One of the reasons our progressive friends are losing the “death panel” debate involves their refusal to face the issue honestly. Their arguments read like chapters in a text on logical fallacies. An illustrative example can be found in this post by Conor Clarke:
It seems to me that if you’re going to make the unintended consequences argument in the case of health care, you have to do more than merely cite the abstract possibility of a future government euthanasia program.
This is a staw man “twofer.” Conservatives aren’t making an “unintended consequences” argument or claiming that Obamacare calls for a ”euthanasia program.” Our actual arguments involve the intended consequences of very real provisions contained in several Democrat “reform” bills.
Nor are fears about “death panels” limited to conservatives. There is a great deal of concern among libertarians about the kind of power that actual provisions of actual bills will give the federal government. Here is Michael Cannon, of the Cato Institute:
President Obama has proposed a new body that would enhance Medicare’s ability to deny care to the elderly and disabled based on government bureaucrats’ arbitrary valuations of those patients’ lives … It is right there in the legislation now before Congress, and it is called the Independent Medicare Advisory Council.
If this proposal goes through, IMAC will exercise its power vigorously in the name of saving money. This isn’t “abstract” speculation about “unintended consequences.” It’s the whole point of the exercise. The real-world inspiration for this mischief is already up-and-running in Great Britain:
Lest you think this too Orwellian to become reality, consider that this type of government rationing already happens in the United Kingdom. Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (or “NICE”) generally refuses to cover medical treatments that cost more the $35,000 per year of life saved.
So, if our progressive friends would kindly refrain from introducing straw men, red herrings and ad hominem attacks (slandering Sarah Palin is not a convincing rhetorical strategy) into the discussion, we might get a genuine debate from which actual reform could emanate.
Comments 4
More right wing BS. There are no death panels. Repeat–none at all. I read the link you posted to the Cato guy and then to the actual legislative proposal. There is some attempt in the legislation to reduce the cost curve and to provide the more cost effective care. This sounds prudent and fiscally conservative. But no death panels. Nor any talk of euthanasia or denial of care. And particularly none for Trig, since he is under 65. So stop lying please. Then “we might get a genuine debate from which actual reform could emanate.”
Posted 21 Aug 2009 at 12:33 am ¶If Catron were honest he’d admit that the endless stream of lies is nothing much to do with health at all but defending the big business interests of the health insurance industry and their cronies in profit making hospitals. If you look back through his blog there’s virtually nothing about actually improving healthcare for ordinary Americans. So - what about it David?
Posted 21 Aug 2009 at 6:01 am ¶It’s funny to hear government health care advocates criticize conservatives/libertarians for not wanting to “actually improve healthcare”.
If you look at all the ludicrous claims made by “progressives” about our health care system from the absurd life expectancy and infant mortality arguments to the constant reference to the WHO rankings that place the US 37th. None of these have anything to do with actual healthcare.
It would be refreshing to hear the “progressives” just be honest for once: the debate is all about power and redistribution of wealth. Nothing more.
Posted 21 Aug 2009 at 11:36 am ¶‘It would be refreshing to hear the “progressives” just be honest for once: the debate is all about power and redistribution of wealth.’
Indeed it is Stuart - good of you to come out in the open. As a ‘regressive’ yourself you want to maintain the gross inequalities that lead to the vast health and other differences between rich and poor. Progressives want to close the gap. Your response could hardly make it clearer that it is indeed about power and wealth and who gets what.
Posted 23 Aug 2009 at 3:34 pm ¶Post a Comment