BCT Editorial – 1/14/09

This page was last updated on January 14, 2009.

Staying afloat; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 14, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “Health-care payments eating up too much of jobless benefits.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Losing your job is bad enough.

“But seeing your health insurance eating up a big chunk of your unemployment compensation is really rubbing salt in the wound.

“Families USA, a liberal advocacy group, reports that in order to maintain single coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, the average unemployed worker would need to spend 30.4 percent of his/her unemployment insurance. (National average monthly unemployment compensation, $1,278; national average monthly COBRA premium, $388.)”

[RWC] Actually identifying a left-leaning group as “a liberal advocacy group?” How did that slip by the proofreader? Heads will roll! <g>

I didn’t attempt to verify the “facts” cited in this editorial so accept them at your own risk.

“As bad as that is, it is far worse for families. To maintain family coverage under COBRA, an unemployed worker would need to spend 83.6 percent of his/her jobless benefits. (National average monthly unemployment compensation, $1,278; national average monthly COBRA premium, $1,069.)

“The situation of jobless workers in Pennsylvania is only slightly better.

“Average monthly unemployment compensation here is $1,468 a month. The average COBRA for a single worker is $403 (27.5 percent), and a family premium is $1,107 (75.4 percent).

“Single workers have it tough, but families are being asked to do the impossible. Even with the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which could cover many children, no father or mother should have to decide between health care coverage for their families and putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads. (In nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and West Virginia — average premiums for family coverage equal or exceed unemployment insurance income.)”

[RWC] “[N]o father or mother should have to decide between health care coverage for their families and putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads?” I thought that’s what parents did.

“The Associated Press reported that President-elect Barack Obama has proposed spending about $80 billion to extend unemployment benefits and to subsidize health care for people who have lost their jobs.

“That would be a good start.”

[RWC] Did it occur to the Times that “extend[ing] unemployment benefits and … subsidiz[ing] health care for people who have lost their jobs” would actually serve as a disincentive for people to take a job?

“However, it is only a temporary bridge. At some point, the way in which the U.S. health-care system is run needs to be changed. It is costly, inefficient and unfair.”

[RWC] Note the editorial provides no details. Why?

“Americans need health care that is rational, not rationed as it is now.”

[RWC] Here a bit of the Times’ utopian view of a “universal system” peeks through. All healthcare systems require rationing. I prefer the free market approach to rationing. I believe it’s fair to say the Times prefers rationing by government.

“That will entail some form of universal system under which medical benefits are not directly dependent on where a person works.”

[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.

Finally, my paper entitled “Healthcare” describes a “system under which medical benefits are not directly dependent on where a person works” based on freedom. Does anyone want to bet against the Times finding that approach “unfair?”