BCT Editorial – 3/2/07

This page was last updated on March 11, 2007.

In poor health; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 2, 2007.

3/10/07 - Times editorial page editor, Bob Uhriniak, disagrees with my position that the Times supports a government-run, taxpayer-funded universal healthcare system. You can read more about this here.

This editorial is the third installment of a healthcare trilogy by the Times.

The trilogy began on Tuesday (2/27/07) when the editorial “A better place” led off with, “As contentious as the debate over universal health care can be, surely we can agree as a society that children should have such coverage.” (Note: “A better place” was in the print edition of the Times but not on the website.)

On cue, the following day the Times published two alleged news stories on kids and healthcare. One was the Washington Post article (“Boy dies of a toothache”) referenced in the editorial below and another was “A situation in decay” written by a Times staff writer.

When people from the media tell you there’s no collusion or other linkage between their “news” and editorial departments, remember this trilogy.

Here’s a question I occasionally pose at the beginning of a critique. When you get to the end of the editorial, what didn’t you read?

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“An ounce of prevention could have done for 12-year-old Deamonte Driver what pounds of cure couldn’t do - save his life.

“The Washington Post reports the Prince George’s County boy died on Sunday because he did not receive timely treatment for an abscessed tooth.

“Driver and his brother never received regular dental care, even though Driver’s mother, Alyce, has held jobs. However, those bakery, construction and home-health jobs did not provide insurance.

“The family qualified for Medicaid, but lost its coverage. Because it moved so much, including a stay in a homeless shelter, the system lost track of them.

“Like many people, they have trouble dealing with the intricacies of government bureaucracy.

“An example of that frustration can be seen when the family did have Medicaid coverage. Driver’s mother became so frustrated in trying to find a dentist who would treat Deamonte’s younger brother that she turned to the staff at the homeless shelter where they had stayed for help. Staff members made more than two dozen telephone calls before reaching an officer at the family’s Medicaid provider and a state supervising nurse who helped them find a dentist.

“Bureaucratic hassles aside, one reason it was hard to find a dentist is that only 900 of Maryland’s 5,500 dentists accept Medicaid patients. (Don’t be too quick to knock the dentists. The Post reported that reimbursement rates for dentists remain low nationally. In addition to low rates, dentists often are frustrated when they have to deal with Medicaid bureaucracy.)”

[RWC] While trying to cover for the parents, the editorial shot the Times “universal healthcare” crusade in the foot. If we’re foolish enough to go with the Times beloved government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare system, the editorial gave us a glimpse of what to expect. In a vain effort to control costs, the government will impose price controls and tons of bureaucracy and paperwork. The result? Fewer healthcare providers, just as this editorial conceded. I cover this a bit in my article on healthcare.

Of course, that’s a glimpse for those of us who won’t be able to afford to get healthcare outside the system. Those of us who can afford to bypass the “universal healthcare” system will be able to get whatever care we need whenever we need it. In other words, the Times supports a healthcare system that divides us into classes. What will the Times call the group that can afford to buy healthcare; the “healthcare class” perhaps? Remember, one of the goals of socialist programs is to divide us into classes.

“The boy came home from school on Jan. 12 complaining about a headache. His mother took him to a hospital, where he got medicine for a headache, sinusitis and a dental abscess.

“Eventually, he was rushed to Children’s Hospital, where he underwent emergency brain surgery. The paper reported he began to have seizures and had a second operation. The problem tooth was extracted.

“After more than two weeks of care at Children’s Hospital, the seventh-grader began six weeks of additional medical treatment as well as physical and occupational therapy at another hospital.

“He appeared to be on the mend when he suddenly took a turn for the worse and died.

“In life and in death, this 12-year-old child stands as a symbol for all that is wrong with health care in America.

“The Post reported the cost of Driver’s care could total more than $250,000. Pulling the tooth would have cost around $80. In his case, $80 of prevention would have been worth $250,000 in care.

“Driver died of a brain infection. But what really killed him was an American health-care system that is dysfunctional, inefficient, deadly and expensive.”

[RWC] Here’s the answer to my “what didn’t you read?” question. Nowhere did the editorial assign any responsibility to the child’s parents.

None of my grandparents graduated from high school, by no stretch of the imagination were they well off, and they raised my parents many decades before things like Medicaid, welfare, et cetera existed. Despite that and a far less healthy world than today, I believe it’s safe to say they would never have allowed their kids to die from a toothache.

Contrary to what the Times would like us to believe, our “American health-care system” didn’t kill this child. The people with the ultimate responsibility for this child were his parents.