BCT Editorial – 3/21/06

This page was last updated on March 24, 2006.

Painful price; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 21, 2006. Though in the print edition of the Times, it was not published on the Times website.

Rather than transcribe the entire editorial, I’ll highlight some of the points it tries to make.

In summary, the editorial simply regurgitates the same points as previous Times editorials on this subject.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

Paragraph 6: “Asch said greater use of computers could improve care by helping doctors track patients’ medical histories. In addition, computers could provide electronic reminders about needed tests and appointments. Electronic medical records could log information on other caregivers’ thoughts about a patient’s condition.”

[RWC] I transcribed this paragraph because I believe it’s silly in the context of discussing solutions to improving U.S. healthcare. Healthcare prices are escalating quickly, and the editorial gets into micromanagement of records management.

Final three paragraphs: “What’s sad and disturbing is that the nation has a role model that delivers quality service at an affordable cost – the Department of Veterans Affairs. Asch noted it has incorporated some of the study’s improvements, and a study has found that VA patients get proper recommended care about 66 percent of the time.

“So why isn’t the VA’s approach being taken national? Go back to an environment in the nation’s capital that puts a premium on politics and ideology and renders doing what is best for the American people into the background.

“The situation isn’t going to change until those priorities are reversed.”

[RWC] Once again we have the Times advocating a taxpayer-funded healthcare system.

Does the author truly not understand why the VA can’t be scaled up? While I believe the vast majority of veterans don’t pay – or pay relatively little – for their healthcare coverage – and shouldn’t have to, they are a relatively small portion of the total healthcare market (300 million people). As a result, the fact the healthcare recipients don’t pay for their coverage has no appreciable impact on the healthcare market.

I’ve said it a zillion times before. The system that provides the optimum of service for the broadest group of people is one based on a true free market. The more government interferes with healthcare, the worse it will get.

Canada is an example. Over the last several years, many Canadians decided they would incur the extra expense of paying for healthcare out of their own pockets because they were displeased with “free” healthcare. This was such a growing trend that the Canadian government tried to outlaw the practice. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the ban in June 2005. Excerpts of the ruling stated, “Access to a waiting list is not access to health care” and “The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance might be constitutional in circumstances where health-care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness but it is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services.” Remember this the next time your friendly local liberal tells you how great the Canada healthcare system is.