Post-Gazette Editorial – 1/21/07

This page was last updated on January 27, 2007.

Healthy start: Pennsylvania takes the plunge on total coverage; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; January 21, 2007.

The PG opinion pages FAQ alleges, “it wouldn’t be unfair to describe the Post-Gazette’s philosophy as generally liberal on social issues and more conservative on economic issues.” This is yet another editorial baring the falsehood of “more conservative on economic issues.”

Here’s a question I’ll answer at the end of my critique. What words did a newspaper that claims to be “more conservative on economic issues” not utter once in this editorial?

Finally, the PG published two other op-ed columns on the same day as this editorial. The columns – “Forum: Rendell’s remedy / Sandra Fox” and “Forum: Rendell’s remedy / Andrea R. Fox and Jessica Seabury” – were identified on the PG website as being “Three people’s views on the governor’s new health care plan.” Read the opinion pieces and you’ll find two of the three authors concurred with the PG while the third author was upset because Mr. Rendell didn’t propose a healthcare system run completely by the Commonwealth.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“In a nation where 46 million people have no health insurance and the federal government has abdicated its role on the problem, it was inevitable that states would begin to act. Now Gov. Ed Rendell wants Pennsylvania to join Massachusetts, California and others in trying to find its own solution.”

[RWC] As I’ve shown before, the “46 million people have no health insurance” claim is BS. Also as I’ve noted before, not having insurance is not the same as not having access to healthcare. That’s a distinction folks like the PG fail to acknowledge.

“The wide-ranging proposal he unveiled last week is not the single-payer method that deserves consideration on a national level. But it offers enough change -- through incentives, mandates and controls -- to be an effective state response.”

[RWC] Note the euphemism “single-payer method.” Why can’t these guys say what they mean, a government-run nationalized healthcare system funded by taxpayers?

…

“On the surface, Pennsylvania’s problem doesn’t look so dire. About 767,000 adults are uninsured and, with 92 percent of its residents covered by health insurance, the state ranks seventh in the portion of those with health care. But a closer look shows even those robust numbers are precarious, with employers hit hard by the rising costs of worker health policies, employees having to pay a greater share out of their own pockets and too many Pennsylvanians living too close to the edge of a state of no insurance.

“So Gov. Rendell wants to move from Cover All Kids, his initiative passed last year to make affordable insurance available to every child, to Cover All Pennsylvanians, in which nearly 50 pieces of legislation will be required to make changes on a host of fronts. We don’t suspect every bill will be passed, or that each one will survive in original form, but the governor has launched a welcome and ambitious drive to confront the problem in a way that may actually work.

“His multipronged approach seeks to improve access to health care by making it more affordable. By focusing attention on a variety of special interests, Mr. Rendell might even be improving the plan’s political chances of success. For starters, we welcome his call to ban smoking in indoor workplaces, including bars and restaurants; extend the sales tax to smokeless tobacco and cigars; and raise the tax on cigarettes, the source of so many illnesses.”

[RWC] I’ll be the first to acknowledge smoking isn’t good for you. You need to be a knucklehead to believe otherwise. That leads me to an obvious question. If the PG is so hell bent on improving health, why doesn’t it propose making tobacco use illegal? The answer is tax dollars.

“The plan would impose tougher regulations on the insurance industry to spare small businesses and individuals from sudden spikes in premiums. The governor wants to prohibit insurance rate-setting linked to health status, gender and number of claims filed. He wants 85 percent of every insurance dollar to provide health care -- meaning a hard limit on profit and advertising. He wants to give the state insurance commissioner the power to reject rate hikes.”

[RWC] Here’s the short version of this paragraph. Mr. Rendell proposes wage and price controls on the Pennsylvania healthcare industry. Class, when was the last time wage and price controls ever helped an industry and its customers?

“The Rendell proposal would make changes in the health-care industry to bring down costs. The governor wants to exert pressure to reduce costly hospital-acquired infections and avoidable medical errors. He’d require hospitals to have non-emergency treatment centers that care for patients who don’t need the high-cost attention of an emergency room. He’d allow health-care professionals like nurses, physician assistants and others to render treatments and services to the fullest extent of their training and skills, thus reducing reliance on higher-priced medical personnel. He wants the state to curb the duplication of expensive, underutilized treatment facilities in the same region.”

[RWC] Here’s the short version of this paragraph. Other than the sentence about “hospital-acquired infections and avoidable medical errors,” Mr. Rendell proposes the government tell the Pennsylvania healthcare industry how to do its job. Class, when was the last time government ran a business better than the private sector?

Did you note one thing not mentioned in this “bring down costs” paragraph? Indeed, nowhere in the entire editorial does the PG mention tort reform to bring baseless malpractice lawsuits under control.

“At the workplace, Cover All Pennsylvanians would help small businesses provide health insurance to lower-wage employees at reduced rates. Companies that refuse would be hit with an assessment to help fund the insurance program. All uninsured Pennsylvanians, regardless of income level, would also be able to buy insurance at affordable rates and, eventually, may be required to carry coverage -- just as all Pennsylvania drivers must have auto insurance.

…

“Although Gov. Rendell said various interests are bound to reject the aspects of the plan that hit them hardest, we are pleasantly surprised that the response, to date, has not been vociferous. There may be a reason for that.

“Perhaps everyone -- consumers, business, hospitals and insurers -- finally agrees that something must be done, that 46 million Americans without health insurance leaves too many uncovered and, just as bad, too much cost for the rest of society to absorb.”

[RWC] I’m confused. We’re led to believe the mythical “46 million Americans without health insurance” don’t have insurance because they can’t afford it. If that’s true, and the rest of us pick up the cost of the uninsured, how does Mr. Rendell’s plan change that? Doesn’t that mean Mr. Rendell’s plan is also “too much cost for the rest of society to absorb?”

“The governor’s plan is not only a healthy way for the state to address the problem, but it also has the makings of a progressive approach to covering all Pennsylvanians.”

[RWC] Remember, “progressive” as used in this sentence is a synonym for liberal/socialist.

You probably already figured it out, but the answer to the question I posed at the beginning is “free market.”

There’s one other thing the editorial failed to note, and that’s who pays for all this wonderfulness. We can pretty much assume no mention will be made on the taxpayer hit for as long as Mr. Rendell and folks like the PG can duck it.