While I am getting back up to speed here, I will sometimes go back through my files and republish older writings which seem oddly relevant now. Annoyingly, I apparently failed to put a date on this one, but I know for a fact it was before 2003 and probably after 2000. Not too bad a window, I suppose. At any rate, it was written somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 years ago and I have changed nothing in it (though I may have corrected some punctuation last night - I was half asleep, so don't quote me on that).
Getting Rights Right
Do People Have a Right to Services?
Here lately, I’ve lost track of how often I hear people talking about rights. Every time I turn around, someone is screaming about his right to this or her right to that. Frankly, it’s gotten to the point where I cringe every time I hear it, which is pretty sad considering how ardent a supporter of rights I am. My apprehension with this, however, is understandable when considered in the proper light. It is virtually impossible to defend rights to the fullest when people can’t even agree on how to define them.
One of the most visible examples of this in the current public discussion is the so-called Single Payer Health Plan. This plan, under various modified forms and differing names, is basically modeled after the socialized medical systems that can be found in such countries as Canada and England (though it is interesting to note that both of these countries have actually been moving or considering moving away from this system and toward more privatization in recent years). The central point of any such plan is tax-subsidized medical services that allow all people to have at least basic access without payment rendered at the time of service or due at a later date. I won’t just say “without payment” because, unless one doesn’t pay taxes, the service has actually been paid for, only before the fact. In this way, it is similar to an insurance plan, though usually without a deductible or co-pay. The only significant differences are that the payments are controlled by the government through taxes and that no one is allowed to opt out, neither the patient choosing to not use this form of insurance nor the doctor choosing to not accept this form of payment.
Also central is the justification for the control issue that is necessary for the plan: everyone has a right to medical services.
This is difficult to argue against without sounding like an ogre. Whenever we see someone who is sick or in pain, most of us want that person to have the necessary help. We don’t tend to think past that point. With Step One right in front of us, we often don’t think we have time to worry about Step Two and we’ll just deal with that when we get there. While wanting to fix the immediate problem is a natural human desire, refusing to look past the immediate problem frequently gets us into more trouble than it’s worth.
What if the solution we demand in Step One creates a problem in Step Two? In this case, we haven’t really solved anything; we’ve only postponed the problem. Postponing the problem is exactly what we’re doing when we confuse the issue and assign the value of “this is a right” where it does not belong.
In the example of Single Payer Health Plans, if everyone has a right to medical services, someone MUST provide those services. In Step One the patient has received service, but in Step Two the provider has been forced to render service, regardless of personal choice. Can it really be a right if it forces the violation of another person's rights? A carpenter has a right to not build a house. A farmer has a right to not grow crops. Does a doctor not have the equivalent right to not provide medical services? Why can I force a doctor to operate on me when I can’t force a farmer to feed me? Has the very act of graduating from medical school somehow changed the doctor’s rights and, if so, why aren’t students warned of this before they enroll?
While some may argue that it is issues of health or “quality of life” that alter this situation, I believe that my choice of counter examples demonstrates at least the inequality of this philosophy. Surely we all agree that food and shelter are equally health and quality of life issues. Yet even when we do step into these areas, we do not insist that every provider must play within the same government mandated game. We interfere only on a case-by-case basis where we actually deem it necessary and leave everyone else to play their own game. Why the insistence that health care be given its own all-encompassing set of rules?
Furthermore, if health care is a right, what happens when no one can provide it? If we can force doctors to render service, can we not also force eligible students to enter medical school so that we maintain the necessary amount of providers? If those who believe that health care is a right cannot embrace the logic of this idea, perhaps there is a flaw in their understanding of rights. Why is it appropriate to force one class of people but not appropriate to force another class toward the same purpose? It is an inconsistency that cannot be answered.
The reason for this is a faulty definition of rights. When properly defined, one right cannot cancel out another. I have the right to write this essay and you have the right to not read it. My right to write cannot force you to read and your right to not read cannot force me to not write. That’s the way it works, or at least that’s the way it should work.
By this definition, the only way I have a right to medical care is if I can provide it to myself. A right to health care otherwise would cancel out the provider’s right to free association and remove his right to govern his own labor. In any other situation, we would quite rightly call this slavery.
No one has the right to inflict slavery on another person, regardless of the situation. While it would certainly be nice to help people have access to medical services, we should be careful to not falsely define this generosity as a right. Courtesy isn’t a right, no matter how much better it might make the world.
If one wishes to defend rights, start by defining them correctly and consistently. If one wishes to promote access to health care, start by remembering that there are people with real rights on both sides of the issue. Both of these can be done at the same time, but they cannot be done as the same thing. Doing so is actually a promotion of slavery, and slaves don’t have rights.
Besides, who would you rather have cutting you open: the provider by choice or the provider by force?
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
This Day In History
"Give me liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry March - 23, 1775
"Every American is required to buy health insurance, like it or not." (paraphrased) Barack Obama - March 23, 2010
Yes, folks, I am still out here, just not quite settled in enough to go back to full time blogging. [Yes, things are going well. Thank you for asking.] However, I happened to notice the historical juxtaposition and had to say something. Those of you who remember what "liberty" means know exactly what I am saying. As for the rest of you ... Sorry, I make it a point to keep the language here family friendly and find that I cannot complete that sentence while maintaining that rule. Read between the lines and you should be able to figure it out.
Rest assured that I am still following the news as closely as ever and will be back to commenting in depth just as soon as I can.
"Every American is required to buy health insurance, like it or not." (paraphrased) Barack Obama - March 23, 2010
Yes, folks, I am still out here, just not quite settled in enough to go back to full time blogging. [Yes, things are going well. Thank you for asking.] However, I happened to notice the historical juxtaposition and had to say something. Those of you who remember what "liberty" means know exactly what I am saying. As for the rest of you ... Sorry, I make it a point to keep the language here family friendly and find that I cannot complete that sentence while maintaining that rule. Read between the lines and you should be able to figure it out.
Rest assured that I am still following the news as closely as ever and will be back to commenting in depth just as soon as I can.
Monday, December 7, 2009
When Numbers Don't Add Up
For the last few months I have, off and on, been presenting you with phrases to watch out for, to know when someone is spouting nonsense and should possibly have his or her entire opinion considered suspect. Today, I bring you another such phrase: "Americans overwhelmingly support this plan."
First of all, the phrase is ludicrous because there has rarely been any plan that Americans "overwhelmingly" supported. Here's a hint for those who are linguistically challenged: 2%-3% majority is not overwhelming support. For today's discussion, however, we're not even talking about that small a majority. In fact, we're not talking about a majority at all.
I'm referring, of course, to the health care debate. It should come as no surprise that I follow news on this debate fairly closely and also that I spend a considerable amount of time on the comments sections of these news stories to see what the "regular" people are saying. "Americans overwhelmingly support this plan," is a comment I see rather often and, I have to admit, I'm wondering about the medication levels of the people who say such things. These comments tend to come either from people who are giddy about the prospects of their favorite bill passing with no problems (apparently oblivious to the wrangling and difficulties that are reported daily) or from people who are angry with politicians not instantly falling in line on their favorite bill (apparently oblivious to the sheer numbers of people who have voiced concerns with the bills in question). The real problem here is that these people are pulling these overwhelming numbers out of their dreams.
According to the most recent polls (most from mid-to-late November with the Rasmussen poll being from this past weekend), there is no overwhelming support for the health care plans currently under discussion. There isn't somewhat-in-favor support. There isn't even the smallest majority support. When asked their opinions on the current plans under discussion, every major poll finds more people opposed to than in favor of.
Rasmussen 41% in favor 51% opposed
Gallup/USA Today 44% in favor 49% opposed
Washington Post/ABC 48% in favor 49% opposed
Associated Press 41% in favor 43% opposed
You'll notice that I'm showing polls from both the left and right side of the political spectrum and none of them show the slightest majority in favor, let alone overwhelming support. In the interests of being fair, that AP poll does show that 86% of Americans favor doing something to reform our health care system. Perhaps that is how these people are coming up with the "overwhelmingly support" claim. Americans overwhelmingly support reforming our health care system in general. However, that same poll only shows 41% approval for the specific methods of reform currently under discussion. Yes, people want reform. No, they do not want this reform.
That has been my point all along. Contrary to the lies being perpetrated by the far Left, being opposed to the current plans under discussion does not equal being in favor of the status quo. It does not equal being in favor of sky-rocketing prices. It does not equal being in favor of just letting people die. It equals being opposed to the current plans under discussion, nothing more and nothing less. News flash: More people are opposed to the current plans under discussion than are in favor. That should be cause for concern and should clearly indicate that we need to re-examine the current plans under discussion.
These people are operating under the idea that it is better to do anything at all than to do nothing, and that has always been a bad ideal. It is politically expedient, mushy, feel-good thinking that has caused more harm in history than it has ever done good. Following this thinking opens up the way to making things much worse because it makes intentions, rather than results, the guiding factor. We need to stop this headlong rush to "do anything" and make sure that what we're doing can actually have good results. Lying about overwhelming support isn't going to help anyone when reality comes to collect the bill.
First of all, the phrase is ludicrous because there has rarely been any plan that Americans "overwhelmingly" supported. Here's a hint for those who are linguistically challenged: 2%-3% majority is not overwhelming support. For today's discussion, however, we're not even talking about that small a majority. In fact, we're not talking about a majority at all.
I'm referring, of course, to the health care debate. It should come as no surprise that I follow news on this debate fairly closely and also that I spend a considerable amount of time on the comments sections of these news stories to see what the "regular" people are saying. "Americans overwhelmingly support this plan," is a comment I see rather often and, I have to admit, I'm wondering about the medication levels of the people who say such things. These comments tend to come either from people who are giddy about the prospects of their favorite bill passing with no problems (apparently oblivious to the wrangling and difficulties that are reported daily) or from people who are angry with politicians not instantly falling in line on their favorite bill (apparently oblivious to the sheer numbers of people who have voiced concerns with the bills in question). The real problem here is that these people are pulling these overwhelming numbers out of their dreams.
According to the most recent polls (most from mid-to-late November with the Rasmussen poll being from this past weekend), there is no overwhelming support for the health care plans currently under discussion. There isn't somewhat-in-favor support. There isn't even the smallest majority support. When asked their opinions on the current plans under discussion, every major poll finds more people opposed to than in favor of.
Rasmussen 41% in favor 51% opposed
Gallup/USA Today 44% in favor 49% opposed
Washington Post/ABC 48% in favor 49% opposed
Associated Press 41% in favor 43% opposed
You'll notice that I'm showing polls from both the left and right side of the political spectrum and none of them show the slightest majority in favor, let alone overwhelming support. In the interests of being fair, that AP poll does show that 86% of Americans favor doing something to reform our health care system. Perhaps that is how these people are coming up with the "overwhelmingly support" claim. Americans overwhelmingly support reforming our health care system in general. However, that same poll only shows 41% approval for the specific methods of reform currently under discussion. Yes, people want reform. No, they do not want this reform.
That has been my point all along. Contrary to the lies being perpetrated by the far Left, being opposed to the current plans under discussion does not equal being in favor of the status quo. It does not equal being in favor of sky-rocketing prices. It does not equal being in favor of just letting people die. It equals being opposed to the current plans under discussion, nothing more and nothing less. News flash: More people are opposed to the current plans under discussion than are in favor. That should be cause for concern and should clearly indicate that we need to re-examine the current plans under discussion.
These people are operating under the idea that it is better to do anything at all than to do nothing, and that has always been a bad ideal. It is politically expedient, mushy, feel-good thinking that has caused more harm in history than it has ever done good. Following this thinking opens up the way to making things much worse because it makes intentions, rather than results, the guiding factor. We need to stop this headlong rush to "do anything" and make sure that what we're doing can actually have good results. Lying about overwhelming support isn't going to help anyone when reality comes to collect the bill.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Confusing Reports - Very Important!
I'm reading about the new CBO report on the Senate health bill and I have to admit that I'm confused. Democrats (and most left-leaning news sources) are praising the report as a boon to their cause, but it sure doesn't look that way to me.
According to the New York Times, "Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the budget office said the bill would tend to drive up premiums." Subsidies would drop the premiums by 56% to 59%, for those who receive subsidies but, for those who don't receive subsidies and have to buy insurance on the individual market (the self-employed and those who cannot buy insurance through an employer), there would be an average increase in premium costs of 10% to 13%. Those who buy insurance through their employer should expect relatively no difference in premium costs, according to the CBO. Wait a minute! Aren't those who can't get insurance through their employer exactly who this reform is supposed to be helping? And these are the people who can expect a 10% to 13% increase in premium costs. What a way to be helpful!
It gets worse, though. The budget office says, "the proposal would tend to increase premiums for people who are young and relatively healthy", in other words, the very people who wouldn't even ordinarily be buying insurance if they weren't being forced to do so. So not only are we forcing people by law to buy something they don't want, we're also forcing them to pay more for it than it should cost. While we're at it, we are penalizing the young and healthy, the very people who, by all natural standards, should be able to expect lower health insurance costs, the people who should be rewarded for not being high risk.
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh claims, "This study indicates that, for most Americans, the bill will have a modestly positive impact on their premium costs." Most Americans? Are you honestly going to try to tell us, with a straight face, that "most Americans" will be receiving federal subsidies? There is not a subsidy program in this country, of any type, that even a quarter of Americans qualify to receive. There is less than zero chance that this subsidy program will apply to "most Americans" and that the cost of that subsidy will be kept down to $450 Billion over 6-8 years (the CBO places the cost of the subsidies - not counting any other costs - at $450 Billion over the next 10 years but the subsidies don't even go into effect until 2014 or 2016, depending on which version of the law you read, so they really don't get to count the first 2-4 years).
This latest report makes it even more clear that we are being lied to. This bill will not result in universal coverage (despite being the claimed goal, it has been admitted from the beginning that this would not happen), it will raise health care costs for many Americans, and - if the accuracy of past CBO estimates on major federal programs is any indication - it will raise the deficit. Congressional and Senate Democrats are lying, plain and simple.
I don't deny that some form of health care reform is necessary, but this boondoggle isn't it. Please spread the word and do not be misled by the positive spin being applied by the Democrats and the media. This report states, in its own words, that young and healthy people will pay more for health insurance. This report states, in its own words, that those who do not receive federal subsidies will pay more for health insurance. This report states, in its own words, that this reform will not help the people this reform is meant to help. I don't care which side of the debate you're on. Read the report, not the spin, and realize that you're being sold a bill of goods. You're being lied to and it's about time you got angry!
According to the New York Times, "Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the budget office said the bill would tend to drive up premiums." Subsidies would drop the premiums by 56% to 59%, for those who receive subsidies but, for those who don't receive subsidies and have to buy insurance on the individual market (the self-employed and those who cannot buy insurance through an employer), there would be an average increase in premium costs of 10% to 13%. Those who buy insurance through their employer should expect relatively no difference in premium costs, according to the CBO. Wait a minute! Aren't those who can't get insurance through their employer exactly who this reform is supposed to be helping? And these are the people who can expect a 10% to 13% increase in premium costs. What a way to be helpful!
It gets worse, though. The budget office says, "the proposal would tend to increase premiums for people who are young and relatively healthy", in other words, the very people who wouldn't even ordinarily be buying insurance if they weren't being forced to do so. So not only are we forcing people by law to buy something they don't want, we're also forcing them to pay more for it than it should cost. While we're at it, we are penalizing the young and healthy, the very people who, by all natural standards, should be able to expect lower health insurance costs, the people who should be rewarded for not being high risk.
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh claims, "This study indicates that, for most Americans, the bill will have a modestly positive impact on their premium costs." Most Americans? Are you honestly going to try to tell us, with a straight face, that "most Americans" will be receiving federal subsidies? There is not a subsidy program in this country, of any type, that even a quarter of Americans qualify to receive. There is less than zero chance that this subsidy program will apply to "most Americans" and that the cost of that subsidy will be kept down to $450 Billion over 6-8 years (the CBO places the cost of the subsidies - not counting any other costs - at $450 Billion over the next 10 years but the subsidies don't even go into effect until 2014 or 2016, depending on which version of the law you read, so they really don't get to count the first 2-4 years).
This latest report makes it even more clear that we are being lied to. This bill will not result in universal coverage (despite being the claimed goal, it has been admitted from the beginning that this would not happen), it will raise health care costs for many Americans, and - if the accuracy of past CBO estimates on major federal programs is any indication - it will raise the deficit. Congressional and Senate Democrats are lying, plain and simple.
I don't deny that some form of health care reform is necessary, but this boondoggle isn't it. Please spread the word and do not be misled by the positive spin being applied by the Democrats and the media. This report states, in its own words, that young and healthy people will pay more for health insurance. This report states, in its own words, that those who do not receive federal subsidies will pay more for health insurance. This report states, in its own words, that this reform will not help the people this reform is meant to help. I don't care which side of the debate you're on. Read the report, not the spin, and realize that you're being sold a bill of goods. You're being lied to and it's about time you got angry!
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Health Care Realities
The online edition of USA Today carried an article this morning that did not paint a rosy picture for those pushing for health care legislation in America. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted over the weekend, 42% of respondents are opposed to passage of a bill as it stands and only 35% are in favor. While the article does not specifically say, I assume that the other 23% fell into the undecided category. There aren't too many surprises when the polling is broken up by party demographic demographics, with 76% of Democrats being in favor and 86% of Republicans being opposed. What is a touch surprising - and should be more than a touch alarming for the Powers That Be - is that 53% of polled independents were opposed. Independents are often the barometer and deciding factor in American politics and are credited as having been a large part of Obama's victory. If we are starting to see a majority independent opposition to the discussed health care bills, that should be a worrying factor for those pushing the bills.
I should note, for my overseas readers who may not be aware, that USA Today/Gallup polls tend to slant slightly to the left, meaning - in this context - that they would be more likely to err in favor of the health care bills. Please notice that I said "slightly" and don't mis-characterize that or assume that I am accusing them of anything. Everyone leans some direction at least slightly and I state this only so that it is known that I am not posting the results of a poll stacked against health care reform. These polls don't lean nearly as far left as ABC or Huffington Post polls, and they don't lean right like Rasmussen. Just consider this a Full Disclosure situation.
While I found this poll to be interesting, I found the comments to be even more interesting (Don't I always?). The most interesting thing about the comments was the fact that the vast majority of them - and I mean something approaching 99% - had absolutely nothing to do with the article. Here we had an article clearly and only about the public opinion on a given subject and most of the comments were nothing more than the same Copy&Paste "Republicans are evil and want you to die" or "Democrats are evil and want to enslave you" nonsense that dominates most of this debate. It's no wonder we can't get anything done when no one knows how to address the subject at hand.
Here's a test: When faced with the statement, "The majority of Americans polled are opposed to health care legislation as it is currently being discussed", how do you respond?
A. Republicans have sold their souls to the insurance companies and will do anything they can to maintain the status quo.
B. Democrats have sold their souls to the trial lawyers and will do anything they can to transform America into a socialist state.
C. We should find out why the majority of Americans are opposed and either change the legislation accordingly or better explain those parts that are currently misunderstood.
If you answered A or B then you need to go stand in the corner and remain silent for the rest of the debate because you are obviously incapable of having an adult conversation. An honest debate requires that you actually acknowledge and address what you are answering and, if you cannot or will not do that, you should not be part of the debate. Blithely parroting some popular slogan in response to every question asked or statement made doesn't help anything.
Allow me to give another example that drives me insane: "Where were you for the last 8 years?" If this question is coming out of your mouth or off the tip of your fingers - and it pops out dozens of times every single time someone points out the legality or Constitutional issues of some political action - then you need to stop and reconsider what you are saying. For one thing, many of us who complain now were complaining then and your insistence on ignoring this fact only makes you look willfully ignorant. It's not like there aren't plenty of online sources you can easily check to find conservative and independent voices speaking out against Bush policies. For another, and more important, thing, even if not one single voice complaining now was complaining then, does that really address the issue of the moment? Assume, for the sake of argument, that Bush really did every evil thing liberals accuse him of and that no conservative or independent voices spoke out against these actions. Would that give Obama a free pass? Is that really what you intend with this question? Are you truly willing the ignore Constitutional and legal issues out of petulant spite?
I titled this post "Health Care Realities", so I should return to that particular subject. Easy enough since one of the off topic comments on that USA Today article caught my attention more than others. It purported to be a list of unarguable facts regarding health care legislation, and we all know how much I love lists of "unarguable facts", so let's examine them.
"1. This reform will not cover illegals or abortions."
This may be technically true as it stands now - though arguments can be made about enforcement with no teeth - but these two conditions are currently being hotly debated, so it is impossible to state as fact what their status will be in any final legislation.
"2. This reform will cost $130 billion less than not changing anything."
If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell. For starters, the CBO estimate did not claim that legislation would cost $130 Billion less than doing nothing. It claimed that a particular piece of legislation would reduce the deficit by $130 Billion over a given period of time. These are very different claims. Also, please identify one government program that has ever had an accurate cost estimate. These things inevitably cost more than their initial estimate and, when the initial estimate is over $800 Billion, $130 Billion can disappear in the blink of an eye.
"3. This reform will give preventative care to millions."
Give? Interesting choice of words. While technically true, this "fact" neglects to mention the millions of others who will be taken from to provide this gift.
"4. This reform will only raise taxes on the wealthiest people in this country, and they will still have cheaper taxes than they did under Reagan."
This is not only not a fact, it is a blatant lie. Among the taxes under consideration are taxes on businesses - including small businesses who are nowhere near the wealthiest in the nation - and taxes on so-called "Cadillac plans", many of which are held by middle class workers who happen to have jobs with people who have negotiated very good insurance policies. It is also arguable - and, I maintain, true - that any mandate requiring the purchase of insurance by people who choose not do so is, itself, a tax, and that is a tax that will affect many non-wealthy people.
"5. Tort reform will not lower the cost of health care as proven by Texas."
One state out of 50 proves the case for the whole? Interesting math you have there. Amusingly enough, even the CBO disagrees with you. While it might be arguable that tort reform would have a limited impact on lowering health care costs, it cannot honestly be argued that it would have no impact. It's also worth noting that those universal health care countries you people champion all the time all have some form of tort control as well.
"6. Interstate insurance is another way of saying, 'Take away state rights and give big government more power.'"
This, coming from someone who wants to hand control of the entire enchilada to big government. That's just too funny. Newsflash: The Constitution specifically allows for the regulation of interstate commerce. You may have heard that mentioned here and there.
"7. The #1 reason for unemployment in this country is the cost of health care."
What? See, even if you had tried solid arguments up to this point, you really lost credibility here. I suppose the banking and mortgage fiascoes that precipitated a full scale recession come in 2nd and 3rd? Never mind the fact that it is legislation currently under discussion that would link the cost of health care to employment, not the situation as it exists now.
"8. Poor people who get free ER visits will have to purchase insurance and pay something towards the public option. Even if they pay next to nothing, it will still be more then they pay now."
True to some extent, but there will also be subsidies covering many so they will still be getting free treatment and contributing nothing. In fact, the technical wording of this "fact" is false since "poor people" will be the ones receiving the subsidies and will still be paying nothing. It might also be argued that, since they will now have coverage, they will seek treatment more often and so actually cost the system more, rather than less. I'm just guessing here, but so are you. Neither of us is offering a fact on this one.
"9. People who are against this plan have no plans for themselves except "tort reform" and "interstate insurance", both of which I have already mentioned as bad plans."
And because you think they are bad plans, they are bad plans. Except that you didn't actually support the claim that they are bad plans and you haven't supported the claim that these two pieces are all the opposition is offering. There have been more than a dozen Republican and Independent plans put forward and dismissed or ignored. Do you honestly believe that these two options, reworded over and over again, are all those plans have offered?
"10. Insurance companies are spending more money to stop this reform, from the premiums we pay them, than ever before in the history of this country. They care about their bottom line and not about America."
They spent quite a bit in the 90s, so it's certainly debatable whether or not they are spending more than ever. However, it's their money. It doesn't matter if that money came in as your premiums, it's still their money. The money you spent at the grocery store doesn't continue to be your money after it's spent either. What I would be more concerned about is how much of my money the Democrats are spending to push the legislation. There is a difference, you see. That tax money they're spending actually does belong to us. Your last point is just a non-statement. Caring about the bottom line is their job. Caring about America is not. Don't get me wrong. Given a choice between a company that provides quality products/services and cares about America or a company that provides quality products/services but doesn't care about America, I'll choose the former whenever I can. That isn't really the point here, though. The point is that caring about the bottom line is not unAmerican, as you've tried to imply. Caring about the bottom line is one of the very things they are paid to do.
So much for facts. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. It would be nice, though, if people tried to focus on facts in such an important debate.
I should note, for my overseas readers who may not be aware, that USA Today/Gallup polls tend to slant slightly to the left, meaning - in this context - that they would be more likely to err in favor of the health care bills. Please notice that I said "slightly" and don't mis-characterize that or assume that I am accusing them of anything. Everyone leans some direction at least slightly and I state this only so that it is known that I am not posting the results of a poll stacked against health care reform. These polls don't lean nearly as far left as ABC or Huffington Post polls, and they don't lean right like Rasmussen. Just consider this a Full Disclosure situation.
While I found this poll to be interesting, I found the comments to be even more interesting (Don't I always?). The most interesting thing about the comments was the fact that the vast majority of them - and I mean something approaching 99% - had absolutely nothing to do with the article. Here we had an article clearly and only about the public opinion on a given subject and most of the comments were nothing more than the same Copy&Paste "Republicans are evil and want you to die" or "Democrats are evil and want to enslave you" nonsense that dominates most of this debate. It's no wonder we can't get anything done when no one knows how to address the subject at hand.
Here's a test: When faced with the statement, "The majority of Americans polled are opposed to health care legislation as it is currently being discussed", how do you respond?
A. Republicans have sold their souls to the insurance companies and will do anything they can to maintain the status quo.
B. Democrats have sold their souls to the trial lawyers and will do anything they can to transform America into a socialist state.
C. We should find out why the majority of Americans are opposed and either change the legislation accordingly or better explain those parts that are currently misunderstood.
If you answered A or B then you need to go stand in the corner and remain silent for the rest of the debate because you are obviously incapable of having an adult conversation. An honest debate requires that you actually acknowledge and address what you are answering and, if you cannot or will not do that, you should not be part of the debate. Blithely parroting some popular slogan in response to every question asked or statement made doesn't help anything.
Allow me to give another example that drives me insane: "Where were you for the last 8 years?" If this question is coming out of your mouth or off the tip of your fingers - and it pops out dozens of times every single time someone points out the legality or Constitutional issues of some political action - then you need to stop and reconsider what you are saying. For one thing, many of us who complain now were complaining then and your insistence on ignoring this fact only makes you look willfully ignorant. It's not like there aren't plenty of online sources you can easily check to find conservative and independent voices speaking out against Bush policies. For another, and more important, thing, even if not one single voice complaining now was complaining then, does that really address the issue of the moment? Assume, for the sake of argument, that Bush really did every evil thing liberals accuse him of and that no conservative or independent voices spoke out against these actions. Would that give Obama a free pass? Is that really what you intend with this question? Are you truly willing the ignore Constitutional and legal issues out of petulant spite?
I titled this post "Health Care Realities", so I should return to that particular subject. Easy enough since one of the off topic comments on that USA Today article caught my attention more than others. It purported to be a list of unarguable facts regarding health care legislation, and we all know how much I love lists of "unarguable facts", so let's examine them.
"1. This reform will not cover illegals or abortions."
This may be technically true as it stands now - though arguments can be made about enforcement with no teeth - but these two conditions are currently being hotly debated, so it is impossible to state as fact what their status will be in any final legislation.
"2. This reform will cost $130 billion less than not changing anything."
If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell. For starters, the CBO estimate did not claim that legislation would cost $130 Billion less than doing nothing. It claimed that a particular piece of legislation would reduce the deficit by $130 Billion over a given period of time. These are very different claims. Also, please identify one government program that has ever had an accurate cost estimate. These things inevitably cost more than their initial estimate and, when the initial estimate is over $800 Billion, $130 Billion can disappear in the blink of an eye.
"3. This reform will give preventative care to millions."
Give? Interesting choice of words. While technically true, this "fact" neglects to mention the millions of others who will be taken from to provide this gift.
"4. This reform will only raise taxes on the wealthiest people in this country, and they will still have cheaper taxes than they did under Reagan."
This is not only not a fact, it is a blatant lie. Among the taxes under consideration are taxes on businesses - including small businesses who are nowhere near the wealthiest in the nation - and taxes on so-called "Cadillac plans", many of which are held by middle class workers who happen to have jobs with people who have negotiated very good insurance policies. It is also arguable - and, I maintain, true - that any mandate requiring the purchase of insurance by people who choose not do so is, itself, a tax, and that is a tax that will affect many non-wealthy people.
"5. Tort reform will not lower the cost of health care as proven by Texas."
One state out of 50 proves the case for the whole? Interesting math you have there. Amusingly enough, even the CBO disagrees with you. While it might be arguable that tort reform would have a limited impact on lowering health care costs, it cannot honestly be argued that it would have no impact. It's also worth noting that those universal health care countries you people champion all the time all have some form of tort control as well.
"6. Interstate insurance is another way of saying, 'Take away state rights and give big government more power.'"
This, coming from someone who wants to hand control of the entire enchilada to big government. That's just too funny. Newsflash: The Constitution specifically allows for the regulation of interstate commerce. You may have heard that mentioned here and there.
"7. The #1 reason for unemployment in this country is the cost of health care."
What? See, even if you had tried solid arguments up to this point, you really lost credibility here. I suppose the banking and mortgage fiascoes that precipitated a full scale recession come in 2nd and 3rd? Never mind the fact that it is legislation currently under discussion that would link the cost of health care to employment, not the situation as it exists now.
"8. Poor people who get free ER visits will have to purchase insurance and pay something towards the public option. Even if they pay next to nothing, it will still be more then they pay now."
True to some extent, but there will also be subsidies covering many so they will still be getting free treatment and contributing nothing. In fact, the technical wording of this "fact" is false since "poor people" will be the ones receiving the subsidies and will still be paying nothing. It might also be argued that, since they will now have coverage, they will seek treatment more often and so actually cost the system more, rather than less. I'm just guessing here, but so are you. Neither of us is offering a fact on this one.
"9. People who are against this plan have no plans for themselves except "tort reform" and "interstate insurance", both of which I have already mentioned as bad plans."
And because you think they are bad plans, they are bad plans. Except that you didn't actually support the claim that they are bad plans and you haven't supported the claim that these two pieces are all the opposition is offering. There have been more than a dozen Republican and Independent plans put forward and dismissed or ignored. Do you honestly believe that these two options, reworded over and over again, are all those plans have offered?
"10. Insurance companies are spending more money to stop this reform, from the premiums we pay them, than ever before in the history of this country. They care about their bottom line and not about America."
They spent quite a bit in the 90s, so it's certainly debatable whether or not they are spending more than ever. However, it's their money. It doesn't matter if that money came in as your premiums, it's still their money. The money you spent at the grocery store doesn't continue to be your money after it's spent either. What I would be more concerned about is how much of my money the Democrats are spending to push the legislation. There is a difference, you see. That tax money they're spending actually does belong to us. Your last point is just a non-statement. Caring about the bottom line is their job. Caring about America is not. Don't get me wrong. Given a choice between a company that provides quality products/services and cares about America or a company that provides quality products/services but doesn't care about America, I'll choose the former whenever I can. That isn't really the point here, though. The point is that caring about the bottom line is not unAmerican, as you've tried to imply. Caring about the bottom line is one of the very things they are paid to do.
So much for facts. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. It would be nice, though, if people tried to focus on facts in such an important debate.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Speaking Out Of Both Sides
The public Option. According to some, it is a cost-cutting measure where the strength of the plan and the power of government work to lower healthcare costs thus, through market competition, forcing other insurance providers to also lower their prices. According to others, it is a back door attempt to push through a government takeover of healthcare where government subsidies keep prices and costs below the market thus preventing other insurance providers from being able to compete and forcing them out of business. In a partial attempt to combat the latter idea, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that they estimate such a public option would only receive about 12 million enrollees, far below any amount that could possibly lead to a government takeover, but doesn't that present another question?
If the public option will only attract about 12 million people and one of the stated goals of healthcare reform is universal coverage (we'll ignore for the moment the fact that not one of the plans on the table even claims to be coming close to this original goal) and the US population is roughly 300 million people ... Can anyone else do the math here? 12 million people isn't even a blip on the radar. The same figure used to defuse fears of a government takeover also clearly demonstrates that the public option wouldn't do a thing to cut costs. At that size it would be virtually invisible in the larger healthcare market. The only way a single provider could have a significant impact on overall pricing is if it were large enough to potentially take over the market. You can't have it both ways and government officials are talking out of both sides of their mouths hoping that people won't notice they are blatantly contradicting themselves. If there is no risk of government takeover through this plan then there is also no possibility of government price controls through this plan. The two are inextricably tied together.
What's most amusing about this, though, (aside from the lies and hypocrisy that are just par for the course) is that pro public option people keep talking about interjecting competition into the insurance market place? Inserting one provider is supposed to increase competition? Do you people know anything about business?
First of all, there is competition in the insurance marketplace. It's stifled, corrupt, and lame, but it's there. Adding a single provider to the mix will do absolutely nothing to increase that competition, even if that provider is the government. "But there are some states that only have one major insurance provider!" You're right. There are. And why is that? Because the law, as it currently exists blocks other providers from other states from entering those markets. If you are serious about increasing competition then strike down stupid laws that interfere with competition. No one on the left will talk about that possibility, though, because "increasing competition" is not really what they want. They're just using a catchphrase to try to lure people to their side. What they really care about is government force - they want the government to use its might to force prices down - but they can't say that because that would be a takeover and saying it would be admitting that the accusations from the other side are correct. The use of such concealing language, however, is an admission that they know they do not have the mandate they claim and they know that a significant percentage of the American population is opposed to the idea of a government takeover. Everything you say, even when you're lying, says something about you. Pay attention and you'll know what they think and why they're doing what they do.
We need reform, but nothing in that nonsense those idiots in DC are writing is about reform. Maybe it started out that way, but it's just political tug-of-war now. They're just trying to score points by looking like they're doing something without paying any attention to whether or not what they're doing is right. Business as usual. And you, the voting public, are eating it up like you always do. That's why it works. If a Democrat promises to spend money to fix a problem then democrats will cheer and vote for him without paying any attention to whether or not the fix was needed or whether or not the expense actually addressed the problem. If a Republican promises to block such an expenditure then republicans will cheer and vote for him without paying any attention to whether or not the fix was needed or whether or not the expense actually addresses the problem. Can you honestly not see what's wrong with this system? No, most of you can't, and that's exactly why we're in the mess we're in.
If the public option will only attract about 12 million people and one of the stated goals of healthcare reform is universal coverage (we'll ignore for the moment the fact that not one of the plans on the table even claims to be coming close to this original goal) and the US population is roughly 300 million people ... Can anyone else do the math here? 12 million people isn't even a blip on the radar. The same figure used to defuse fears of a government takeover also clearly demonstrates that the public option wouldn't do a thing to cut costs. At that size it would be virtually invisible in the larger healthcare market. The only way a single provider could have a significant impact on overall pricing is if it were large enough to potentially take over the market. You can't have it both ways and government officials are talking out of both sides of their mouths hoping that people won't notice they are blatantly contradicting themselves. If there is no risk of government takeover through this plan then there is also no possibility of government price controls through this plan. The two are inextricably tied together.
What's most amusing about this, though, (aside from the lies and hypocrisy that are just par for the course) is that pro public option people keep talking about interjecting competition into the insurance market place? Inserting one provider is supposed to increase competition? Do you people know anything about business?
First of all, there is competition in the insurance marketplace. It's stifled, corrupt, and lame, but it's there. Adding a single provider to the mix will do absolutely nothing to increase that competition, even if that provider is the government. "But there are some states that only have one major insurance provider!" You're right. There are. And why is that? Because the law, as it currently exists blocks other providers from other states from entering those markets. If you are serious about increasing competition then strike down stupid laws that interfere with competition. No one on the left will talk about that possibility, though, because "increasing competition" is not really what they want. They're just using a catchphrase to try to lure people to their side. What they really care about is government force - they want the government to use its might to force prices down - but they can't say that because that would be a takeover and saying it would be admitting that the accusations from the other side are correct. The use of such concealing language, however, is an admission that they know they do not have the mandate they claim and they know that a significant percentage of the American population is opposed to the idea of a government takeover. Everything you say, even when you're lying, says something about you. Pay attention and you'll know what they think and why they're doing what they do.
We need reform, but nothing in that nonsense those idiots in DC are writing is about reform. Maybe it started out that way, but it's just political tug-of-war now. They're just trying to score points by looking like they're doing something without paying any attention to whether or not what they're doing is right. Business as usual. And you, the voting public, are eating it up like you always do. That's why it works. If a Democrat promises to spend money to fix a problem then democrats will cheer and vote for him without paying any attention to whether or not the fix was needed or whether or not the expense actually addressed the problem. If a Republican promises to block such an expenditure then republicans will cheer and vote for him without paying any attention to whether or not the fix was needed or whether or not the expense actually addresses the problem. Can you honestly not see what's wrong with this system? No, most of you can't, and that's exactly why we're in the mess we're in.
Friday, October 2, 2009
The Difference Between America and Europe
I want to clear up some thing because many of my recent posts seem to be giving some people a wrong impression. Either that or people are not reading correctly and assuming I mean more than I say. Fair warning for the future: that is never a good idea. Just because common usage tends to place certain ideas together or under the same umbrella does not mean that I will agree with one because I agree with another nor does it mean that I will disagree with one because I disagree with another. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am neither Left nor Right. The Left irritates me more purely because I believe many of their ideas are more dangerous. Most of the Right's truly dumb ideas are ideas with no traction. They'll never pass so they're not a major concern. Most of the Left's dumb ideas, however, are among their most popular ideas, and that makes them more dangerous.
In this particular context, I'm talking about the healthcare debate. I am not inherently opposed to a state-sponsored healthcare system and, if you pay attention, I've never said otherwise. I do not believe that it is necessarily a bad thing if a wealthy nation chooses to provide healthcare assistance to its citizens and can do so, both financially and within the framework of its own legal system. I am opposed to the lies and hypocrisy that are almost the entirety of the American healthcare debate. I am opposed to the push to ignore the legal framework within which our country is supposed to work. And I am opposed to the level of top-down control that is being pushed on a nation that was not designed for top-down control.
Those last two points are what I want to address here. Whether or not we can financially afford some sort of state-sponsored healthcare system is open to debate but it would be hard to argue that one of the wealthiest nations on the planet can't do it. The sticking point, for that argument, would only be in what changes to current spending would be necessary. Whether or not we can get people to argue rationally instead of spitting and fuming ... Well, unfortunately, I am all too aware that is not likely to happen.
However, the big differences are in our legal framework and our built-in control designs.
For the legal framework, we have the Constitution. Most countries have one, but ours was one of the first of its kind. It has a few flaws because of that, but it has some really great parts too, great parts that later countries didn't always adopt. I freely state that I would have written some things differently, but there is a process for that, if you truly believe that something needs to change and can get enough people to agree with you. Ignoring the Constitution is not an option. When the powers that be wanted to control the behavior of everyone in the country once before, they wrote an amendment (Prohibition). When they realized that was a dumb idea and decided to remove it, they wrote another amendment. That's how this process is supposed to work. You don't just decide to ignore it, you amend it. If you can't get your amendment through the system, you don't get to make the change.
We lost sight of that fact somewhere along the way. I say "somewhere", but I can actually point to the when. It was right around the time FDR essentially declared war on the Supreme Court when they rightly told him that the General Welfare clause wasn't a blank check. That was the first time someone decided that their cause was so just they could just ignore the Constitution and change the entire nature of the nation without bothering with an amendment. Unfortunately, FDR had enough political clout that he was able to pull off that coup, and adherence to the Constitution has suffered since then as a result. The fact that we have forgotten how it legally works, however, doesn't make it right to continue doing it illegally.
The General Welfare clause is not a blank check, any more than the Common Defense clause is a blank check. Both of these clauses are clearly defined in the list of stipulations that immediately follow them. Can the necessities of these clauses change over time? Absolutely! That's what the amendment process is for.
As for top-down control, the United States of America were never meant to be one nation ruled from the top. Notice the word "were" there instead of "was"? That is the proper way to say that phrase because the name, itself, designates the way this country was designed: a collection of sovereign states choosing to act together for specific and well-defined functions. You want the perfect example of what America was intended to be? We created the system of the European Union over 250 years before you did! This is the thing that Europeans and many Left-leaning Americans don't fully understand. America is not a country in the same way that, for example, Germany is. Fashioning a national healthcare system for America would be roughly akin to fashioning a "national" healthcare system for the European Union. I'm sure it could be forced into existence, but how well would the individual member states respond to the Frankenstein's Monster it would be?
It's about population, both demographics and simple numbers. The average European country is about the same size as the Average American state and has about (rough, unscientific approximation here) the same demographic splits. Yes there are demographic differences within a given American state or European country but they are not as pronounced as those differences between different American states or different European countries. Also, what works for one sized population does not necessarily work for a significantly larger population, even if that larger population is made up of the same basic people. When it comes to control of any sort, it is exercised best when it is exercised closest. People tend to not mind so much when their local community tells them that their lawn must be maintained in such-and-such a manner, but let a government official removed by both distance and population make the exact same demand and you'll see people marching in protest. It is a simple and obvious phenomenon. The highest level of control should only be exercised by those people over whom you have the highest level of influence and from whom you can most easily separate yourself if you reach in impasse in what that control should be. If you have a disagreement with your local Community Co-Op or whatever, you can march right up to the director's house and have your argument. Try that with your senator. If your argument fails to achieve a result you can stand, changing communities is infinitely easier (and usually infinitely cheaper) than changing countries.
This is why the United States of America were organized in the way they were and why we, today, have a European Union instead of Europe as one giant nation. The level of governmental control that is taken for granted in Europe simply does not work when you multiple the population 20, 30, 50 times over. Or at least, it doesn't work in any way that we, Americans or Europeans, would accept. Want an example of how it does work? China. Need I continue?
In short, don't assume I stand for anything I haven't said I stand for unless it is an obvious corollary and try to understand that America and Europe are not the same thing. Or maybe they are, just not in the way you're trying to see it.
In this particular context, I'm talking about the healthcare debate. I am not inherently opposed to a state-sponsored healthcare system and, if you pay attention, I've never said otherwise. I do not believe that it is necessarily a bad thing if a wealthy nation chooses to provide healthcare assistance to its citizens and can do so, both financially and within the framework of its own legal system. I am opposed to the lies and hypocrisy that are almost the entirety of the American healthcare debate. I am opposed to the push to ignore the legal framework within which our country is supposed to work. And I am opposed to the level of top-down control that is being pushed on a nation that was not designed for top-down control.
Those last two points are what I want to address here. Whether or not we can financially afford some sort of state-sponsored healthcare system is open to debate but it would be hard to argue that one of the wealthiest nations on the planet can't do it. The sticking point, for that argument, would only be in what changes to current spending would be necessary. Whether or not we can get people to argue rationally instead of spitting and fuming ... Well, unfortunately, I am all too aware that is not likely to happen.
However, the big differences are in our legal framework and our built-in control designs.
For the legal framework, we have the Constitution. Most countries have one, but ours was one of the first of its kind. It has a few flaws because of that, but it has some really great parts too, great parts that later countries didn't always adopt. I freely state that I would have written some things differently, but there is a process for that, if you truly believe that something needs to change and can get enough people to agree with you. Ignoring the Constitution is not an option. When the powers that be wanted to control the behavior of everyone in the country once before, they wrote an amendment (Prohibition). When they realized that was a dumb idea and decided to remove it, they wrote another amendment. That's how this process is supposed to work. You don't just decide to ignore it, you amend it. If you can't get your amendment through the system, you don't get to make the change.
We lost sight of that fact somewhere along the way. I say "somewhere", but I can actually point to the when. It was right around the time FDR essentially declared war on the Supreme Court when they rightly told him that the General Welfare clause wasn't a blank check. That was the first time someone decided that their cause was so just they could just ignore the Constitution and change the entire nature of the nation without bothering with an amendment. Unfortunately, FDR had enough political clout that he was able to pull off that coup, and adherence to the Constitution has suffered since then as a result. The fact that we have forgotten how it legally works, however, doesn't make it right to continue doing it illegally.
The General Welfare clause is not a blank check, any more than the Common Defense clause is a blank check. Both of these clauses are clearly defined in the list of stipulations that immediately follow them. Can the necessities of these clauses change over time? Absolutely! That's what the amendment process is for.
As for top-down control, the United States of America were never meant to be one nation ruled from the top. Notice the word "were" there instead of "was"? That is the proper way to say that phrase because the name, itself, designates the way this country was designed: a collection of sovereign states choosing to act together for specific and well-defined functions. You want the perfect example of what America was intended to be? We created the system of the European Union over 250 years before you did! This is the thing that Europeans and many Left-leaning Americans don't fully understand. America is not a country in the same way that, for example, Germany is. Fashioning a national healthcare system for America would be roughly akin to fashioning a "national" healthcare system for the European Union. I'm sure it could be forced into existence, but how well would the individual member states respond to the Frankenstein's Monster it would be?
It's about population, both demographics and simple numbers. The average European country is about the same size as the Average American state and has about (rough, unscientific approximation here) the same demographic splits. Yes there are demographic differences within a given American state or European country but they are not as pronounced as those differences between different American states or different European countries. Also, what works for one sized population does not necessarily work for a significantly larger population, even if that larger population is made up of the same basic people. When it comes to control of any sort, it is exercised best when it is exercised closest. People tend to not mind so much when their local community tells them that their lawn must be maintained in such-and-such a manner, but let a government official removed by both distance and population make the exact same demand and you'll see people marching in protest. It is a simple and obvious phenomenon. The highest level of control should only be exercised by those people over whom you have the highest level of influence and from whom you can most easily separate yourself if you reach in impasse in what that control should be. If you have a disagreement with your local Community Co-Op or whatever, you can march right up to the director's house and have your argument. Try that with your senator. If your argument fails to achieve a result you can stand, changing communities is infinitely easier (and usually infinitely cheaper) than changing countries.
This is why the United States of America were organized in the way they were and why we, today, have a European Union instead of Europe as one giant nation. The level of governmental control that is taken for granted in Europe simply does not work when you multiple the population 20, 30, 50 times over. Or at least, it doesn't work in any way that we, Americans or Europeans, would accept. Want an example of how it does work? China. Need I continue?
In short, don't assume I stand for anything I haven't said I stand for unless it is an obvious corollary and try to understand that America and Europe are not the same thing. Or maybe they are, just not in the way you're trying to see it.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Talking Points And Debate
One of the most repeated accusations from the Left against the Right today claims that the Right has no ideas, only talking points. If you'd like, I can show you a list of at least half-a-dozen Republican-sponsored healthcare bills that the Left is making certain you don't see as argument against this accusation, but that isn't the point of this post. I want to talk about talking points and hypocrisy. Is the Left really innocent of the talking points over debate idea? Stroll through any comments section on this debate (and do so honestly) and you'll certainly have to wonder this yourself.
The two statements you will see most often are the already mentioned "no ideas, just talking points" claim that is patently false and ignores an avalanche of evidence against it and the point of this post: "Without a strong public option, there is no healthcare reform."
Seriously? If that isn't an empty talking point then we really need to discuss redefining that phrase.
Not one country that uses the type of healthcare system we are supposedly moving toward uses a public option, whether strong, weak, or otherwise. None of them! Obviously the "a public option is mandatory" idea isn't quite so universal in those countries actually using these ideas. Where did we come up with the idea that it is a must-have deal breaker?
I would seriously like an answer to a few questions on this subject:
1. Why is a public option necessary to healthcare reform if no one else is using it?
2. How is a public option going to affect the cost controls that are its supposed bright light? Keep in mind that official estimates only put enrollment at around 8 million people. Really? In a country of over 300 million people, a program with a whopping 8 million people in it is going to affect overall pricing how, exactly?
3. Assuming that a public option actually can have a positive impact on healthcare pricing, what makes it unique? Why is a public option the only idea that can accomplish this?
Seriously, if you're right then these are easy questions to answer. If you can't answer them then all you are doing is spouting talking points and really need to shut up about other people doing the same.
I am sick and tired of the blatant, over the top hypocrisy from the Left on this debate. Pelosi tells people that their rhetoric is risking violence after she called people Nazis. Grayson makes an ass of himself on the Senate floor almost immediately after the Democrats virtually crucify a Republican for doing the same thing (and by the way, folks, Wilson did apologize almost immediately and his fellow Republicans called him out for his behavior). Obama chides people for scaremongering while maintaining that we can't fix a recession (that had nothing to do with healthcare) without fixing healthcare. And of course, the Left screeching about talking points when all they are doing is screaming talking points.
Talk about children running the orphanage!
The two statements you will see most often are the already mentioned "no ideas, just talking points" claim that is patently false and ignores an avalanche of evidence against it and the point of this post: "Without a strong public option, there is no healthcare reform."
Seriously? If that isn't an empty talking point then we really need to discuss redefining that phrase.
Not one country that uses the type of healthcare system we are supposedly moving toward uses a public option, whether strong, weak, or otherwise. None of them! Obviously the "a public option is mandatory" idea isn't quite so universal in those countries actually using these ideas. Where did we come up with the idea that it is a must-have deal breaker?
I would seriously like an answer to a few questions on this subject:
1. Why is a public option necessary to healthcare reform if no one else is using it?
2. How is a public option going to affect the cost controls that are its supposed bright light? Keep in mind that official estimates only put enrollment at around 8 million people. Really? In a country of over 300 million people, a program with a whopping 8 million people in it is going to affect overall pricing how, exactly?
3. Assuming that a public option actually can have a positive impact on healthcare pricing, what makes it unique? Why is a public option the only idea that can accomplish this?
Seriously, if you're right then these are easy questions to answer. If you can't answer them then all you are doing is spouting talking points and really need to shut up about other people doing the same.
I am sick and tired of the blatant, over the top hypocrisy from the Left on this debate. Pelosi tells people that their rhetoric is risking violence after she called people Nazis. Grayson makes an ass of himself on the Senate floor almost immediately after the Democrats virtually crucify a Republican for doing the same thing (and by the way, folks, Wilson did apologize almost immediately and his fellow Republicans called him out for his behavior). Obama chides people for scaremongering while maintaining that we can't fix a recession (that had nothing to do with healthcare) without fixing healthcare. And of course, the Left screeching about talking points when all they are doing is screaming talking points.
Talk about children running the orphanage!
Monday, September 21, 2009
Stretching The Dictionary
Reading the news this morning made me laugh. I see that President Obama and George Stephanopoulos were arguing over whether or not the much-discussed Everyone Must Buy Health Insurance mandate qualified as a new tax on the middle class (thus breaking Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class) and Stephanopoulos broke out the dictionary. I had to go to YouTube and look it up. I cheered! That is something I would have done, and have done here, repeatedly.
Please don't accuse me of thinking that Stephanopoulos stole a trick from my playbook. I know perfectly well that he doesn't even know this blog exists. I still find it gratifying that someone in the mainstream media actually understands the concept of going to the dictionary - the official and codified record of what words mean - when debating the meaning of a word.
There were a few amazing moments in that little discussion (and by "amazing" I mean "Did he really go there?").
Obama accused Stephanopoulos of "stretching a little bit right there" for using the dictionary. Really? It is now considered "stretching" to go to the dictionary to settle a dispute on the meaning of a word? On what planet? I would like to think that this blatant Gotcha moment might come back to bite Obama but, unfortunately, I know all too well that his die hard supporters will just spin it to mean something else. They have already started attacking Stephanopoulos (by calling him - GASP - a Republican). The fact of the matter is that Obama was wrong, was caught being wrong, and tried to weasel out of it by making it seem like the eminently reasonable action of Stephanopoulos was something dirty and giggle-worthy. Apparently we are supposed to believe now that it is a bad thing to use words for what they actually mean.
Obama also made the amazing statement, "If I say that, right now, your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10% next year, and you say, 'Well that's not a tax increase.'" And I say, in this example, are you saying this as a president or as an insurance company? Because your example doesn't say. If you are saying this as a president then 1) Yes, that actually would be a tax increase, in exactly the same way that your mandate is a tax increase and 2) When did you, as president, gain the Constitutional authority to tell the insurance companies what they will and will not charge? If, in this example, you are saying this as an insurance company then no, that is not a tax increase because insurance companies do not collect taxes. Duh! You're not really this stupid, are you? Or, more to the point, you don't really believe that we are this stupid, do you?
Finally - no surprise here - Obama fell back on the constant (and constantly false) auto insurance analogy. "Everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase." For one thing, Mr. President, many people in America do consider that a tax and thus considered it a tax increase when such laws were passed. They may have agreed with the reason and need for the tax, but it was still a tax. After dismissing that strawman, we get to go back to the many reasons (already listed here) as to why the comparing health insurance mandate to auto insurance mandate is a false analogy. I know it sounds good and they do both have the word "insurance" in them, but surely a Harvard law professor can parse language better than that.
If you have to spend money you might not otherwise spend, because the government told you to, under penalty of law, that is a tax, no matter what other fancy terms you care to apply. If it is a new expenditure then it is a tax increase. No amount of fancy rhetoric will make this fact go away. It may be that you believe this tax increase is warranted, but that is an entirely different debate. Warranted or not, it is still a tax increase. Obama is faced with the choice of breaking his word to try and go forward with his healthcare policy ideas or keeping his word and probably not going forward with this ideas. It is a pretty classic No Win situation but then, frankly, he (and any other politician you care to know) should never have made that "no new taxes" pledge. That's a promise that never ends well in the long run.
Please don't accuse me of thinking that Stephanopoulos stole a trick from my playbook. I know perfectly well that he doesn't even know this blog exists. I still find it gratifying that someone in the mainstream media actually understands the concept of going to the dictionary - the official and codified record of what words mean - when debating the meaning of a word.
There were a few amazing moments in that little discussion (and by "amazing" I mean "Did he really go there?").
Obama accused Stephanopoulos of "stretching a little bit right there" for using the dictionary. Really? It is now considered "stretching" to go to the dictionary to settle a dispute on the meaning of a word? On what planet? I would like to think that this blatant Gotcha moment might come back to bite Obama but, unfortunately, I know all too well that his die hard supporters will just spin it to mean something else. They have already started attacking Stephanopoulos (by calling him - GASP - a Republican). The fact of the matter is that Obama was wrong, was caught being wrong, and tried to weasel out of it by making it seem like the eminently reasonable action of Stephanopoulos was something dirty and giggle-worthy. Apparently we are supposed to believe now that it is a bad thing to use words for what they actually mean.
Obama also made the amazing statement, "If I say that, right now, your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10% next year, and you say, 'Well that's not a tax increase.'" And I say, in this example, are you saying this as a president or as an insurance company? Because your example doesn't say. If you are saying this as a president then 1) Yes, that actually would be a tax increase, in exactly the same way that your mandate is a tax increase and 2) When did you, as president, gain the Constitutional authority to tell the insurance companies what they will and will not charge? If, in this example, you are saying this as an insurance company then no, that is not a tax increase because insurance companies do not collect taxes. Duh! You're not really this stupid, are you? Or, more to the point, you don't really believe that we are this stupid, do you?
Finally - no surprise here - Obama fell back on the constant (and constantly false) auto insurance analogy. "Everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase." For one thing, Mr. President, many people in America do consider that a tax and thus considered it a tax increase when such laws were passed. They may have agreed with the reason and need for the tax, but it was still a tax. After dismissing that strawman, we get to go back to the many reasons (already listed here) as to why the comparing health insurance mandate to auto insurance mandate is a false analogy. I know it sounds good and they do both have the word "insurance" in them, but surely a Harvard law professor can parse language better than that.
If you have to spend money you might not otherwise spend, because the government told you to, under penalty of law, that is a tax, no matter what other fancy terms you care to apply. If it is a new expenditure then it is a tax increase. No amount of fancy rhetoric will make this fact go away. It may be that you believe this tax increase is warranted, but that is an entirely different debate. Warranted or not, it is still a tax increase. Obama is faced with the choice of breaking his word to try and go forward with his healthcare policy ideas or keeping his word and probably not going forward with this ideas. It is a pretty classic No Win situation but then, frankly, he (and any other politician you care to know) should never have made that "no new taxes" pledge. That's a promise that never ends well in the long run.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Solves Everything Cop Out
The Left has developed a bulletproof response to every policy objection the Right might care to raise: it's all a result of racism. This neatly ends the need to discover whether or not points should be discussed - let alone the possibility of having such a discussion - because now, instead of discussing the original point of debate, you're discussing whether or not the argument is racially motivated. The very fact that a charge of racism can so easily derail any conversation should, itself, be a testament to how far we have come in race relations - Would the accusation be so explosive or insulting if there truly were as many racists as the accusers claim? Do you honestly believe that if you accused, for example, the average KKK member of being racist, that person would be insulted? - but instead it is being used to drive us backward. If you don't think people can develop racist tendencies by being constantly falsely accused of such then you don't know much about psychology or sociology.
Is there a racial overtone (or undertone) to the objections against President Obama's policies? Interestingly, Obama himself doesn't think so, not that this is doing a thing to slow down the accusers. Of course, it could be that Obama is just taking the politically expedient route. He is, after all, a politician. So what about the accusations themselves? Do they hold up? Why don't we look at a few and find out?
"Representative Joe Wilson calling President Obama a liar last week was ALL about race -- the race of the illegal immigrants both the President and Mr. Wilson were referring to."
This is one of the biggest and one of the easiest to dismiss. This could actually be an entire posting subject on its own, but I'll try to keep it brief. For starters, this argument demonstrates that there is nothing new with improperly inserting racial accusations into a policy debate. There are many people on one side of the illegal immigration debate who insist on making it a racial debate instead of a law and immigration debate. According to them, if you support enforcing (and even toughening) illegal immigration laws then you are a racist. End of discussion. Never mind the fact that immigration laws do not concern a specific race or that supporting such laws doesn't say a thing about your opinion on legal immigration. According to the thinking of this group, it is racist because one racial group makes up the majority of illegal immigrants in this country. Seriously? Is it my fault one race breaks this particular law more often than any other? If one racial group made up most of the thieves in a given country (please note that I am not suggesting this to be the case nor do I believe it to be so - I'm only giving a stupidly exaggerated example) would it then become racist to enforce anti-stealing laws? Of course not! Who would suggest such silliness? Why then is it suggested in this other area of law?
"Also, if it is not racism why carry swastika signs or call President Obama all kinds of unsavory names, and carry loaded guns to the meetings or protest marches?"
Do you even know what racism is about? Here's a hint: "I don't like you, you're stupid," is not a racist comment. It doesn't matter if I'm purple and you're green, it's still not a racist comment. If you're going to accuse someone of racism, can you at least use racial examples to support your accusation?
"Why all the rascist signs at these meetings calling Obama Hitler and Muslim and using every deragatory comment based on religion and race? As a black female seeing that I call it rasism (sic)."
Again, an accusation of racism while citing examples that do not support the accusation. Muslim is a religion, not a race and comparing Obama (black) to Hitler (white supremacist) strikes me as a rather absurd way to go about racism. You are aware of the fact that many true racists would not consider comparisons to Hitler to be a bad thing, right?
I've collected another comment that says pretty much the same thing as this one but includes the phrase "Indonesian Muslim" instead of just "Muslim". If you aren't aware of the fact that the "Indonesian" portion of that particular accusation is an assertion on whether or not Obama is legally eligible to hold the office of president (no comment here on the irrationality of that assertion - that would be a different post) and not a racial slur against Indonesians then you haven't been paying enough attention to current events to really warrant making a comment.
"There is a huge element of racism in how many Republicans, white working-class people, and those on the religious right see the Democratic Party as a whole. I know religious people who seethe at the very thought of their tax money going to welfare cheats (i.e., blacks), who are full of anger at having to deal with resentful, boorish, fat, lazy, long-nailed government clerks (black women), and who burn with hatred at the anti-social low-lifes whose very presence drives down property values, ruins neighborhoods, and contaminates everything they touch (blacks again). For many of them the words "welfare", "socialism", "Obama", and "Democrat" are just code words for black, black, black, and black."
Are you familiar with the psychological term "projecting"? Just because you claim that these things are code words for "black" doesn't mean that they are. Personally, most of the welfare cheats that I have known or seen in my life have been white. Most of the boorish, lazy government workers I have known or seen in my life have been white. Most of the people complaining about these people that I have known in my life have been just as demonstrably angry about the "white trash" examples as at any other examples. Frankly, what does it say about you that you assume these things mean "black"? In short, this is another accusation without foundation. Because the accuser assumes the person in question means "black" does not in any way demonstrate or prove that this is actually the case.
What needs to be said here is that this is most of the current debate on racism. It is made up almost entirely of people assuming racism with no evidence to support the accusation. Are there racists involved in this debate? Absolutely, and anyone who suggests otherwise is too foolish to be involved in the debate. Are those racists the majority of the Right side of the debate? There is no evidence to support this assumption and I find it highly doubtful. The fact of the matter is that the Left, on the whole, assumes that you are racist if you don't support welfare, affirmative action, or entitlement policies in general or if you do support such things as enforcement of illegal immigration laws - in short, if you're not on the Left - so you are guilty before you have even done anything. This makes it easier for them because, if you are just a hateful little racist, they don't have to waste time discussing policy differences with you.
There is a continuing problem with racism in this country, but you cannot solve that problem by throwing everything you disagree with into the same pot and calling it all racism. People can disagree with spending decisions without having a racial motivation. People can believe there is no Constitutional justification for government involvement in healthcare without having racial motivations. People can believe that current plans under discussion will harm their own healthcare without having racial motivations. The very fact that these differences can legitimately exist indicates that you should be discussing them instead of dismissing them as racism and pretending they don't exist.
The fact that you refuse to discuss them does not say good things about your side of the argument.
Is there a racial overtone (or undertone) to the objections against President Obama's policies? Interestingly, Obama himself doesn't think so, not that this is doing a thing to slow down the accusers. Of course, it could be that Obama is just taking the politically expedient route. He is, after all, a politician. So what about the accusations themselves? Do they hold up? Why don't we look at a few and find out?
"Representative Joe Wilson calling President Obama a liar last week was ALL about race -- the race of the illegal immigrants both the President and Mr. Wilson were referring to."
This is one of the biggest and one of the easiest to dismiss. This could actually be an entire posting subject on its own, but I'll try to keep it brief. For starters, this argument demonstrates that there is nothing new with improperly inserting racial accusations into a policy debate. There are many people on one side of the illegal immigration debate who insist on making it a racial debate instead of a law and immigration debate. According to them, if you support enforcing (and even toughening) illegal immigration laws then you are a racist. End of discussion. Never mind the fact that immigration laws do not concern a specific race or that supporting such laws doesn't say a thing about your opinion on legal immigration. According to the thinking of this group, it is racist because one racial group makes up the majority of illegal immigrants in this country. Seriously? Is it my fault one race breaks this particular law more often than any other? If one racial group made up most of the thieves in a given country (please note that I am not suggesting this to be the case nor do I believe it to be so - I'm only giving a stupidly exaggerated example) would it then become racist to enforce anti-stealing laws? Of course not! Who would suggest such silliness? Why then is it suggested in this other area of law?
"Also, if it is not racism why carry swastika signs or call President Obama all kinds of unsavory names, and carry loaded guns to the meetings or protest marches?"
Do you even know what racism is about? Here's a hint: "I don't like you, you're stupid," is not a racist comment. It doesn't matter if I'm purple and you're green, it's still not a racist comment. If you're going to accuse someone of racism, can you at least use racial examples to support your accusation?
"Why all the rascist signs at these meetings calling Obama Hitler and Muslim and using every deragatory comment based on religion and race? As a black female seeing that I call it rasism (sic)."
Again, an accusation of racism while citing examples that do not support the accusation. Muslim is a religion, not a race and comparing Obama (black) to Hitler (white supremacist) strikes me as a rather absurd way to go about racism. You are aware of the fact that many true racists would not consider comparisons to Hitler to be a bad thing, right?
I've collected another comment that says pretty much the same thing as this one but includes the phrase "Indonesian Muslim" instead of just "Muslim". If you aren't aware of the fact that the "Indonesian" portion of that particular accusation is an assertion on whether or not Obama is legally eligible to hold the office of president (no comment here on the irrationality of that assertion - that would be a different post) and not a racial slur against Indonesians then you haven't been paying enough attention to current events to really warrant making a comment.
"There is a huge element of racism in how many Republicans, white working-class people, and those on the religious right see the Democratic Party as a whole. I know religious people who seethe at the very thought of their tax money going to welfare cheats (i.e., blacks), who are full of anger at having to deal with resentful, boorish, fat, lazy, long-nailed government clerks (black women), and who burn with hatred at the anti-social low-lifes whose very presence drives down property values, ruins neighborhoods, and contaminates everything they touch (blacks again). For many of them the words "welfare", "socialism", "Obama", and "Democrat" are just code words for black, black, black, and black."
Are you familiar with the psychological term "projecting"? Just because you claim that these things are code words for "black" doesn't mean that they are. Personally, most of the welfare cheats that I have known or seen in my life have been white. Most of the boorish, lazy government workers I have known or seen in my life have been white. Most of the people complaining about these people that I have known in my life have been just as demonstrably angry about the "white trash" examples as at any other examples. Frankly, what does it say about you that you assume these things mean "black"? In short, this is another accusation without foundation. Because the accuser assumes the person in question means "black" does not in any way demonstrate or prove that this is actually the case.
What needs to be said here is that this is most of the current debate on racism. It is made up almost entirely of people assuming racism with no evidence to support the accusation. Are there racists involved in this debate? Absolutely, and anyone who suggests otherwise is too foolish to be involved in the debate. Are those racists the majority of the Right side of the debate? There is no evidence to support this assumption and I find it highly doubtful. The fact of the matter is that the Left, on the whole, assumes that you are racist if you don't support welfare, affirmative action, or entitlement policies in general or if you do support such things as enforcement of illegal immigration laws - in short, if you're not on the Left - so you are guilty before you have even done anything. This makes it easier for them because, if you are just a hateful little racist, they don't have to waste time discussing policy differences with you.
There is a continuing problem with racism in this country, but you cannot solve that problem by throwing everything you disagree with into the same pot and calling it all racism. People can disagree with spending decisions without having a racial motivation. People can believe there is no Constitutional justification for government involvement in healthcare without having racial motivations. People can believe that current plans under discussion will harm their own healthcare without having racial motivations. The very fact that these differences can legitimately exist indicates that you should be discussing them instead of dismissing them as racism and pretending they don't exist.
The fact that you refuse to discuss them does not say good things about your side of the argument.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Disingenuous Questions And False Statements
Part of my relative silence lately has been due to simple overload. There is so much I want to say that picking and choosing becomes difficult. Also, I have been reluctant to allow this blog to be dominated by health care or climate change debates, yet those seem to be the two subjects dominating the portions of the news that I would normally comment on. Oh well, you play the hand you're dealt, right?
I'm pulling from comment sections again today, but I'm not going to use direct quotes. As you should easily see, there won't be any need. Instead, I am distilling questions and comments that are seen constantly among the various blogs and news comments but which are, themselves, a considerable distance away from being honest. I'll distill the question into its most common form and then try to give it an answer.
For example:
"If you are opposed to socialized medicine, why don't you refuse to accept Medicare?"
You mean these people should refuse to accept services for which they have already paid in full? You do realize, of course, that Medicare is essentially an insurance program that uses the strength of government to force you to pay premiums for decades before you are even allowed to use it. Of course you do. If you have ever received a paycheck, you have seen these forced premium payments for yourself. The people who are using Medicare have spent all or most of their lives expecting that this is how it would be because this was the only choice they were allowed. They planned accordingly and now your brilliant suggestion is that they fix someone else's problem by ditching their lives' plans at the last minute and just accepting that the money which was taken from them for years has disappeared into a black hole instead of coming back to them in any useful manner. I have a hard time believing that anyone uttering this particular question doesn't fully understand what they are suggesting.
"If you oppose health care reform for fiscal reasons, why didn't you oppose the unnecessary Iraq war for those same reasons?"
This one is wrong on so many levels. First of all, it assumes that everyone who is fiscally opposed to the current health care reform ideas was for the Iraq war, which is demonstrably false. There is a large number of fiscally conservative Libertarians who screamed bloody murder about the waste and uselessness of the Iraq war and who are also less than pleased with the current round of waste. I have no doubt that there are many Republicans and Independents who fall into the same camp. More importantly, though, this question assumes that everyone shares the belief that the Iraq war was unnecessary - a belief that even a semi-bright child can easily see is not shared - and, even more importantly, it assumes that everyone shared that belief from the beginning. Shall we do a reminder list of the people on the Left who supported the Iraq war at the beginning? Those people who supported the Iraq war did so precisely because they believed it was necessary, negating the entire "logic" of this question.
"Where were you for the last eight years when Bush was spending so much?"
Where were you, living under a rock? There were fiscally conservative Republicans howling against Bush's spending policies every single day! Just because they weren't the majority or the loudest voices doesn't mean you get to claim they weren't there. Are there more of them now? Of course there are! In case you hadn't noticed, spending has gone up exponentially. Those who were uneasy about Bush's spending - but not enough so to make a big stink - could easily be pushed over the line by doubling and trippling the spending. There is nothing sinister or inherently partisan about this. It's pretty normal. Most of us behave in the exact same way in our every day lives. We might wince at certain household expenses but decide not to make an issue just yet, and then hit the roof when the household budget goes through the roof. Can you honestly try to claim that this is unusual behavior?
"If you're so anti-socialism then we should make sure the police and fire departments never come to your aid since they are government funded."
Pure hyperbole, and stupid hyperbole at that. Can you even imagine a Republican anarchist? Because I can't and, for the record, there is nothing in Libertarian principles that would support this idea either. Socialism is the economic theory of public ownership of the means of production and allocation of resources. Defense - including domestic defense, ie. law enforcement and fire brigades - is not a part of the socialism theory. It isn't even covered. One has nothing to do with the other. Defense and how it is handled would be covered under political theory, not economic theory - yes, for those of you who don't know any better, you actually do have to be able to juggle multiple theories at the same time in order to successfully have this conversation - and most fiscal conservatives subscribe to political theories that do include defense as a natural and proper function of government.
I could go on like this all day, but I think you get the idea. I'll let you chew on these for a while and maybe we'll come back to this idea another time. If you see similar questions or statements that don't quite seem to make sense, feel free to send them along and maybe we'll include them next time.
I'm pulling from comment sections again today, but I'm not going to use direct quotes. As you should easily see, there won't be any need. Instead, I am distilling questions and comments that are seen constantly among the various blogs and news comments but which are, themselves, a considerable distance away from being honest. I'll distill the question into its most common form and then try to give it an answer.
For example:
"If you are opposed to socialized medicine, why don't you refuse to accept Medicare?"
You mean these people should refuse to accept services for which they have already paid in full? You do realize, of course, that Medicare is essentially an insurance program that uses the strength of government to force you to pay premiums for decades before you are even allowed to use it. Of course you do. If you have ever received a paycheck, you have seen these forced premium payments for yourself. The people who are using Medicare have spent all or most of their lives expecting that this is how it would be because this was the only choice they were allowed. They planned accordingly and now your brilliant suggestion is that they fix someone else's problem by ditching their lives' plans at the last minute and just accepting that the money which was taken from them for years has disappeared into a black hole instead of coming back to them in any useful manner. I have a hard time believing that anyone uttering this particular question doesn't fully understand what they are suggesting.
"If you oppose health care reform for fiscal reasons, why didn't you oppose the unnecessary Iraq war for those same reasons?"
This one is wrong on so many levels. First of all, it assumes that everyone who is fiscally opposed to the current health care reform ideas was for the Iraq war, which is demonstrably false. There is a large number of fiscally conservative Libertarians who screamed bloody murder about the waste and uselessness of the Iraq war and who are also less than pleased with the current round of waste. I have no doubt that there are many Republicans and Independents who fall into the same camp. More importantly, though, this question assumes that everyone shares the belief that the Iraq war was unnecessary - a belief that even a semi-bright child can easily see is not shared - and, even more importantly, it assumes that everyone shared that belief from the beginning. Shall we do a reminder list of the people on the Left who supported the Iraq war at the beginning? Those people who supported the Iraq war did so precisely because they believed it was necessary, negating the entire "logic" of this question.
"Where were you for the last eight years when Bush was spending so much?"
Where were you, living under a rock? There were fiscally conservative Republicans howling against Bush's spending policies every single day! Just because they weren't the majority or the loudest voices doesn't mean you get to claim they weren't there. Are there more of them now? Of course there are! In case you hadn't noticed, spending has gone up exponentially. Those who were uneasy about Bush's spending - but not enough so to make a big stink - could easily be pushed over the line by doubling and trippling the spending. There is nothing sinister or inherently partisan about this. It's pretty normal. Most of us behave in the exact same way in our every day lives. We might wince at certain household expenses but decide not to make an issue just yet, and then hit the roof when the household budget goes through the roof. Can you honestly try to claim that this is unusual behavior?
"If you're so anti-socialism then we should make sure the police and fire departments never come to your aid since they are government funded."
Pure hyperbole, and stupid hyperbole at that. Can you even imagine a Republican anarchist? Because I can't and, for the record, there is nothing in Libertarian principles that would support this idea either. Socialism is the economic theory of public ownership of the means of production and allocation of resources. Defense - including domestic defense, ie. law enforcement and fire brigades - is not a part of the socialism theory. It isn't even covered. One has nothing to do with the other. Defense and how it is handled would be covered under political theory, not economic theory - yes, for those of you who don't know any better, you actually do have to be able to juggle multiple theories at the same time in order to successfully have this conversation - and most fiscal conservatives subscribe to political theories that do include defense as a natural and proper function of government.
I could go on like this all day, but I think you get the idea. I'll let you chew on these for a while and maybe we'll come back to this idea another time. If you see similar questions or statements that don't quite seem to make sense, feel free to send them along and maybe we'll include them next time.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Comparing Insurance Apples And Oranges
I came across a new argument in the health care debate (new to me, at any rate). If you've been paying attention at all then you already know that one of the most controversial components in the reform package being discussed is the one that says everyone will be required to purchase health insurance or pay an annual fine for not doing so. Needless to say, there are many people who don't like being told they have to buy something whether they want it or not. It's intrusive. It's even insulting. Oddly enough, it's also quite the opposite of saving money since many of those people who choose to not have insurance are those who are young, healthy, and and possessing a lower income. The argument says, "You don't complain about mandatory auto insurance. Why should you complain about mandatory health insurance? You care more about insuring things than people?" This, of course, ties into what I said yesterday about demonizing your opponents so they are more easily dismissed, but there are a few problems with this argument.
For starters, there are many people who do complain about mandatory auto insurance and it is safe to say that all of these people are also numbered among those who complain about mandatory health insurance. These people don't much care for mandatory anything. They believe that it is demeaning to tell a free adult what to do with his or her life. I have to admit, I lean toward this camp, though I do not fit squarely within. I will make carefully tailored exceptions, but they're rare and you have to show a good, rational reason.
Of course, there are those who don't complain about mandatory auto insurance but do complain about mandatory health insurance. Why is that? What is the difference?
Well, for one thing, it is misleading to say that everyone is required to purchase auto insurance. No, actually it is plain false. You are only required to have auto insurance if you own and drive a car (or a truck or motorcycle or whatever you put on the highway). You are free to opt out of auto insurance by taking mass transit, riding a bicycle, walking, bumming rides with friends or family, or just plain not going anywhere (there are shut-ins and they are certainly not required to maintain auto insurance). In short, mandatory auto insurance is a long way from universal.
Mandatory auto insurance also serves a completely different purpose from mandatory health insurance. While there may be exceptions I don't know about (I doubt it, but you're free to correct me if I am wrong), the only thing mandatory about auto insurance in all locations with which I am familiar is liability insurance. In other words, you are not required to carry insurance on yourself; you are required to carry insurance to cover the possibility of your damaging someone else. That is a very distinct difference. See, this is why I said I make carefully tailored exceptions. I'm not thrilled with mandatory auto insurance laws, but I can see the necessity. When you're hurtling several hundred pounds of plastic and metal down the highway at sometimes dizzying speeds and surrounded by many many other fast-moving, heavy masses, it is safe to say that things can go wrong sometimes and there should be some reliable means of compensating the injured party when that "things can go wrong bit" happens to be your fault. I believe there are things that could be done to make the mandatory nature less onerous, but politicians are too lazy for that and I don't believe in miracles. At any rate, we can safely maintain that requiring you to carry some form of comprehensive health insurance on yourself and requiring you to carry some form of liability insurance on your car are not the same thing. They're not even cousins. Maybe distant cousins by marriage, but that's about it.
The final nail in the coffin of this comparison is the simple fact that auto insurance requirements are handled by state laws, not federal law. In fact, using a collection of state laws to justify a massive overreach of federal responsibility strikes me as serious arrogance, ignorance, or some twisted combination of the two. Are you people really not aware of the fact that one of the biggest complaints in this debate is the fact that this is not a proper, Constitutional function of the federal government? And you're using an example of that fact to support your case? You didn't think this through all the way, did you?
Apples and oranges have never been comparable and they still aren't. Just because you're trying to be snarky doesn't mean you're being clever. Perhaps if those of you who are so convinced you are right would step down off your high horses for a little while and actually listen to what is being said, rather than dismissing your critics as EEEEVIIIILLLLL, you might actually be able to have a debate and get something accomplished. Crazy talk, I know, but I'm pretty sure it's been done before.
For starters, there are many people who do complain about mandatory auto insurance and it is safe to say that all of these people are also numbered among those who complain about mandatory health insurance. These people don't much care for mandatory anything. They believe that it is demeaning to tell a free adult what to do with his or her life. I have to admit, I lean toward this camp, though I do not fit squarely within. I will make carefully tailored exceptions, but they're rare and you have to show a good, rational reason.
Of course, there are those who don't complain about mandatory auto insurance but do complain about mandatory health insurance. Why is that? What is the difference?
Well, for one thing, it is misleading to say that everyone is required to purchase auto insurance. No, actually it is plain false. You are only required to have auto insurance if you own and drive a car (or a truck or motorcycle or whatever you put on the highway). You are free to opt out of auto insurance by taking mass transit, riding a bicycle, walking, bumming rides with friends or family, or just plain not going anywhere (there are shut-ins and they are certainly not required to maintain auto insurance). In short, mandatory auto insurance is a long way from universal.
Mandatory auto insurance also serves a completely different purpose from mandatory health insurance. While there may be exceptions I don't know about (I doubt it, but you're free to correct me if I am wrong), the only thing mandatory about auto insurance in all locations with which I am familiar is liability insurance. In other words, you are not required to carry insurance on yourself; you are required to carry insurance to cover the possibility of your damaging someone else. That is a very distinct difference. See, this is why I said I make carefully tailored exceptions. I'm not thrilled with mandatory auto insurance laws, but I can see the necessity. When you're hurtling several hundred pounds of plastic and metal down the highway at sometimes dizzying speeds and surrounded by many many other fast-moving, heavy masses, it is safe to say that things can go wrong sometimes and there should be some reliable means of compensating the injured party when that "things can go wrong bit" happens to be your fault. I believe there are things that could be done to make the mandatory nature less onerous, but politicians are too lazy for that and I don't believe in miracles. At any rate, we can safely maintain that requiring you to carry some form of comprehensive health insurance on yourself and requiring you to carry some form of liability insurance on your car are not the same thing. They're not even cousins. Maybe distant cousins by marriage, but that's about it.
The final nail in the coffin of this comparison is the simple fact that auto insurance requirements are handled by state laws, not federal law. In fact, using a collection of state laws to justify a massive overreach of federal responsibility strikes me as serious arrogance, ignorance, or some twisted combination of the two. Are you people really not aware of the fact that one of the biggest complaints in this debate is the fact that this is not a proper, Constitutional function of the federal government? And you're using an example of that fact to support your case? You didn't think this through all the way, did you?
Apples and oranges have never been comparable and they still aren't. Just because you're trying to be snarky doesn't mean you're being clever. Perhaps if those of you who are so convinced you are right would step down off your high horses for a little while and actually listen to what is being said, rather than dismissing your critics as EEEEVIIIILLLLL, you might actually be able to have a debate and get something accomplished. Crazy talk, I know, but I'm pretty sure it's been done before.
Health Care Is Not A Right
The debate on health care reform is being grossly distorted by those who insist on calling health care a "basic human right" because, of course, if you call it a right then you can simply dismiss as evil anyone who disagrees with you. This is utterly ridiculous, but it is about par for the course. Is the average American education really this lacking in the basic use of logic? If health care is a right then every impoverished nation that blatantly and obviously cannot afford health care is depriving its citizens of a basic human right based on nothing more than affordability. What a ludicrous idea. This notion of health care as a right could only be argued through the arrogance of the wealthy and, make no mistake America, we are wealthy. Take your delusions about false rights to a country where most people can't afford shoes and see if you don't get laughed at.
This is the natural consequence of the growing belief that "whatever I want is a right", with no comprehension of what "right" actually means. There has never, until now, in the history of the philosophy of rights been a belief that a right could compel someone else to do something. Rights require someone else to not do something. There is a small but critical difference.
My right requires you to not interfere with my free speech, but it does not require you to listen nor does it require you to give me a stage. My right requires you to not take away my gun, but it does not require you to give me a gun nor does it require you to own a gun. My right requires you to not interfere with my free exercise of religion, but it does not require you to agree with my religion nor does it require you to give me a church. Do you see where this is going?
Your so-called right to health care requires someone else to give you health care. Your right makes someone else a slave. That is a contradiction that a true right cannot be. You can compel me to not strike you but you cannot compel me to assist you.
Is it a good idea to assist someone in need? Of course it is, and I don't know of too many people who are arguing otherwise. Despite the rhetoric of the left - calling those who oppose this "health care right" such wonderful names as "selfish", "greedy", and even "evil" - most of those on the No side of this debate are the very people who often donate to relief charities, volunteer at hospitals and homeless shelters, and otherwise give of both their time and money to help those who need help. This is not a debate over whether or not it is good to help people and characterising it as such is nothing more than deceit and character assassination to stifle debate.
What is being argued is whether or not it is acceptable to force people to help and who has the final authority on how to help.
Our health care system is an expensive, blundering mess, but that doesn't mean that replacing it with another expensive, blundering mess would be an improvement. There are things that need to be reformed - fraud and incompetence are rampant - but lying about the debate will not fix the problem. Dismissing the other side through some juvenile ranting about rights will not fix the problem. If you can't be bothered to even try to understand the nature of rights then just go text your buddies about how unfair it all is and leave the debate for the grownups.
This is the natural consequence of the growing belief that "whatever I want is a right", with no comprehension of what "right" actually means. There has never, until now, in the history of the philosophy of rights been a belief that a right could compel someone else to do something. Rights require someone else to not do something. There is a small but critical difference.
My right requires you to not interfere with my free speech, but it does not require you to listen nor does it require you to give me a stage. My right requires you to not take away my gun, but it does not require you to give me a gun nor does it require you to own a gun. My right requires you to not interfere with my free exercise of religion, but it does not require you to agree with my religion nor does it require you to give me a church. Do you see where this is going?
Your so-called right to health care requires someone else to give you health care. Your right makes someone else a slave. That is a contradiction that a true right cannot be. You can compel me to not strike you but you cannot compel me to assist you.
Is it a good idea to assist someone in need? Of course it is, and I don't know of too many people who are arguing otherwise. Despite the rhetoric of the left - calling those who oppose this "health care right" such wonderful names as "selfish", "greedy", and even "evil" - most of those on the No side of this debate are the very people who often donate to relief charities, volunteer at hospitals and homeless shelters, and otherwise give of both their time and money to help those who need help. This is not a debate over whether or not it is good to help people and characterising it as such is nothing more than deceit and character assassination to stifle debate.
What is being argued is whether or not it is acceptable to force people to help and who has the final authority on how to help.
Our health care system is an expensive, blundering mess, but that doesn't mean that replacing it with another expensive, blundering mess would be an improvement. There are things that need to be reformed - fraud and incompetence are rampant - but lying about the debate will not fix the problem. Dismissing the other side through some juvenile ranting about rights will not fix the problem. If you can't be bothered to even try to understand the nature of rights then just go text your buddies about how unfair it all is and leave the debate for the grownups.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Complaining About Your Own Behavior
It is rather funny. The left is up in arms over what they describe as "angry mobs" disrupting Town Hall meetings on Health Care Reform, but I don't recall ever hearing them complain about such behavior before. Even if we concede that there actually is some concerted effort to disrupt these meetings - a point that I, personally, have not seen enough on to concede, but for the sake of argument - such activities are hardly new. Outright disruption of opposing views has been political coin for years and the left never said a word against it. Of course, that could have something to do with the fact that they have always been the ones to use this coin.
They have never had a problem when leftists intentionally disrupt conservatives who are speaking to conservative listeners by invitation:
Ryan Sorba attempting to speak at Smith College, 2008
They even bring banners into the speech, shout slogans, and break windows to disrupt:
Tom Tancredo attempting to speak at UNC-Chapel Hill, 2009
They laugh about storming the podium:
Virgil Goode attempting to speak at UNC-Chapel Hill, 2009
Worse, they actually storm the stage:
Minutemen "protest" at Collumbia University, 2008
They even publish videos on YouTube with tutorials on disrupting opposing speeches:
These are the people we are supposed to feel bad for? These are the people who are complaining about angry mobs?
It isn't all bad. While researching this subject and looking for examples, I found one video that actually shows a ray of hope. Mind you, it is yet another leftist disruption of a conservative speaker, but it shows that there are those on the left who are as disgusted by this behavior as I am. If you can stomach the long enough to get to it, at about the 5.45 mark there is a student who chews out the "protesting" students and calls them embarrassing. At about the 7.30 mark there is a student (I believe the same one, but I am not certain) who states that he is a liberal, he is a leftist, but he believes in listening to the other side and truly allowing free speech. Imagine that.
David Horowitz attempting to speak at Emory University, 2007
You might notice a trend here; I certainly did. Everyone of these disruptions took place at a college campus. College campuses are supposed to be the bastions of free speech and the free exchange of ideas. There seems to be a disconnect somewhere between perception and reality.
What really amuses me is how well this ties in to something I saw yesterday. I was watching an Ann Coulter speech on television - I have never heard her speak before, but I was channel surfing and there was nothing else on. This at least looked entertaining, and it was. (The fact that all of the college students present were extremely polite and considerate the entire time was certainly high on the entertaining portion.) At any rate, at one point during the Q&A section, a student asked about whether or not conservatives should ever resort to the kinds of tricks used by the left and the reply was something to the effect of They won't learn by example; They only learn when they get stabbed by their own behavior. Then they are all about fixing the problem. I wonder if this might not be one of those situations.
Could the left actually be learning that it is obnoxiously rude and useless to yell at and mistreat a public speaker just because you disagree? We can hope, but I do have my doubts.
(Note: this is the very first time I have ever attempted to embed video into a blog, so cross your fingers that I did it correctly.)
They have never had a problem when leftists intentionally disrupt conservatives who are speaking to conservative listeners by invitation:
Ryan Sorba attempting to speak at Smith College, 2008
They even bring banners into the speech, shout slogans, and break windows to disrupt:
Tom Tancredo attempting to speak at UNC-Chapel Hill, 2009
They laugh about storming the podium:
Virgil Goode attempting to speak at UNC-Chapel Hill, 2009
Worse, they actually storm the stage:
Minutemen "protest" at Collumbia University, 2008
They even publish videos on YouTube with tutorials on disrupting opposing speeches:
These are the people we are supposed to feel bad for? These are the people who are complaining about angry mobs?
It isn't all bad. While researching this subject and looking for examples, I found one video that actually shows a ray of hope. Mind you, it is yet another leftist disruption of a conservative speaker, but it shows that there are those on the left who are as disgusted by this behavior as I am. If you can stomach the long enough to get to it, at about the 5.45 mark there is a student who chews out the "protesting" students and calls them embarrassing. At about the 7.30 mark there is a student (I believe the same one, but I am not certain) who states that he is a liberal, he is a leftist, but he believes in listening to the other side and truly allowing free speech. Imagine that.
David Horowitz attempting to speak at Emory University, 2007
You might notice a trend here; I certainly did. Everyone of these disruptions took place at a college campus. College campuses are supposed to be the bastions of free speech and the free exchange of ideas. There seems to be a disconnect somewhere between perception and reality.
What really amuses me is how well this ties in to something I saw yesterday. I was watching an Ann Coulter speech on television - I have never heard her speak before, but I was channel surfing and there was nothing else on. This at least looked entertaining, and it was. (The fact that all of the college students present were extremely polite and considerate the entire time was certainly high on the entertaining portion.) At any rate, at one point during the Q&A section, a student asked about whether or not conservatives should ever resort to the kinds of tricks used by the left and the reply was something to the effect of They won't learn by example; They only learn when they get stabbed by their own behavior. Then they are all about fixing the problem. I wonder if this might not be one of those situations.
Could the left actually be learning that it is obnoxiously rude and useless to yell at and mistreat a public speaker just because you disagree? We can hope, but I do have my doubts.
(Note: this is the very first time I have ever attempted to embed video into a blog, so cross your fingers that I did it correctly.)
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Healthcare Lies Continue
In an about face from one of his campaign promises, President Obama has announced that he would be open to the possibility of legislation requiring people to maintain health insurance whether they want it or not, fining those who fail to do so and only exempting those who absolutely cannot afford the premiums (note that this last group would only include those whose income fell under a certain bar and it would have nothing to do with what you felt you could or could not afford). If that sentence doesn't send a chill through you then I have to wonder if you understand America at all.
During his presidential campaign, Obama assured everyone that no one would be required to have health insurance under his ideas of healthcare reform. He now says that his thinking has evolved because of persuasive arguments others have made that say bringing down the cost of healthcare may require such legislation. This would normally be the time when charges of flip-flopping get leveled (and such charges actually are already flying across the blogoshpere), but I'm not going to take that route. Personally, I have no trouble with evolved thinking. If you cannot change your mind in the face of new evidence then you have no business being in charge of anything and what is often charged as flip-flopping is, in reality, sound decision making in the face of new evidence. I don't believe this is a case of new evidence, though. President Obama has demonstrated himself to be too intelligent and too sharp on research to not have thought of this little problem a long time ago (whatever problems I have with Obama, the abilities of his mind are not on the list). I don't think there has been any new evidence and I don't think his thinking has evolved. I think he lied, plain and simple.
To say that healthcare reform would be a long and hard battle would be a championship level understatement. The subject hasn't even been seriously broached since the Clinton administration and then it went down in flames. Barack Obama certainly knew this when he made healthcare reform a central part of his campaign. He knew what kind of fight he would have on his hands and he knew that he had to temper things accordingly.
No matter how sheep-like the American public becomes (and believe me, I expect some people to start grazing any day now), most people still feel their hackles rise when you start saying "mandatory" to anything that has never before been mandatory, especially when it means telling people they have to pay for something. For many people, it's different if you just take it in taxes. Then they never actually see the money to fret over having to spend it and they're not smart enough to fully realize they still spent it. (Think I'm being too harsh here? Witness how many people insist on calling single-payer healthcare "free" despite the fact that this is exactly how it is paid for.) There are too many of us, however, who would see through this scam and would scream bloody murder. If you start taxing for healthcare then you are wide open for the claims of socialism that most proponents of reform are trying to avoid. So, we're in a bind if we know that lowering costs is going to require people paying for health insurance they don't actually use to buoy up the influx of people who aren't really paying (being subsidized by other people's taxes) but are using the healthcare system every chance they get. If we tell people up front that we're going to make them pay for something they don't want, even some healthcare reform supporters are going to get mad and drop support. If we tell people we're going to add a huge healthcare tax ... Well, telling people they're about to get taxed even further usually results in not getting elected. So how do we address this?
It's pretty easy, actually, and a community organizer would know exactly how to do it. You get people completely and totally pumped about what they want first and then, only after they have built up a good head of steam, you break the bad news in such a way that the over-excited mob now sees it as a challenge to overcome, instead of something that would have stopped them cold before they got pumped. If you have ever been part of a charity organization, a high school football team, or a basic training platoon then you know exactly what I mean. It's done all the time and it's done in almost the exact same way this about face has been done.
What will President Obama's thinking evolve about next? He is already changing the wording of a promise he made just last week, that no one who liked their doctor or coverage would have to change under his plans. He's hedging his bets on that one before the news is even old. If I were a betting man, I would wager that whatever plan finally emerges, it will have little to no resemblance to what has been discussed so far.
Just wait and see.
During his presidential campaign, Obama assured everyone that no one would be required to have health insurance under his ideas of healthcare reform. He now says that his thinking has evolved because of persuasive arguments others have made that say bringing down the cost of healthcare may require such legislation. This would normally be the time when charges of flip-flopping get leveled (and such charges actually are already flying across the blogoshpere), but I'm not going to take that route. Personally, I have no trouble with evolved thinking. If you cannot change your mind in the face of new evidence then you have no business being in charge of anything and what is often charged as flip-flopping is, in reality, sound decision making in the face of new evidence. I don't believe this is a case of new evidence, though. President Obama has demonstrated himself to be too intelligent and too sharp on research to not have thought of this little problem a long time ago (whatever problems I have with Obama, the abilities of his mind are not on the list). I don't think there has been any new evidence and I don't think his thinking has evolved. I think he lied, plain and simple.
To say that healthcare reform would be a long and hard battle would be a championship level understatement. The subject hasn't even been seriously broached since the Clinton administration and then it went down in flames. Barack Obama certainly knew this when he made healthcare reform a central part of his campaign. He knew what kind of fight he would have on his hands and he knew that he had to temper things accordingly.
No matter how sheep-like the American public becomes (and believe me, I expect some people to start grazing any day now), most people still feel their hackles rise when you start saying "mandatory" to anything that has never before been mandatory, especially when it means telling people they have to pay for something. For many people, it's different if you just take it in taxes. Then they never actually see the money to fret over having to spend it and they're not smart enough to fully realize they still spent it. (Think I'm being too harsh here? Witness how many people insist on calling single-payer healthcare "free" despite the fact that this is exactly how it is paid for.) There are too many of us, however, who would see through this scam and would scream bloody murder. If you start taxing for healthcare then you are wide open for the claims of socialism that most proponents of reform are trying to avoid. So, we're in a bind if we know that lowering costs is going to require people paying for health insurance they don't actually use to buoy up the influx of people who aren't really paying (being subsidized by other people's taxes) but are using the healthcare system every chance they get. If we tell people up front that we're going to make them pay for something they don't want, even some healthcare reform supporters are going to get mad and drop support. If we tell people we're going to add a huge healthcare tax ... Well, telling people they're about to get taxed even further usually results in not getting elected. So how do we address this?
It's pretty easy, actually, and a community organizer would know exactly how to do it. You get people completely and totally pumped about what they want first and then, only after they have built up a good head of steam, you break the bad news in such a way that the over-excited mob now sees it as a challenge to overcome, instead of something that would have stopped them cold before they got pumped. If you have ever been part of a charity organization, a high school football team, or a basic training platoon then you know exactly what I mean. It's done all the time and it's done in almost the exact same way this about face has been done.
What will President Obama's thinking evolve about next? He is already changing the wording of a promise he made just last week, that no one who liked their doctor or coverage would have to change under his plans. He's hedging his bets on that one before the news is even old. If I were a betting man, I would wager that whatever plan finally emerges, it will have little to no resemblance to what has been discussed so far.
Just wait and see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)