BCT Editorial – 5/16/06

This page was last updated on May 17, 2006.

Poor health; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 16, 2006.

Once again the Times is caught telling what it calls “true lies.”

This editorial cites two reports to support the Times lobbying effort for a nationalized healthcare system.

Regarding the first report, the editorial cherry picks one piece of data. The editorial takes that data point out of context in an attempt to convince us the report concluded something almost 180 degrees away from the report’s overall findings.

Regarding the second report, the editorial cites some statistical findings of the study. When it comes to the study’s conclusions, however, the editorial slips in its own instead of those in the study itself. It’s clear the editorial author wants us to believe the conclusion cited is that of the study.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The United States shows that money can’t buy quality medical coverage

“When it comes to health care, Americans aren’t getting what they’re paying for.

“Well, some are, the ones who can afford top-shelf coverage or have it provided to them by their employers.

“However, their ranks are diminishing as Americans are being hit by the double whammy of paying more for less, often poorer care.

“Two recent reports drive this home.”

[RWC] As you will read below, the subject reports do not support the editorial’s premise.

“U.S.-based Save the Children surveyed 33 industrialized nations to compare their survival rates for newborn babies. The Associated Press reported the United States ranked near the bottom, tying with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly five per 1,000 babies.”

[RWC] Maybe it’s just me, but I immediately discount anything I hear from organizations named “Save the fill-in-the-blank.”

As you will read below, the editorial was just a tad less than forthcoming regarding the report’s findings when put in context. For example, while the editorial tells us the U.S. ranked near the bottom, it chose not to tell us the rankings of Canada and the U.K. Why? At four deaths per 1,000 births, the Canada and the U.K. death rates were very close to the U.S. rate of 4.7. Remember, both Canada and the U.K. have nationalized healthcare systems.

“Latvia’s rate was the worst, six per 1,000 babies.

“Japan had the best ratio - 1.8 per 1,000 - while the Czech Republic, Finland, Iceland and Norway tied for second with two per 1,000.

“The U.S. ranking was driven partly by racial and income health-care disparities. The AP reported researchers said lack of national health insurance and short maternity leaves also likely contributed to the poor showing, with other possible factors being teenage pregnancies and obesity rates.”

[RWC] What a shock! A Times editorial finds someone who claims socialism-based programs are the “solution” for an alleged healthcare problem.

Here’s one problem with this paragraph’s conclusion. If a “lack of national health insurance and short maternity leaves” explains the U.S. ranking, what explains the Canada and U.K. rankings? As noted above, both Canada and the U.K. have nationalized healthcare systems and their ranking was very close to that of the U.S.

Here’s another example of selective reporting. While the subject report published the “survival rates for newborn babies” noted in the editorial, the report also published rankings for the Mothers’, Women’s, and Children’s indices. For these indices, the U.S. ranked #10 (tied with the U.K.), #13, and #5, respectively. The Mothers’ Index – the report’s overall ranking – is “based on six indicators of women’s well-being and four indicators of children’s well-being.” While Japan was at the top of the newborn survival rate measure, it didn’t make the top 10 of the Mothers’ Index.

When you look at all of the report’s rankings, you get a very different picture than the one painted by the editorial. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why the editorial chose to cherry pick data. Noting all of the U.S. rankings would have torpedoed the premise of the editorial.

Above I wrote, “I immediately discount anything I hear from organizations named “Save the fill-in-the-blank.” The Mothers’ Index is an example of why. According to the report, one of the reasons the U.S. didn’t rank higher is “The United States is also lagging behind with regard to the political status of women. Only 15% of seats in the national government in the U.S. are held by women, compared to 45 percent in Sweden and 37 percent in Denmark and Finland.”

“Save the Children’s survey came just one week after the publication of a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found middle-aged, white Americans are much sicker than their counterparts in England, even though the United States spends twice as much on health care and the British constantly gripe about the quality of their National Health Service.”

[RWC] Britons do a little more than “constantly gripe about the quality of their National Health Service.” The private healthcare insurance industry is flourishing and an increasing number of healthcare professionals go to the private sector for their own healthcare. This would not be the case if the socialized healthcare program were living up to its promises.

Canada sees a similar trend. 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.”

“What was significant about the U.S.-U.K. study was that it was a peer-to-peer review - middle-aged whites by income level, which took race out of the equation.”

[RWC] I know I’m nitpicking, but it wasn’t a “U.S.-U.K. study.” As correctly stated above, the study covered England, not the entire U.K. As a reminder, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales make up the U.K.

The assertion that the study was “whites only” may not be accurate. The report said blacks and Latinos were excluded, but didn’t mention the exclusion of any other groups.

“Across the board, a higher rate of Americans tested positive for diabetes and heart disease. Americans also self-reported more diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, lung disease and cancer.

“The explanation is basic and solvable. The United States does a poor job when it comes to basic primary and preventive health care. As a result, it’s ended up with a medical system that spends tons of money on high-tech machines and expensive medications to treat complicated cases but leaves 44 million people without basic coverage.”

[RWC] I’m sure the author wants us to believe this is the conclusion of the study. It is not even close.

In truth, the study says there may be a number of contributing factors, of which access to healthcare is only one. Regarding healthcare access, the study concluded, “But it is equally important to recognize that health insurance cannot be the central reason for the better health outcomes in England because the top SES tier of the US population have close to universal access but their health outcomes are often worse than those of their English counterparts.”

Therefore, while the study itself says, “health insurance cannot be the central reason for the better health outcomes in England,” the editorial tells us exactly the opposite.

Regarding the “44 million people without basic coverage” myth, please read my critique of “Unfair and unjust.” FYI, just two weeks ago a Times editorial claimed the figure was 45.8 million. It would be nice if they could keep their figures straight.

“For a nation that spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product on health-care than any country in the world, the Untied [sic] States isn’t getting a good return on its investment.

“Even worse, no one in the nation’s capital seems to have the political will to enact the changes that need to be made.”

[RWC] Read the editorial “Painful price” and you’ll see “the changes that need to be made” involve a taxpayer-funded system modeled after the Veterans Administration healthcare system. Just about all Times healthcare editorials lobby for nationalized healthcare, though few actually have the nerve to say so explicitly.

“This inaction carries its own high price. America is on the verge of becoming two health-care nations, one a First World country with an elite that receives fantastic medical care regardless of cost, and the other a Third World country where people can’t afford to go to the doctor.”

[RWC] Throughout this whole editorial, did you notice what was missing? At no point did the editorial attempt to explain why we’re allegedly paying so much for so little. I know why.

As I’ve written before, our problems with the price of healthcare started during World War II when the feds decided that employer-based healthcare benefits would not count as taxable income. This gave businesses an economic incentive to provide tax-free healthcare insurance vs. taxable dollars. As a result, employees who had employer-based healthcare insurance began to become at least partially insensitive to healthcare prices. When the person receiving a service isn’t the person who writes the check, the ability of the free market to determine prices is compromised.

About 20 years later, as part of the Great Society programs, the government jumped into healthcare with both feet with the inception of Medicaid and Medicare. Once again, we separate those receiving benefits from those writing the checks.

To make a long story short, it is government’s own interference with the healthcare free market that has caused the terrific price increase over the years. And what is the Times solution? Why more government interference, of course. Remember, to liberals, socialist programs never really fail; they’re just never given enough time or money to work.