BCT Editorial – 11/23/08

This page was last updated on November 23, 2008.

Inching along; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 23, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Insurance industry’s shift on health care is a sign of change.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Just talking about national health care is an indication of how broken Congress is.

“Basically, the topic has been ignored for the last eight years, even as the health care in America has been imploding.

“Economically, health care in the United States eats up a larger percentage of GDP than any other industrialized nation. Financially, businesses and individuals are paying more and more for less and less. Medically, the United States lags behind other developed nations in many categories. Demographically, some 45 million Americans have no health-care coverage, and millions more are underinsured. Bureaucratically, the system is a mind-boggling mess.”

[RWC] Most of the stats quoted above are meaningless because they are cited out of context, and the “45 million Americans have no health-care coverage” comment is just plain bogus. I cover that in the paper referenced below.

“But because of the political and ideological gridlock of the last eight years and memories of the Clinton health-care debacle 15 years ago, members of Congress have allowed this mess to fester, showing little regard for their responsibilities to the American people.

“They have, however, been more than willing to do the bidding of special interest groups, especially the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, in return for hefty political support in the form of campaign contributions.”

[RWC] Those are serious charges. Where’s the proof?

“The result is the current mess, a system that nobody is happy with.”

[RWC] Nowhere does the editorial mention the cause. There’s a reason. Please read my paper entitled “Healthcare” to learn what that reason is.

“But times have changed, and just about everybody involved in health care understands that the status quo cannot be sustained.

“That’s why last week’s announcement by the health insurance industry that it will support a national health care overhaul that requires them to accept all customers, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions, is a major step forward, even if it does come with a major caveat. It will do so only if Congress mandates that everyone buys coverage.

“While the board of directors for America’s Health Insurance Plans announcement is important, it must be recognized as the start of a long process. It is encouraging, though, because it represents the possibility of action after years of inaction.”

“The goal now is to carry this discussion forward until some form of national health care coverage is achieved.”

[RWC] 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 they tend to refer to nebulous terms like “universal healthcare” or “national health care coverage” yet never describe what the Times means by those terms. It’s difficult to debate someone on an issue when they don’t define their position.