Opposition? Why?

Some cross-eyed nimrod at the Huffingglue Post has suggested that the opposition conservatives have mounted to the proposed government control of health care is somehow ridiculous.  In a piece entitled The Five Opponents of Health Care Reform, the Lilliputian brain of Steve Benen fails to understand  why, exactly, people with half an intellect actually oppose the proposed health care reform.

So, I thought I’d explain just a little.

In the midst of angry protests, offensive placards, and ridiculousconservative talking points, it’s hard not to wonder what, exactly,motivates opponents of health care reform.

Well, if ACORN stopped busing astroturfers to counter honest opposition to a political proposal, maybe protests would be less angry, eh?

But I digress.  What motivates opponents of health care reform is the understanding that more than 1000 pages of legislation that few, if any, legislators actually read giving yet more control to inept government bureaucrats cannot possibly be a positive development in the history of our nation.

After all, improving the fundamentally flawed system would have broadbenefits for all Americans. Some of Rush Limbaugh’s listeners are oneserious illness away from bankruptcy. Some Sarah Palin supporters can’tget coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Some Glenn Beckviewers will see their insurance companies drop them when they needtheir coverage most. Some RNC donors may want to start their ownbusiness, but can’t because they can’t afford to pay the monthlypremiums. Some of the same people who attended “Tea Parties” in Aprilsaw their family coverage disappear after they lost their job.

Look, no one is saying that there aren’t flaws in the system.  There are some folks who have legitimate challenges getting health care.  But fact of the matter is that our issues do not require a government overhaul of the system.  Time and time again, it has been shown that any time the government gets involved in what should be free-market matters, it inevitably screws things up.  Hell, the Magic Marxist himself gave us a good example of it!  Don’t take my word for it!  Listen to him.

“FedEx and UPS are doing just fine;  it’s the post office that’s always having problems.”

Yes, some Glenn Beck listeners will likely have health care access issues.  Some Limbaugh listeners will likely face problems with their insurance companies.  But again… do the flaws in our health care system really warrant a complete overhaul by a bunch of morally corrupt politicians?

Across the country, untold thousands wait in seemingly-endless lines in the hopes of seeing a physician at a free clinic. And some of those thousands may very well be Republicans.

So let’s see.  When something is free, there’s an increased demand for it, which invariably causes supply to dwindle.  Hmmmm…  I seem to have learned this in some economics class somewhere…. So, reform of the health care system that will give “free” (I’ll get to the concept of “free” a little later) health services to anyone who wants it will drive up demand.  Basic economics tells us that when demand increases, so do…. say it with me: prices!  So when demand for health care increases, so will its cost.

It’s too often overlooked, but there’s nothing partisan or ideologicalabout this — everyone is getting screwed by the status quo. We’re allpaying too much for too little. A huge chunk of the country isuninsured, underinsured, or uninsurable, and the system is blind to howyou voted in the last election.

This is a prime example of emotionalist rhetoric driving debate.  There’s EVERYTHING partisan and ideological about this statement.  Everyone is NOT getting screwed by the system.  Nor are we paying too much for too little.  As Michael Tanner recently wrote:

America offers the highest quality health care in the world. Most ofthe world’s top doctors, hospitals and research facilities are locatedin the United States. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the NobelPrize in Medicine either are U.S. citizens or work here. U.S. companieshave developed half of all the major new medicines introduced worldwideover the past 20 years. And Americans played a key role in 80 percentof the most important medical advances of the past 30 years.

If you are diagnosed with a serious illness, the United Statesis the place you want to be. Tens of thousands of patients from aroundthe world come to this country every year for treatment.

As for that huge chunk of the country being uninsured, underinsured or uninsurable… How many are uninsured by choice, whether it’s because they’re young and don’t feel like they need it or rich and would rather pay out of pocket?  How many are illegal aliens who shouldn’t be here in the first place, but claim some kind of entitlement to health care provided by someone else’s effort? 

Fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans are consistently satisfied with their health insurance and the medical care they receive. But the nature of the politician compels him to stick his large proboscis into an issue the moment someone screams “PROBLEM!” – even if that someone represents a small minority of the population.

With this in mind, the far-right apoplexy is counter-intuitive. Whywould people who stand to benefit from health care reform literallytake to the streets and threaten violence in opposition to legislationthat would help them and their families? President Obama supports anapproach to health care reform that emphasizes competition and choice, doesn’t increase the deficit, and wouldn’t raise middle class taxes … and conservatives are comparing the plan to the Nazi Holocaust?

Because the people you claim will benefit from reform understand that what the politicians are promising will invariably lead to higher costs and rationing. When government purports to tell private insurers what they can and cannot do… when it prohibits them from doing business that makes them profitable, it will invariably drive private insurers out of business, because when you prohibit profit, you cannot expect a company to continue its existence for very long.  So when private companies gradually go out of business, what’s left?  Oh yeah!  The government’s plan!  So much for competition and choice!

To fully appreciate the larger dynamic, it’s important not to lump allopponents of reform together into one large group.

But, like all liberals who don’t like to be lumped in with the socialists, he’ll lump conservatives with the Lyndon Larouche assholes who walk around with Obama=Hitler signs at townhall meetings.

So then, Steve proceeds to do what he claims he won’t do, which is lump opponents of health care reform into distinct groups.  Oh… I’m sorry… he’s not lumping them all into ONE group, so it’s OK.

The Greedy: There’s a fairly small group of people who profithandsomely from the broken status quo. Regular Americans
are gettingscrewed by the system, but The Greedy are getting rich. Reform putstheir profits at risk, so they’re fighting back to protect theirlivelihood.

Not that there’s anything wrong with protecting your livelihood! Benen sounds like protecting your earnings is somehow a crime!  If wanting to protect my earnings from yet MORE government appropriation puts me squarely in the “Greedy” column, so be it.

But that’s beside the point.  Who stands to profit most from preventing reform?  The insurance companies, right?  Um… so if that’s the case, why is it that they’re actually on board with the Magic Marxist’s plan?  Drug companies, right?  Nope.  They’re on board too.  All those evil corporate interests continuously demonized by the liberals seem to be favoring health care reform.  Why?  Well, partly because when you mandate coverage for everyone, like the government aims to do, you’re mandating that young, healthy people who usually choose to forego health insurance because they have done a cost/benefit analysis of sorts and have decided that the cost of health insurance they will likely not need, because they’re young and healthy is not worth paying, to buy into a system.  So the insurance companies will be getting millions of new customers courtesy of government mandate.

Of course, the benefits of getting those millions of new customers could be outweighed by the costs of covering anyone and everyone who is sick, destroying the very fundamental concept of what health insurance is supposed to do. So much for risk discrimination.  Everyone will be covered, whether they want to or not – and insurance companies will cover everyone, whether they’re a risk or not.

The next Benen “lumpage” blames the “partisans.”

The Partisans: If President Obama does what many presidentshave failed trying to do, it will likely make him more popular and makehis presidency successful. The Partisans care more about Republicangains than the national well being, so they’re fighting to prevent amajor Democratic victory because it would be a major Democraticvictory. For an example, consider Bill Kristol’s infamous admonition to Republican leaders.

Of course that admonition could have nothing to do with the fact that the proposal is economically unsustainable, will drive up debts and deficits, and will ultimately lead to compulsion and rationing.  When you have no facts to support your ridiculous contentions, you must fall back on the old claims of partisanship.  Hell, I’m surprised claims of “racism” haven’t popped up!

The Tin-Foil Hats: If reform passes, the government will killtheir grandparents, create “death panels,” lavish benefits on illegalimmigrants, and mandate that ACORN volunteers live in their basement.The Tin-Foil Hats have active imaginations, and believe their ownridiculous conspiracy theories. They’re likely to benefit from reform,but the voices in their head discourage them from believing it.

So if fantasies of “death panels” are so paranoid, why was the provision that would ultimately lead to some form of them removed recently?   And by the way, if this is such a partisan issue, why were some Republicans vocal proponents of “end of life” counseling prior to it becoming a public focus?

The Dupes: Probably the largest group in opposition to reform,The Dupes tend to believe what The Greedy, The Partisans, and TheTin-Foil Hats have told them. When confronted with accurateinformation, The Dupes suspect the media, Democrats, and their lyingeyes aren’t to be trusted. After all, Sean Hannity wouldn’t lie tothem, would he? Like The Tin-Foil Hats, The Dupes stand to benefit fromreform, but are skeptical because they don’t know who’s telling thetruth and who isn’t.

See how open minded liberals are?  If you disagree with their policies, you’re either greedy, paranoid or just plain STUPID!  Thanks, Steve!  At least now we get to see your interminable arrogance and self-importance out in the open.

But we haven’t gotten to the last group yet.

The Wonks: The smallest of the groups, The Wonks areconservatives who actually care about substantive policy details, haveread the proposals, and believe there are better ways to improve thesystem. They’re looking for a meaningful policy debate, and areslightly embarrassed by their allies’ dishonest temper tantrums, butThe Greedy, The Partisans, The Tin-Foil Hats, and The Dupes havedecided to ignore The Wonks. They don’t scream at town-hall meetingsand they don’t show up for 9/12 strategy sessions.

Well, gosh!  At least the pompous Steve Benin admits that there are some conservatives, who are worth his time – who really examine the details of proposals, have thought about them and have done their research!  Why, thank you, oh Superior One!  Thank you for admitting that maybe there are some opponents of the existing health care proposals out there who aren’t greedy, paranoid or stupid!  Thank you for validating our existence!

Assclown.

Tell you what, Steve-O.  I won’t lump all liberals in with blind, Marxist Obama worshipers, who can’t get their heads out of his lap long enough to comprehend simple elements of economics either, OK?  I won’t lump them into groups such as those who feel entitled to the achievements and earnings of others simply by virtue of their indolence and incompetence.  I won’t claim that most of them just want something for nothing.  OK?

What I will tell you is this.

The reforms that are currently proposed are unsustainable.  Period.  Britain spends more than 8 percent of its GDP on its NHS – definitely more than they spend on their national defense.  What do they get for it?  Well, according to Tanner…

The one common characteristic of all national health care systems isthat they ration care. Sometimes they ration it by denying certaintypes of treatment altogether. More often, they ration indirectly,imposing cost constraints through budgets, waiting lines, or limitedtechnology. One million Britons are waiting for admission to NationalHealth Service hospitals at any given time, and shortages force the NHSto cancel as many as 100,000 operations each year. Roughly 90,000 NewZealanders are facing similar waits. In Sweden, the wait for heartsurgery can be as long as 25 weeks. In Canada more than 800,000patients are currently on waiting lists for medical procedures.

And if you listen to an actual Brit – Daniel Hannan, who has been a conservative MEP for South East England since 1999, you might learn something about the system you want to impose on all of us.  Hannan doesn’t claim that the Brits should adopt the US system.  After all, we do have our problems as well.  But he absolutely contends that it would be a mistake of monumental proportions for the US to go the way of the UK.

Rising health costs aren’t necessarily the problem.  There is nothing wrong with profits – yes, even in the health care industry (does that put me squarely in the “greedy” column, Steve?).  The question is: are we getting what we pay for?  Well, sometimes yes, and sometimes no.  When I pay money for a doctor’s visit, I pay
for the years of education that doctor has received, the money that doctor spends on malpractice insurance because of overly-litigious monkeys who think that suing those “rich” doctors is a way to make a living.  I pay for the years that doctor has spent working, getting experience and studying.  I pay for their expertise.  I pay for them to provide a service I couldn’t possibly provide myself because I do not have the expertise to do so, and I couldn’t possibly go back to medical school and get my degree (never mind that I suck at math and science).  My health is worth quite a bit to me, so I’m willing to pay quite a bit to maintain it.  My car is worth slightly less, so I pay a mechanic to fix it, but considerably less than I would pay a doctor to fix my body.  Get it?

And that leads us to the concept of “free.”  A service that is free to someone, inevitably must be provided by someone else, and ergo, paid for by somebody (unless of course, we live in a system of institutionalized slavery, where people are forced to work and give up the fruits of their labor to those who don’t).  Someone always pays something for a “free” service, and the current legislation will force us taxpayers to pay trillions of dollars.  That’s not “free.” That’s something that we, our kids, our grandkids, and probably our pets will be paying for during years to come.