BCT Editorial – 6/1/08

This page was last updated on June 1, 2008.

Geography lesson; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 1, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Children’s access to medical care leaves a lot to be desired in the United States.”

While spending a lot of time quoting the Commonwealth Fund report, the editorial couldn’t find space to mention the CF favors a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly.

The editorial also uses the bogus “Forty-seven millions [sic] Americans, including 8 million children, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, are uninsured.” claim. Even if it were a relevant fact, it’s wrong. I discuss this in detail in my Healthcare paper.

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.

Finally, here’s what I wrote in a comment posted on the Times website: “Even if I believed (which I don’t) the idea a government-run, taxpayer-funded monopoly could deliver healthcare cheaper than a true free market system (which we haven’t had since at least WWII) for a given level of accessibility, choice, quality, timeliness of treatment, etc., I’d oppose it because my freedom isn’t for sale.

“When we went with a government-run, taxpayer-funded monopoly to educate our kids, we gave up a bit of our liberty. Very few families can afford to pay both school taxes and the tuition of a private school. We lost another bit of freedom with the enactment of Socialist Security, another bit with Medicare, and so on. Since the line of thinking used by nationalized/socialized healthcare system proponents also applies to every other industry, where do we draw the line? Do we stop at healthcare, or do we move onto the next industry whose ‘overhead and administrative expenses’ are deemed ‘excessive’ by someone?

“Every time we turn over a personal responsibility to the government, or push a local government responsibility to the state or feds, we’re selling our liberty one piece at a time.”