Health Care BS

Joe Paduda took umbrage with my recent AmSpec article about Alaska’s CON law and sent a letter to the editor. Joe’s missive (several letters down under the title “BAD CON-NOTATIONS) is a comical mixture of irrelevancies and Lefty talking points.

My full response follows Paduda’s observations at the AmSpec web site, but I wanted to highlight one portion of the letter here at HCBS because I think it is a useful example of how “progressives” approach the health care reform debate. Joe opens as follows:

When speaking in favor of her bill to eliminate Alaska’s Certificate of Need Program, Gov. Palin referenced a recent paper authored by the Federal Trade Commission as support for her position; I’d note that the document was written during the present administration, one that has not been noted for an even-handed approach to science, analysis, and research.

You will note that this passage contains not a whiff of empirical data. Instead of providing objective reasons for doubting the FTC’s findings, Paduda simply parrots that tired canard about the allegedly “anti-science” Bush administration. His letter continues as follows:

In fact, the FTC report clearly states its intent to encourage movement to a “consumer driven” health care system that relies on market forces to determine costs access and quality.

Again, we aren’t given any actual data that might refute the paper quoted by Palin. For Paduda, an assertion that the FTC had a malevolent ”intent to encourage” a health care system that (gasp) “relies on market forces” is viable substitute for objective analysis.

This isn’t all that is wrong with Paduda’s case, but you get the picture. More of the same can be found at his blog and any number of other “progressive” health care forums. The substitution of partisan invective for intelligent argument is a standard “progressive” debate tactic.

Why? Because the facts don’t support their case. If forced to stick to objective reality, they will lose the debate.