BCT Editorial – 9/3/07

This page was last updated on September 4, 2007.

Crisis stage; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 3, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“First the good news: The number of Americans living in poverty declined for a first time since President Bush took office, and the nation’s medium household income has increased for a second straight year.

“The bad news is that at least 47 million Americans are now living without health insurance, and that number has climbed steadily over the past decade.

“Those figures were released last week by the U.S. Census Bureau in an annual report on poverty, income and health insurance.

“What the data reported by The Associated Press show is that while America seems to be improving on the poverty front, it has a long way to go toward solving its healthcare crisis.

“Based on figures from 2006, the Census Bureau found that 12.3 million Americans are living in poverty, down from 12.6 percent in 2005. The poverty level - an official number used to determine eligibility for federal programs - is now $20,444 for a family of four with two children.

“The Census Bureau also found that the medium household income in America has risen to $48,200.

“But the downside to all this came from surveys on health insurance.

“Forty-seven million Americans - 15.8 percent of the population - have no insurance. That’s up from 44.8 million (15.3 percent) in 2005.

“Even more telling is the fact that the fastest growing group without insurance are folks living in households that earn $75,000 or more in yearly income. Meanwhile the number of uninsured people living in households earning $25,000 or less declined.

“The overall increase of uninsured was attributed to a decline in the number of workers covered by employer-provided health insurance.

“What this means is that programs designed to provide health insurance for the nation’s poor are working. At the same time, healthcare costs continue to skyrocket, inducing more and more employers to drop coverage for their workers.”

[RWC] I wish editorial authors would learn the difference between “cost” and “price.”

“Sooner or later, America must address this issue, and it won’t be easy.

“Both Democrats and Republicans want to increase spending a program to insure children, but the Bush administration opposes the effort, saying it would motivate people to drop private coverage in favor of the publicly funded program.”

[RWC] While I disagree with increasing spending in this area, the editorial didn’t cite the specific provisions President Bush opposes. You see, pending legislation would count individuals as old as 25 years old as “children” and kids in families making as much as $85,000/year would be covered.

“President Bush believes that containing healthcare costs and making insurance more affordable is the best way to address the issue, according to The Associated Press. The news service quoted several Democratic presidential candidates as saying they plan to address it if elected.

“But nobody as yet has proposed a viable plan.

“At some point, the nation will have to make tough choices and solve this crisis. The numbers prove that the current system is broken beyond repair.”

[RWC] Did you like the editorial’s recommended solution? Yeah, I didn’t see it either.

Please go to this link for my position on the healthcare issue, including my recommended solution.