Healthcare Battle Royal

The McLaughlin Group was very entertaining last night. In this public television program, the gentlemanly host, John McLaughlin attempted to moderate a discussion between a few news people with markedly different viewpoints. There was a Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. A leftist ideologue with decorum and a humorous aloofness. The other liberal, Elena Clift from News Week was a good example of why Rush Limbaugh calls this publication Obama Week. The conservatives, Rich Lowry of National Review and Monica Crowley of the Washington Post seem unflinchingly right on, (at least from my point of view.)

A few issues were discussed before they got to the health care plan. The form and not the substance soon became the message. The panel members could not finish half a sentence before they were interrupted by loud, vehement objections from their antagonists. The audience as well as the participants soon lost track of the substance of the debate. Mr. McLaughlin, as apparently is the format, addressed a question so pointed to Mr. Page that it seemed to me a cross examination that could not be met without capitulating the point completely. In fact, he liked the question so much that he repeated it two or three times, each with more devastating intonations. Mr. Page's deft retort was that he would gladly answer the question if only Mr. McLaughlin would stop asking it. Although I believed that his answer would be mostly obfuscation, it really didn't matter since he had already scored a point by discrediting the questioner. The answer and the question were soon forgotten.

It was gratifying to see such august personages behaving verbally like barroom brawlers. It was really impossible to hear what anyone was saying. Ms. Clift gained the floor for a few seconds when she shouted that she just wanted to finish her sentience. She did quickly finish her sentence and three or four more, then, although she was interrupted by everyone, she kept on talking, I believe, till the end of the segment.

The most effective arguments came from Monica Crowly. She articulated well some of the stronger conservative, pro-capitalism points with a single minded clarity that won her ten or twelve uninterrupted seconds. She capitalized on the fact that it is hard to defend some of the presidents statements. For instance, how can we believe we can keep our health insurance, as he repeatedly promises, after actually reading the bill. No one really tried to address this or any of her and Mr. Lowry's points and no one would have heard them if they did.

A realization came to me this morning when I spoke to a group of people at a Democrat Booth at the local Ethnic Fest. All I really wanted was a bottle of water for which I gave them the requested donation. When I saw the title of the Single Payer petition that they wanted me to sign. I told them, I thought politely, that that would never happen. They immediately started to recite talking points, which I attempted to refute by explaining that shortcomings in health care are chiefly the results of prior liberal programs. As they would not stop the talking points that I would not stop trying to refute, we were soon shouting to be heard. I really did not refute anything since I am not good with talking points. I walked away, repeating that single payer is something I could never be convinced to agree with because it is socialism, which is always a bad choice.

This and other experiences convince me that this is a pivotal issue that goes to the heart of people's political beliefs. It cannot be decided by talking points. Talking points usually offer an 'either or' type of analysis without admitting that there may be solutions other than theirs. If all I am given for an option is socialism, which is a false dichotomy, I would still not choice socialism, which the current proposal is (or a short step from it.) If some people have been forced into bankruptcy by medical bills or have been treated unfairly by their insurance company, that is still not as bad as socialism. Socialism is always a bad choice. Find a different solution or leave it as it is. What we have had of freedom, should convince everyone that freedom is the principle to strive for in any solution.

I try to point and link to those who, by careful analysis, explain that Socialism cannot succeed. Under socialism, the administrators do not have the data to make efficient allocation of our scarce resources. Only the price system of the free market can do that. Furthermore, the current medical proposal is proof that partial socialism will inevitably lead to complete socialism. Interference with the system is what has lead to problems that they are now offering to solve by more interference. This process will continue after our current interference until we have complete socialism in medicine then everything else. Under socialism, everyone is made poorer. All aspects of the economy are burdened, eventually to the breaking point.

The bitter irony is that the liberals claim to help people, while it is the conservatives who actually know how to do it. This is a paradox similar to the truth that sometimes big wars can only be prevented by small wars.