BCT Editorial – 12/19/06

This page was last updated on December 19, 2006.

Diagnosis fatal; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 19, 2006.

I believe this editorial is an exercise in BS, hyperbole, and scare mongering. You’ll read what I mean below.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Rendell’s health-care proposals are like trying to plug a bleeding artery with a Band-Aid

“Gov. Ed Rendell is set to unveil a plan that he believes will lower health-care costs in Pennsylvania by making hospitals more efficient and less prone to mistakes.

“What Rendell’s talking about here is fine. At least somebody is trying to address the problem. But be sure that this would be a short-term fix, kind of like trying to attack a severed head with a Band-Aid.

“According to The Associated Press, Rendell has proposed rewriting rules to allow nurse practitioners to play a greater role in patient care. He also wants to create new hospital rules designed to cut down on infections.

“Both would serve to reduce costs, but they’re only two areas in a multifaceted system that is bleeding like an aortic aneurysm.

“The American health-care system is deplorable. To fix it would take Herculean acts from a Congress that has demonstrated it is not willing to repeat the decade-old failures of Hillary Clinton.”

[RWC] If “[t]he American health-care system is deplorable,” why do people from all over the world come here to be treated, including people from countries like Canada with government-run healthcare systems? Never let it be said the Times is afraid to employ hyperbole.

Actually, it would not “take Herculean acts from … Congress.” Rather than increase government’s interference in the healthcare market, Congress should work to get government out of healthcare.

Notice that while the editorial referred to “the decade-old failures of Hillary Clinton,” it failed to mention “Hillarycare” was a nationalized healthcare system and previous editorials lobbied for nationalized healthcare.

“Consider: Health-care costs are escalating exponentially each year; hospital care is deplorable; millions of Americans go without health insurance, not to mention the millions more who are underinsured; those who are insured are paying more and more with each passing year; the infant mortality rate among poor Americans is among the highest of industrialized nations … Need we go on?”

[RWC] I believe it’s more accurate to refer to escalating healthcare “prices” as opposed to “costs.”

All increasing numbers do so “exponentially.” Even if healthcare prices increased only 1%, that could be expressed exponentially. For example 100^1.0207 represents a 10% increase over 100. In the real world, the use of “exponentially” usually means an exponent of at least two. Using this traditional usage, if my own typical annual healthcare expenses increased exponentially, that would be an increase of at least 299,900%! The editorial’s use of “exponentially” is simply another example of hyperbole.

“[H]ospital care is deplorable?” More BS and hyperbole.

Regarding the health insurance comments, please read my critique of “Unfair and unjust.”

“[T]hose who are insured are paying more and more with each passing year?” Isn’t that true for most things we buy? Don’t get me wrong; healthcare prices are rising faster than they need to. My point here is the editorial comment falls into the “duh!” category.

I addressed the “infant mortality rate” misrepresentation in my critique of “Poor health.”

“How do you even begin to fix it?

“The first thing that needs to happen is for Congress to forget about petty political bickering and start talking about this crisis from both sides of the aisle. Then, members are going to have to go head-to-head with big-buck lobbyists from the drug companies and insurance companies and physicians, groups that contribute millions each year to political campaigns.”

[RWC] “[P]etty political bickering.” Translation: Conservatives need to stand down and accept whatever liberals want. Remember, Times editorials have been lobbying (sometimes subtly, sometimes outright) for “universal healthcare” (government run system) for at least the last couple of years.

Is it an innocent oversight that the editorial failed to mention “big-buck lobbyists” from labor union management and other liberal groups, like the Trial Lawyers of America (TLA)? According to FEC data (10/10/06), since 1989 seven of the top 10 campaign contributors were labor unions plus the TLA. Not in the top 10 were “drug companies and insurance companies and physicians.”

FYI, in true liberal fashion, the TLA recently realized we knew what the TLA did and so it changed its name to American Association for Justice. What a hoot! It’s the same as when socialists decided they wanted to be called liberals and then progressives or not labeled at all. These folks think they can hide their agenda by changing their names.

“Rendell has fired a first shot.

“‘The test for us is, are we going to have the intestinal fortitude to look down the barrel of the special interests and say, ‘Uh-uh guys, not this time, health care is too important of an issue for the people of Pennsylvania,’’ he said.”

[RWC] Every interest is a “special interest.” I suspect, however, the Times and Mr. Rendell use the term only to describe groups with which they disagree.

“But he’s going to need a lot of help from a lot of others, and that means folks such as U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, newly elected Sen. Bob Casey and U.S. Reps. Jason Altmire and Tim Murphy to get in on the act.”

[RWC] Hmm, I wonder why the editorial failed to note Mr. Altmire was a “big-buck lobbyist” for healthcare insurer and provider UPMC.

“Meanwhile, Americans will continue to bleed.”

[RWC] This is saying a lot, but this editorial may be the worst example of hyperbole and scare mongering I’ve seen from the Times.