states.

“Of course, transition problems are to be expected whenever a poorly conceived undertaking on such a scale as the Medicare prescription drug program is set into motion.

“But these start-up problems are emblematic of a program that is deeply flawed not only in execution but in conception.

“The Associated Press reported that a few thousand of the 250,000 Pennsylvania residents who should be eligible for the Medicare drug benefit that took effect Jan. 1 erroneously received pharmacy bills as high as $250. Under the program, the co-payments for low-income participants are supposed to be capped at $5.

“The state has been forced to step in, asking pharmacists to provide a five-day emergency supply of prescription drugs for Pennsylvanians who are having trouble getting their medicines because of ongoing problems during the transition from the state to the federal program. It expects to be reimbursed by the federal government once the database glitch is resolved, The AP reported.

“Pennsylvania isn’t alone. Medicare recipients in a number of states have had similar problems.

“In addition to having inadequate coverage and being overly complex - many seniors, their family members and advisors struggled to determine coverage needs, often giving up out of frustration - the drug prescription plan is also grossly unfair to millions of working Americans and will add billions to the national debt.”

[RWC] When did the Times begin caring about anything being “grossly unfair to millions of working Americans?” Ever since 2001, editorials have criticized tax cuts that allowed “millions of working Americans” to keep more of what they earned.

“In regard to its fairness, more than 40 million Americans have no health-care coverage, and millions more are underinsured. Yet instead of addressing their needs, Congress and President Bush gave people who already have taxpayer-subsidized health care even more in benefits.”

[RWC] I addressed the “40 million Americans have no health-care coverage” BS in a critique a year ago.

“To add insult to injury, if these uninsured or underinsured Americans are working, 2.9 percent of their wages goes to underwrite Medicare while they have to go without coverage or pay for coverage they can’t afford to use because of high deductibles and hefty co-pays.

[RWC] Oops, the author’s editor slipped up by allowing the editorial to admit 2.9% of wages feed the Medicare tax. 99.9% of the time, liberals tells us the Medicare tax on employees is only 1.45%. Heads will roll! Maybe this is why the editorial is no longer on the Times website. <g>

“The program is fiscally irresponsible as well. It’s going to cost an estimated $720 billion over the next decade, and its expenses are going to explode after that because of baby boomers flooding into Medicare. That’s money the federal government doesn’t have.”

[RWC] Given its constant drumbeat for a taxpayer-funded healthcare system, the Times has nerve talking about fiscal irresponsibility.

Need more evidence? The federal government doesn’t have any money. Only private citizens own money. Of course, liberals believe the exact opposite. In their eyes, all money belongs to the government and any money in the hands of private citizens is merely on loan.

“Poorly conceived, poorly planned and putting the nation in the poor house: That’s quite an accomplishment.”

[RWC] Blah, blah, blah.