BCT Editorial – 5/11/08

This page was last updated on May 11, 2008.

All covered; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 11, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Genetic discrimination law wouldn’t be needed if U.S. had universal health care.” and the penultimate paragraph says, “If the United States had universal health care, that [genetic discrimination] would be a moot point because people would be covered no matter what their genetic makeup.”

The first paragraph says, “A very important bill regarding genetic discrimination speaks volumes about what is wrong with the U.S. health-care system.” That’s BS. In case you haven’t noticed, everything “speaks volumes about what is wrong with the U.S. health-care system” except for what I believe to be the primary culprit, government interference in the healthcare market since World War II.

Except as they apply to government, I oppose anti-discrimination laws. I believe people should be free to associate or do business with whomever they choose. I believe it’s stupid to discriminate against or in favor of people because of traits irrelevant to doing business, but being free means the right to do stupid things as well as smart.

By the time you get to the end of the editorial, you’ll notice it never gets around to telling us why the Times believes the assertions in the subtitle and the penultimate paragraph are true.

As previous editorials, I believe this editorial would lead most readers to conclude the Times is in favor of a government-run healthcare system. However, Times editorial page editor, Bob Uhriniak, disagrees with my conclusion that the Times supports a government-run, taxpayer-funded universal healthcare system. You can read more about this here. If you’ve been following Times editorials on the healthcare topic, you’ll note the editorials refer to the nebulous term “universal healthcare” yet never describe what the Times means by that. It’s difficult to debate someone on an issue when they don’t define their position.

While the Times and I appear to agree employer-based healthcare insurance is not the way to go, that’s where we part company. You’ll note the editorial fails to mention the only reason we have employer-based healthcare is due to government interference in the healthcare market beginning during World War II.

Please read my Healthcare paper for more of my position on this topic.