Health Care Summit

It is with some reluctance I post anything relating to the recent shootings in Tucson Arizona. But will attempt to be as positive as possible.

Let me try to get the negative out of the way first. Yes some very foolish and ghoulish people have quickly been trying to use the incident to score political points in order to shame and silence political opponents. They have been well answered and refuted by many much better writers.

But there have been several – also on the left end of the political spectrum – who have so far done an excellent job of warning against the impulse to exploit the Tucson shootings for political gain.

• President Obama. Well said and well done sir. Thank you.
• Rachel Maddow.
• Jon Stewart.
• Howard Kurtz.
• Barbara Walters.
• The New Republic.
• Jake Schafer.

And many others I am sure.

Let me share something. There are plenty of public and political figures whose views I cannot stand. But the last thing in the world I want is for any harm to come to them.

Why?

Well first of all for the simple reason that they are human beings.

Also because one of the things that makes America great is we debate issues and then vote. Not a single shot was fired when power was transferred from George Bush to Barack Obama or from Nancy Pelosi to John Boehner. That is how political and social change is supposed to happen in the United States. In an orderly and peaceful manner.

There is a third reason. I can probably speak for most if not all classical liberals aka “conservatives” when I say we do not want to see political opponents hurt or killed. What we want is for our ideas to prevail and for their ideas to be defeated and discredited. What we want is for a majority of fellow Americans to think “man President Obama’s vision for remaking America is the pits” and/or “wow the best way to prosperity and security is through limited Constitutional governance”.

Violence against politicians does nothing to help persuade the American people that one way of governance is better than another. We can be more specific. Does any rational person seriously think shooting a member of Congress will help repeal ObamaCare? If anything it turns political opponents into martyrs and creates an environment in which out of respect no one wants to vote against what the dead/injured politician(s) support(s).

At the risk of waxing negative let me address the “heated rhetoric” rhetoric.

When some say the Tucson shootings were caused by “vitriolic rhetoric and hate speech” we need to stop and think for a moment.

On what basis do some describe some political speech as vitriolic/heated/hateful/violent? I submit that the only thing that is truly vitriolic/hateful/heated about the political speech in question is that the person complaining about it simply says so.* Disagreeing strongly with a politician or a political party or the government currently in power is not in and of itself vitriolic or violent or hateful.

*(I am aware that some dear readers will try to bring up examples. I would ask first how hard one has to look to find any examples of genuinely excessive political speech that says “this person is evil / this person needs to die / we need to take arms and overthrow this government”. Strong principled disagreement is not hate.)

Also how is current political speech somehow worse than in previous generations? Remember the 1960′s and early 1970′s?

But that is a secondary point – to say “oh yeah? you did it first and worse!” The primary point is this.

What classical liberals aka “conservatives” want is for their ideas about good governance to prevail – to persuade the voting majority of Americans that individual liberty and limited government are superior to leftist governance and statism. Social chaos and political violence do nothing to advance this goal.

Quick survey of some links that caught my attention.

Avik Roy demonstrates why Americans have good reason to be concerned that our healthcare system is on its way to becoming more like the National Health Service in Britain. “Britons are frustrated by the indifference and inhumanity of the National Health Service. Its problems are covered widely in the British press”.

I continue to be amazed that Chris Matthews is taken seriously by anyone. This time asking Bob Inglis who recently lost a Republican primary in South Carolina if he has been “hurt in the Republican Party now for having had a fine education”. Thereby reinforcing the impression that leftists assume anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid or evil or both. I have a bachelor’s master’s and doctoral degree from Cornell University along with a three year master’s from Baptist Theological Seminary in Richmond and consider myself a moron.

H/T Opinionated Catholic

We should be dismayed not pleased that the Obama administration goes after al-Qaeda by calling it a “racist organization”. Andy McCarthy puts it well in a recent post at National Review Online:

The race obsession of the Obama administration is a sight to behold. Remember, these are people who adamantly refuse to see the Islamic underpinnings of jihadist terror, although those underpinnings are obvious and undeniable to anyone willing to look. Yet, racism, their unified field theory for interpreting all human phenomena, somehow explains al Qaeda. Sure.

Eric Holder makes Janet Reno look good.

Associated Press has published an article challenging strongly some of the evidence and arguments advanced to refute claims the N-word was used against members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

If the article is correct this is deeply troubling on several levels.

I have written several times that classical liberals aka conservatives must be perfect. No mistakes. Of any kind. Ever. One mistake by one person in a group of one hundred or a thousand or a million and the entire group will be held guilty. Whether the orange team scores 10 points or 100 points if they get one red card and/or the violet team scores a single point then the violet team wins game over. Whether this is fair or not is not the issue.

Yes there are still several questions. But this does not look good for (1) the protesters or especially (2) those who argued that racial epithets were not used against members of Congress.

Update: Pretty strong response by Jim Hoft at Big Journalism. For what it is worth was unable to find what Congressman Shuler said to the Hendersonville Times-News. There are several details in the Associated Press article that seem odd. We have a serious problem here. This has turned into a poker game where each player refuses to fold but just keeps raising the bet. Eventually someone is going to lose an enormous pile of credibility. But how can the general public determine who is telling the truth and who is not?

Update 04/15/2010: James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal went to the trouble of speaking to Congressman Shuler’s office. The Associated Press reporter misunderstood. Especially interesting is a piece by David Weigel of the Washington Post. He saw and heard things that did not make the Tea Party crowds look good. But he heard nothing racial and “calls this round for the conservatives” concluding:

I think we’ve seen a paradigm shift, and that the March 20 story will be remembered by conservatives as evidence of how the media accepts attacks on conservatives without due diligence. (emphasis added)

At this point I am going to check and let the other player decide just how much they want to raise the bet for this hand.

Update 04/17/2010: Associated Press officially confirms that Congressman Shuler did not corroborate racial epithets used against members of Congress on March 20. What he confirmed was an epithet used against Congressman Barney Frank. It is not quite true the “three congressmen say they are telling the truth”. One of them has not said anything directly. Rather others say what he heard.

Psych!

Tea Party 48% Obama 44% says Rasmussen.

For the record I am not terribly interested in tracking approval or disapproval of President Obama. I am much more interested in tracking approval or disapproval of Congress. My interest is in the first part of that report.

Close your eyes click your heels three times and say “There’s no narrative but ours”.

Update 04/16/2010: Good piece by David Harsanyi about how the Tea Party movement is not as evil racist and stupid as the left would have us think and is much more educated sophisticated and mainstream than some might realize.

Once again how about a quick rundown of articles of note?

Another Black Conservative succinctly characterizes efforts to silence all opposition to ObamaCare. More specifically Congress bullying American companies that have the nerve to say how ObamaCare is already impacting them negatively.

Victor Davis Hanson asks the left to spare us the bottled piety. The “progressive” community redefined the character of political discourse between 2001 and 2008. For the left to regain credibility it must disown extremism present and past.

The Anchoress links to an article from 2008 that dared ask who is Barack Obama? Answer: the “political equivalent of a sociopath”. Put less dramatically he is an anthropologist who hates the American proposition. The writer caught a lot of heat then but reposts his article now and says he stands by every word. Strangely prescient.

Frank Rich and Charles Blow both with the New York Times attempt to characterize the growing dissatisfaction with the federal government in general and with ObamaCare in general. Rich says the “rage” is really all about white straight hatred toward blacks women and gays. Blow says something similar but focuses more on race and ethnicity. Whitey is upset because people of color are taking over. Went ahead and registered with the New York Times just so I could leave a couple brief comments. “This article might be genuinely evil” and “This is despicable”. No I will not link to them. Briefly I have at least two main concerns. The first is what happened to the young senator who gave lofty speeches about we are not divided into blue states and red states black America and white America and all the rest? The left is cranking the “divide and incite” amplifier to eleven. The second is at what point will rhetoric turn into reality? (An important article about this at American Thinker around September 2009 but could not find it.)

Gay Patriot makes the interesting point that if the left is this upset true liberals (and I will explain that in a forthcoming post) have cause for optimism.

Tony Blankley compares the current situation to 1854 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. November may tell if the current crisis is over. Or if we are about to enter a dangerous period.

Pete du Pont shows why American is not becoming like Europe. America is becoming worse than Europe.

Shikha Dalmia has an interesting article on how to oppose ObamaCare using the example of Gandhi.

Phew! How about just a quick round up of articles that stand out?

Charles Krauthammer predicts we will soon have a national sales tax. Which actually would be a very good way to generate government revenue. Except it will be on top of the federal and state income tax we already pay.

Jonah Goldberg explains the hypocrisy of leftists excoriating “conservatives” for “freaking out” over the health care reform legislation. The left has been freaking out for decades and no one cared. But now they are in power they ridicule or condemn the opposition for “freaking out”. “Better to be called a crackpot than be one”.

Michelle Malkin (yeah yeah I know) provides several examples of the left manufacturing hate crimes against themselves for political gain. In some cases someone on the left does it and blames it on the opposition – what Ann Althouse calls one of the “oldest dirty tricks”. In some cases it never happened.

As a follow up Another Black Conservative does an excellent job of explaining how it works. We victimize you. Then when you push back we play the victim to shift attention away from ourselves.

[Update: The Anchoress notes violence or the threat of violence is to be abhorred always. Asks if that always goes without saying. And wonders at the political theater being executed to the harm of the nation but to the service of certain political ends. We are in worse trouble with Obama than we earlier realized.

Ann Althouse notes that when terrorists attack Democrats and the left say we need to understand their rage. And wonders why that principle does not apply to American citizens who do little more than express frustration with their government.]

But the article I most commend to you is by Victor Davis Hanson. To put it bluntly President Obama lies. Regularly. Blatantly. With impunity. And gets away with it. Each of his lies and bad decisions is cause for concern. But when you put them all together a pattern emerges.

In any isolated circumstance, we are willing to give the president of the United States a pass on a particular disturbing decision. But after 14 months of them, the Obama particulars add up to a remaking of America that is now clear and consistent: Grow government; redistribute income; establish permanent political constituencies of dependents; increase entitlements; hike taxes; demonize “them” while deifying their supposed victims; seek global neutrality abroad; and always play fast and loose with the truth.

What offends me personally is the dishonesty. Because it insults my intelligence. And yes that reflects the sin of pride. For which I need spiritual healing. Kyrie eleison me.

[Update #2 - Gay Patriot observes that after getting what he wants President Obama does not seek to heal and unite but rather to mock deride and divide.  "A better man would have tried to mend fences not widen gaps". George Bush did not treat his political opponents like this.]

Fairness requires that when liberals say or do something praiseworthy we give them credit.

Have never been a big fan of E J Dionne who writes for the Washington Post and often appears alongside David Brooks on National Public Radio. But he deserves credit for his current piece “Three Points for Conservatives”.

You can read it and the three points he offers.

A few brief rejoinders to an otherwise good article from a liberal columnist.

The debate over the health care bill, which mercifully came to a close on Sunday night, was not American conservatism’s finest hour.

The debate may not have come to a close so much as it may have just begun. Republicans are campaigning on a platform of “repeal and reform”. President Obama is traveling the nation selling the new legislation. I receive unsolicited emails trying to sell me on it. Does not seem like “our long and bitter health care debate winds to a close”.

It’s not just that the mob that gathered outside the Capitol to shout epithets at Democratic lawmakers before they voted on health care was disrespectful of the very norms that conservatism preaches.

If indeed a “conservative” shouted epithets it goes without saying that is abhorrent. The problem is that we have no solid evidence this actually happened. Did the mob shout epithets? Or one or two unhinged individuals? Or even someone on the left attempting to discredit the opposition? (I know for a fact this can and does happen. Happened to a group I was involved in at Cornell University.) But so far we have no evidence other than say so. Videos of protests outside Congress not once evidence these alleged epithets.

In the health care debate, conservatives were at their best when they shelved the demagoguery and asked practical, focused questions.

This is true. They were at their best. Congress Ryan being the single best example. But it made no difference did it? Adjuring conservatives to stick to facts and logic is all well and fine. But it got them absolutely nothing. Nor does Dionne address whether liberals and Democrats were “at their best”. Fair enough given the topic of the article.

I have heard this “why we need conservatives” line before. Usually in the sense of “so long as they have no influence or power” which is patronizing and condescending. Fortunately Dionne is aware of this.

Conservatives, of course, are rightly suspicious that when those on the left recommend a “proper” role for the right, they usually want a tame creed that doesn’t really challenge any of the progressive fundamentals.

Thank you sir.

H/T Titus One Nine

Like an idiot had the car audio set to “radio” rather than “aux”. So caught 3 minutes of Jim Engster on National Public Radio. *Sigh*

Discussing attempts to challenge the new health care legislation – legislation? that itself merits discussion – as unconstitutional. Some fellow calls in and trots out this tired argument.

People have to buy car insurance in order to use our roads. When they buy a house they have to get house insurance. So people should be required to buy health insurance in order to spread out the risk pool. [close paraphrase]

We have been hearing this concerning the individual mandate. “What do you mean you cannot require someone to buy something? We require people to buy something all the time such as car insurance”.

There is a simple and obvious problem with the argument.

• I can choose not to drive.
• I can choose not to buy a home.
• Can I choose not to live?

There are other problems. Actually one is required to buy home owner’s insurance only if you have a mortgage. That is because your home technically belongs to the bank. And they want to recoup the money they lent you if something happens to the property. Cover the property? the contents? to what extent? Also there is no “spreading of the risk pool”. Where you live. Previous claims. Some factors over which you have control affect the cost of the insurance. Cost of the insurance is not subsidized by the government. Which means other taxpayers paying for your insurance.

Car insurance. Typically one is only required to carry liability coverage. Cover the vehicle? to what extent? Again there is no “spreading of the risk pool”. Where you live. What kind of vehicle. How you use it. Previous claims. Your driving record. Some factors over which you have control affect the cost of the insurance. Cost of the insurance is not subsidized by the government. Which means other taxpayers paying for your insurance.

In both cases the reason you are required to carry insurance on your vehicle or your home is because other parties have a stake. The lending institution if something happens to the property. The other person if you are involved in a collision that causes damage to person or property.

How do these factors apply to health insurance? More specifically the current health care reform legislation?

Where you live. Who you are. Your medical history. Previous claims. Factors over which you have control. The whole thrust of this legislation is that none of these things can affect the cost of the insurance. You cannot decide what kind of coverage you want. Cost of the insurance is subsidized by the government. Which means other taxpayers paying for your insurance. And who has a stake in my health?

What is especially odd is for that caller to defend the individual mandate because it “spreads out the pool of risk”. So those who are healthy by choice or by accident end up paying more to help reduce the cost of insurance for those who are not.

Is the government putting “stupid” in our drinking water?

A high school classmate (great guy by the way) with whom I reconnected via facebook wrote:

[I am] shocked that so few people have any real understanding of the healthcare bill other than what they get from the media. The Bill does the following: (1) expands healthcare to 30 + million uninsured Americans (2) makes healthcare more affordable to everyone (3) holds insurance companies more accountable (4) and will help reduce the deficit by over $100 billion over the next 10 years.

We can debate the validity of all or some of these points.* But what most got my attention was:

So few people have any understanding other than what they get from the media.

Another classmate agreed and wrote “negative media played a huge role in Americans not being truly informed”. This echoes a common refrain I have heard during the last several months. “You do not really understand what is going on. You oppose what the Obama administration proposes because you have been misinformed. It is the media that has misinformed you”. President Obama has also played this card.

It is insulting and incoherent.

Which media exactly? NPR? CBS? NBC? ABC? CNN? MSNBC? The New York Times? The Washington Post? Time magazine? Newsweek? Are we seriously being asked to believe that the media was primarily negative with regard to ObamaCare?

Oh. Perhaps Fox? Rush Limbaugh? Wall Street Journal? National Review? Let us assume just for the sake of argument that these examples of the media indeed misunderstood and misrepresented ObamaCare. Are we seriously being asked to believe that these few examples were able to turn a majority of Americans against ObamaCare despite the best efforts of all the positive media? Are we seriously being asked to believe that President Obama the greatest orator since Cicero could not garner the support of even the majority of Americans who voted for him in the first place?

Or were we supposed to believe whatever President Obama and the leaders of Congress tell us? Were we supposed to get our information from Speker Pelosi who said we need to pass this legislation so we can find out what is in it?

I am willing to believe that some of the negative media did provide misinformation. But am I supposed to believe that the editors and writers at Wall Street Journal and National Review are liars or idiots or both?

I anticipate a possible counterargument. “No no no Fox and Rush and Wall Street Journal and so on have a much larger voice than you realize”. Really? Why?  How is it that the majority of Americans did not listen to misinformation from these negative media when they were voting for President Obama but now that he is in office they do? What changed?

Perhaps it all comes down to “the majority of Americans are so stupid they will fall for misinformation that comes from this tiny handful of negative media outlets”. Which still does not make much sense.

Please spare us the tired cliche that the only reason people oppose the Obama agenda is because they have been duped by negative propaganda. It is (but not intended to be) insulting. And more importantly it is illogical. When you stop and think about it.

*Addendum (03/24/2010) – Most of the talking points do not bear scrutiny. Jane Hamsher published a piece at the Huffington Post entitled “Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill”. Read the whole thing. She looked at the bill and produced a list of 18 oft stated myths concerning the bill.

People are willing to pay more for good care.

Talking with a friend from South Korea during our monthly fellowship meal yesterday. Cannot remember how we got onto the subject. In a nutshell he wondered why so many Americans are upset about the health care reforms that President Obama wants the Congress to pass. After all many nations have national health care in the sense that health care is provided by the government. Rich or poor – you receive the care that you need. It either is free or you pay a nominal fee.

(This friend from South Korea his boss is the head of the local Tea Party. Who used to be one of our active ministry volunteers and is a great guy.)

During an English Conversation lesson about going to the dentist one friend from Japan explained how in Japan you pay $10 to see the dentist. Typically you pay 10% of whatever the cost is. That sounds fair and reasonable to me. I especially appreciate a system in which dental care is not separate from other health care as it is in the United States.

My friends from South Korea and Japan say that people in those nations are generally pretty happy with the care they receive.

I have been greatly concerned about the health care reforms being pushed through(?) Congress. Will it mean what we spend each year goes up? Will it become more difficult to get an appointment with our doctor? Will it reduce the level and quality of care we receive? Because let me tell you right now our family is extremely happy with our doctors and very happy with the care we receive.

This is not to say there have been no problems. Speaking of the government limiting your choices – our private insurance has been limiting our choices. During the last few years we have been told that we can longer go to that excellent hospital we are only fully covered if we go to this hospital. Two of my doctors became so dissatisfied with our private insurance that they pulled out of the network. Because it is difficult to find someone else in those fields I still see them but must pay cash for each visit. So much for having private insurance.

I like the idea of every American receives the care they need. And I am not as repelled by the idea of a “single payer” system as most conservatives are. Talking with congregants from other nations one wonders “What’s so bad about national health care anyway?”

Do not misunderstand me. That does not mean the health care reform(s?) being proposed by President Obama and considered by the Congress are not problematic. There is little question in my mind that they will become another hugely expensive entitlement program. That they will further damage an already struggling economy. That proponents of these reforms have resorted to extensive dishonesty and demogoguery. And because we live in a finite universe there will be times the government will say “no you cannot receive that treatment or procedure because it is too expensive”.

But what exactly is so bad about national health care anyway?