BCT Editorial – 10/2/06

This page was last updated on October 2, 2006.

Crunch time; Editorial; Beaver County Times; October 2, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Cost of health care must be addressed before it’s too late

[RWC] Predictably for a liberal outlet, the editorial author appears to believe “cost” and “price” are synonyms.

“The wheels are coming off health-care coverage in America.

“The Associated Press reports that health insurance premiums increased by 7.7 percent this year, the smallest hike since 1999.

“But that’s no cause for celebration. The increase was still more than twice the rate of inflation, according to the head of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health-care research organization that annually tracks the cost of health insurance.

“Even worse, wages haven’t kept up with costs. Since 2000, health insurance premiums have gone up 78 percent, while wages have increased by 20 percent.

“Higher costs have driven down the number of employers who offer health care. Since 2000, The AP reports, the percentage of companies offering health benefits has fallen from 69 percent to 61 percent, in large part because they can no longer afford to provide such coverage.

“Overall, The AP reports, the total cost of health insurance for individuals now averages $4,242 a year. For families, the costs average a whopping $11,480.

“Health care isn’t a bargain for workers, either. They’re picking up more of the tab, either in the form of higher deductibles and co-pays, larger contributions or a combination of both.”

[RWC] What the editorial author doesn’t get is that employees always paid for all of their healthcare insurance. The only difference now is that increasingly some portion of that premium is now visible.

“The situation is even bleaker for those who are self-employed. As a result of high costs, many are uninsured or underinsured.

“And health-care costs are going to get much worse once the baby-boom generation starts to receive Medicare and Medicaid benefits.”

[RWC] Why? What the author should have written is that government expenditures for healthcare will rise.

In any case, perhaps the editorial author needs to do some research. Baby boomers have been receiving Medicaid benefits since Medicaid’s inception in the 1960s. Eligibility for Medicaid is based on income and other financial attributes, not age.

“Professor Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University, who is also a research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research, wrote in a Tax Foundation release that future obligations for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will create a $63 billion gap that will require doubling the payroll tax and huge cuts in benefits in order to pay off.”

[RWC] In case you’re not up on Medicare and Socialist Security tax rates, doubling the rates would result in payroll taxes of 30.6%! Here’s a prediction; that won’t fly. Does anyone care to guess what doubling Medicare and Socialist Security taxes would do to the economy?

“The United States is running out of time. Reforms are going to require sacrifices from everybody to prevent health care in America from imploding. It’s a matter of when, not if.”

[RWC] Did you note the editorial did ask the obvious and simple question, “Why are healthcare prices high?” That’s because of the old lawyer admonition, “Don’t ask a question when you won’t like the answer.”

Did you also note the editorial provided no recommendations? If you’ve read previous editorials on this topic, you know the Times solution is a taxpayer-funded national healthcare system.