BCT Editorial – 3/27/09

This page was last updated on March 29, 2009.

Fair deal; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 27, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “Health-care changes must address inequities of present system.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Health care in the United States is wasteful, expensive, inadequate, fragmented and complicated.

“Most of all, it is unfair.”

[RWC] When lefties claim something “is unfair,” hold onto your rights and wallet.

“The Associated Press reports a study for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that nearly 1 in 5 workers is uninsured, a significant increase from fewer than 1 in 7 during the mid-1990s.”

[RWC] I’m not familiar with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, so I can’t vouch for the accuracy of their numbers. It may not be “fair,” but the mere fact the Times uses the RWJF as a source makes me skeptical.

“The main problem is cost. Total premiums for employer plans have risen six to eight times faster than wages, depending on whether individual or family coverage is picked, the study found.

“As a consequence, many workers have been forced to drop coverage because they cannot afford the premiums, the co-pays and the deductibles.

“In addition to that, rising costs are forcing many small businesses to drop health-care coverage, and those who try to buy individual or family coverage on their own find it is prohibitively expensive.”

[RWC] You’ll note the editorial never addresses the underlying reasons for the price increases. There’s a reason. Please read my healthcare paper.

“What really makes their plight an outrage is that they are footing the medical bills of others and getting little or nothing in return. (That was one reason this paper opposed the creation of the Medicare prescription drug plan.)”

[RWC] What a crock! If you believe this is why the Times opposed the Medicare prescription drug plan, I have a bridge to sell you. The only reason the Times opposed the benefit was politics. President Bush wanted it; that meant the Times had to oppose it. If the reason had anything with someone “footing the … bills of others and getting little or nothing in return,” wouldn’t the Times also oppose Medicaid, SCHIP, subsidizing government-run bus systems, et cetera?

As a reminder, I opposed the Medicare prescription drug plan and still do. That’s consistent with my position that government has no business being a healthcare insurance provider.

“As the news service reported, their payroll taxes help support Medicare, which covers the elderly. Income taxes and other federal and state levies pay for covering the poor and the children of low-income working parents.

“However, government provides little direct assistance to help cover workers themselves. When it does, demand far exceeds supply. Witness Pennsylvania’s adultBasic insurance program. As of late January, 50,000 were enrolled and 70,000 were on the waiting list.”

[RWC] No kidding, Sherlock! This is high school economics, or at least it was in the 1960s. When you artificially lower the price (as with a government subsidy) of a good or service, demand increases beyond supply.

“These are the forgotten people, and they deserve better. They are working hard and playing by the rules. Their work ethic sets a good example for their children.”

[RWC] These are the same people the Times calls selfish because they don’t want their taxes increased.

“Their numbers are growing. The percentage of uninsured workers ages 19 to 64 in 1994-95 was 16.1. For 2006-07, it was 18.4.”

[RWC] The editorial doesn’t cite the source of these figures. Was it the RWJF study?

“President Barack Obama has made reforming health care one of his top priorities. While the devil of change may be in the details — and that’s for the special interests, Congress and the Obama White House to thrash out — the universal goal of all involved should be to make the system fairer for all Americans.”

[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?”