HEARD ELSEWHERE

Thursday, Oct. 5, 2006 | 7:30 a.m.

From a Raleigh News & Observer editorial on a 'national headache': It used to be that cost limited access to health care only for America's poor, specifically those not quite poor enough to qualify for government-financed care. That was unjust, and many a populist politician has registered objections over the years. Yet nothing fundamentally changed in this country. The result has been relentlessly rising costs that now also threaten middle-class families' access to health care and the competitiveness of businesses, as well. States, despairing of solutions coming from Washington, are deciding whether to follow Massachusetts' lead and offer universal coverage on their own ... The news could hardly be worse for families whose breadwinners aren't earning enough to compensate. Wages have risen just 20 percent nationally over the past six years, while health insurance premiums have shot up 87 percent. Even plenty of employed people who have benefits are finding health insurance premiums unaffordable nowadays. In 1996, 87.7 percent of workers were covered by insurance obtained through large employers. The most recent estimate from federal researchers was that 81 percent are covered in that fashion. ... The cost of health care for workers is driving up the prices of U.S. cars and other products, making it harder for manufacturers to compete in global markets. Mass buyouts of employees and other corporate attempts to shed health care costs speak volumes of the stress, especially to members of Congress who look to business interests to help underwrite their campaigns. Among the possible solutions for this complex problem, the pols on Capitol Hill would be remiss if they didn't consider the performance of government health insurance programs. As The Washington Post reported last week, two-thirds of federal employees will see no increase in their premiums next year. Without the administrative costs driven by a horde of private insurers, it's at least co