Detailed Abstractions

For those interested in what some “journalists” are claiming to be “fishy” emails as such, here comes Slate to the rescue.

In an article titled Obama Wants to Kill Your Grandma, author Mike Madden does his best to stump for health care reform by building, then burning several men mad of straw.

The five myths he sees?

Myth 1: Democrats want to kill your grandmother

Myth 2: The government — i.e., you — will have to pay for abortions.

Myth 3: Obama will ban all private health insurance.

Myth 4: The government can’t possibly run a healthcare program.

Myth 5: Unlike private insurance, government bureaucrats will ration care

I consider myself pretty well informed and have yet to hear any of this crap, but lets assume it is being talked about.  Are they truly myths?

Skipping the first one completely as no one who understands rational thought honestly believes that politicians would endanger themselves by pushing for legislation they knew would kill their constituents.  Even with my very low thoughts about most politicians and their ability to critically think, politicians are rational.  & rational politicians can’t get re-elected if they purposefully wish to kill their citizens.

So, if someone reads an email that states, “Democrats want your grandma to die” and believes it, I think the fault lies with them and not the idiotic author.

On Myth #2 (abortions will be paid for): Since most Democratically controlled state government gives money to Planned Parenthood and one of Obama’s first act as President was to remove the executive order President Bush signed disallowing international funds to be used for abortion, this doesn’t seem all that “mythy”…

Please note:  I’m not making any judgment on abortion here, but it seems reasonable to expect prior behavior to continue.

On Myth #3 (the plan will ban private insurance):  I haven’t honestly heard it expressed in this way.  Most people who are against the plan for this reason, haven’t said the plan expressly forbids private health insurance, only that the government would be competing on an even playing field.  First, they wouldn’t pay taxes.  Second, they would have tax payer dollars to finance any potential loses.

Both of these things makes it nigh impossible for a private industry to compete with a public one.  Therefore, it’s predictable that this is the end result of the legislation and not a myth at all.

On Myth #4 (government can’t run health care):  The author uses Medicare & VA health care as reasons it’s possible.  It’s obvious that he is either completely unaware of Medicare’s cost overruns adding an unfunded liability to future generations of 30 trillion more than expected, but he apparently also missed the part when every politician in the country was screaming about how bad VA care is.

It’s also obvious, he’s never been to a VA hospital for care.  Either way, this is an opinion and in no way a myth.

Finally, the last one, Myth #5 (unlike private insurance, the government will ration care):  This myth is well worded for people unwilling to honestly debate health care.  For those willing to look at health care rationally though, the statement includes a false assumption, thereby invalidating it completely.

From mu understanding, no opponents have claimed that private insurance isn’t a rationing system.

Far from it, most of the opponents against government run health care seem to be the only ones willing to tell the truth.

The truth – health care will always be rationed.  Since there will always be an infinite want for health care, but for obvious reasons finite resources, rationing has to exist whether it’s private rationing or public rationing.

So the idea that this is a “myth” is simply another straw man playing with matches.

For those willing to go further, the real question is whether the market is more efficient at doing this job and therefore likely to be able to actually cover more people than the inefficiencies of the government itself.

The author may certainly disagree that the market provides a better solution, but it is not a myth.

It seems that for America, debates on major policy decisions are inversely proportional with rational thought.  For instance, on just two large questions – “Should we use pre-emptive strikes?” or “Should we completely remake health care” the main pieces of the debate has been obfuscation, logical fallacies, and messenger assassination. Which would make complete sense if we were a third world country where facts are hidden.

Since we’re not, it’s odd that for all the well meaning people who honestly believe that this is one of the largest questions of our time, the debate is nothing but a bunch of rhetorical gymnastics.

One last thing - when ever anyone is discussing any particular legislation and its potential future effects one must keep in mind that no one can prove or disprove any future hypothetical wrong.  The best thing we can honestly do when evaluating future predictions is to understand that most of them will be wrong for lots of reasons.

One important principles that should be kept in mind when passing 1200 page legislation aimed at completely overhauling 1/7th of the economy are unintended consequences.

This principle was demonstrated very well recently with a small program known as Cash for Clunkers.  Passed to remove older cars from the road to increase gas mileage of the current fleet, it actually produced several unintended consequences… some good, some bad.

Good:  It was a quick stimulus to the automobile industry

Bad:  It appears that most people traded in a 3rd truck for a new SUV.  It appears that the gas mileage differences are negligible.

Bad:  By taking $1000 cars, which poorer folks or younger kids, could use to get to work and/or school and giving them a value of $3000-$4500, we’ve hurt the poors chances to become mobile.

& many more, some of them we don’t even know or have yet to fully realize.  The reason is obvious, 536 people (Senate, Congress, & the President), no matter how smart, have enough brain power to effectively move the market in any direction they wish for the betterment of any particular group.  I wish we had people this smart, but even Einstein would be unable to effectively predict policy outcomes due to the myriad of people who will use those policies in their independent rational way.

As with all propaganda, calling things lies that you can’t disprove and burning randomly built straw men all make for very nice rhetorical tricks, but rational people should know better.