lies

Dishonesty in a can: The failed arguments over healthcare costs

Why Pragmatism cannot win the Healthcare Debate

The debate over healthcare has raged for generations.  It has toppled at least one Congress, and threatens to topple another.  Through all of this, the pragmatists have been largely victorious, which means: They have sold us out again.  Healthcare remains a difficult issue for politicians, because of economic and moral questions that must be factored into any debate.  The first failure of 'pragmatists', and the worst, in fact, has been their unwillingness to deal honestly with the American people.  This has led to the abominable side-show of senior citizens, demanding in sincere indignation: "No government Healthcare! Keep your hands off our Medicare!"

From the moment one sees this abortive reasoning put forward, one very quickly becomes aware of the fact that somebody, somewhere in this argument, hasn't been playing it straight all these years with the American people.  To the assembled multitude, I shall now endeavor to do so, and almost nobody will like it, but none will be able to claim I've been anything less than truthful.

There are a few concepts we must cover before we can even begin to untangle healthcare.  The real question in healthcare, in the US, is not about the quality of the care, but instead how it is to be funded.   No other place on the planet offers so many healthcare options.  There is no place else on Earth to go if you cannot be made well in the US.  One can cite some exceptional procedure or treatment here or there, but these are merely the exceptions that prove the rule.  Let us not linger on the care itself, but instead turn to the meat of this issue, as it is and has been for all of the life of its public debate.

Healthcare will be rationed.  This is an explicit fact.  You can run circles trying to disprove it, but by any measure, healthcare, like toilet paper, or gasoline, or food, is rationed.  The question is, however: "Rationed how?" Or, "By what mechanism?" or "According to what standard?" Herein lies the real argument, the true crux of the matter, and it is a tempestuous thing for politicians, because it leaves them no wiggle room. For 'pragmatists' this is certainly uncomfortable ground.

Up until the advent of the 'Great Society' programs of the late 60s, the mechanism for rationing had remained what nature decreed: The free market.  The free market allocates resources in answer to only two questions, and they are interesting to consider: Who is providing a supply, and who is demanding how many units of care?

My argument, to which I will return in due course, is that this had been the most thoroughly moral thing about American healthcare financing until it was supplanted.  However, let us first examine the mechanisms then created in order to set aside the natural rationing provided by the free market.  Medicaid and Medicare were created to provide the mechanism for re-rationing some portion of the available care to those to whom the natural market would not provide it: The elderly, beyond their earning years and unable to afford it, just when they would need it most, and the poor, who couldn't afford it much at all.  The argument was successfully advanced that the rest of us should dedicate some portion of our earnings to pay for the care of these two classes.  More, the argument was successfully made that we should be compelled to do so.  Herein lies the ugly nature of government programs:  Coercion is the prerequisite for their enaction.  This is another fact from which pragmatists readily flee.  They will say "some coercion is necessary," painting the matter in terms of a necessary evil.

Suffice it to say that the concept of a 'necessary evil' is a deadly contradiction in terms, and while I shall leave that subject for another day, it is necessary that you understand the premise behind my argument here: If a thing is necessary, it means there was no other alternative.  In the absence of alternatives, the only available course of action becomes amoral; questions of morality are only in play where choice is possible. No choice? No morality. No morality? No evil. This then leaves you with a solitary and much easier question: Is there no alternative, in fact?

So here we have the moral plea of leftists, and other statists, along with their 'pragmatic' friends at the center stripe: "What should be done about the poor, the elderly, and the infirm?"

This, they leave you as your sole choice, but what have they craftily ignored? They have established a premise that in the name of morality, something must be done.  Really? According to what moral standard? By whose moral authority? The answer? By theirs.

You see, it was never asked if there was any moral authority to club you over the head for your wallet, or at least threaten to, on behalf of somebody who needed a bandage, an aspirin, or a hip replacement.  No, it was presumed from the outset that you exist solely to serve the needs of your fellow man.  Presumed by whom? Why, them, of course.

It would not have been so bad had they only decided to brow-beat you, to implore you like the ringing bell of a Salvation Army's kettle Santa, but instead, they took up arms against you, and leveled the guns of government and said: "Pay, or else. Besides, you'll feel better about it."

This is the same ploy that is being used now, as they push for some form of entrenched governmentally-redirected healthcare cost shifting.  The question isn't whether we should have some form of universal care, but only what particular form it should take.  In the end, they are still going to redistribute the wealth of some Americans at gunpoint, to the advantage of some others.

From there, it's a lose-lose for freedom, and the American people at large.  It is the avoidance of this question that makes the so-called 'pragmatists' dishonest.  It is their sell-out on the first moral premise that dooms us to failure.  By accepting the statists' view of that first premise, the outcome becomes one of inevitability and certainty.  They will get their way, with the help of the pragmatists, and it will be their morality that defines it.

Once you've let them get away with any claim to your wallet, by whichever moral standard, you've thrown open your wallet to all comers, with you as the beggar for your own means.

This is where the rubber meets the road in the debate over healthcare financing, and it is here we must fight it.

 

 

Here's ONE reason why LA Times deserves to Fail

 Today the LA Times' homepage blares a seemingly inoccuous headline, in fact, it sounds like good news:  State's in a drought, but it's not the worst ever

Hot-diggity-damn, ain't that swell?  However, this being LA Times, a seemingly harmless story turned into needless GOP-bashing.  Reporter Bettina Boxall weaves a conspiracy by anti-environmentalists concocting this drought myth to advance a radical right-wing agenda of building levees, reservoirs, and dams in the state's agricultural Central Valley.  And I quote:

"Those who would like to build new reservoirs and canals and to weaken environmental regulations have invoked the drought like a mantra in recent weeks.

A recently introduced congressional bill that would allow federal officials to relax endangered-species protections in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is titled "The California Drought Alleviation Act."

...Sen. Dave Cogdill, a Republican who represents agriculture-dependent Modesto, called the drought "epic" when he introduced a $10-billion water bond package last week that includes funding for new reservoirs and other infrastructure.State and federal water managers earlier this year sought to relax delta water quality standards, arguing that because of the drought, it needed to hold more water in upstream reservoirs to preserve cold water flows for salmon in coming months."

BOO!  Her words in bold.  

If the drought is a myth, then the LA Times contradicts its self for printing several stories just DAYS before this one saying that the drought is indeed one of the worst in state history.

2/28/2009 (written by Boxall):  Schwarzenegger proclaims statewide drought emergency

"The proclamation amplifies a drought emergency that Schwarzenegger declared last year in several agricultural counties, where more than 100,000 acres of farmland have gone unplanted for lack of water."

2/27/09:  Lawmakers seek billions to expand, improve California's water supply

"With California's budget crisis resolved for the moment, state lawmakers Thursday turned their attention to another emergency: a three-year drought that has left key reservoirs at 35% of capacity."

2/21/2009:  U.S. to tighten tap for farmers

"In a blow to the state's producers of almonds and other crops, federal officials announced Friday that they may not be able to provide water for the upcoming growing season in parts of the Central Valley.

To cope with the continuing drought, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation will not provide water for agriculture beginning in March to at least 200 local water districts in that region, agency spokeswoman Lynnette Wirth said. Municipalities and industrial customers will receive half of their allotments."

2/18/2009:  Storm didn't help California drought conditions 

"“You have to understand we are coming off of two dry years to begin with,” said Cynthia Palmer, meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Sacramento. “We’re still playing catch-up, but every little bit helps.”

 

Rainfall levels in Southern California are running at about 80% to just-under-100% of normal levels, but the statewide snowpack is only at 71% of the norm, Palmer said."

 This all just from last month.

 

 

Obama's Lies

in

Crossposted at Right Minds

The Clintons proved that the best way to succeed in politics is to lie often and well. Bill Clinton was a master—he persuaded the nation (for a while) that he “did not have sex with that women—Monica Lewinsky”, that he made catching and killing Osama bin Laden one of his administration’s highest priorities, and that he remembered black churches being burned as a child living in Arkansas (they weren’t). Hillary is an impressive liar as well—she almost certainly lied about the Whitewater and Travelgate scandals, and she got away with many smaller lies as well—for example, she claimed that Chelsea Clinton was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11, even though Chelsea was nowhere near the towers. The only lie that the media ever bothered to cover extensively was the absurd story about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, a falsehood so egregious that even the mainstream media (which was mostly in the tank for Barack Obama at that point anyhow) could not refrain from covering it.
 
Barack Obama is running on a platform of hope, change, and honesty. When contrasted with the Clintons, Obama does come across as an honest man. He isn’t.
 
In Barack Obama’s first general election ad, he claimed that he had “passed laws” (referring to Public Law 110-181) that “extended healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected.” A worthwhile accomplishment—except it isn’t true. Obama had absolutely nothing to do with that particular piece of legislation —he didn’t write it, or sponsor it, or add to it. He didn’t even vote for it. (He was absent on that vote). Obama’s claim in this ad is a blatant lie. (H/T The Corner)
 
While campaigning against Hillary Clinton, Obama was adamantly against NAFTA, calling it “devastating” and a “big mistake.” He went so far as to threaten to unilaterally demand a renegotiation of the treaty, ignoring whatever objections Mexico and Canada might have. Obama argued that NAFTA took American jobs and hurt American workers, and that he would not permit it to remain in its current form.
 
Just kidding. Turns out that campaign trail rhetoric gets “overheated and amplified.” Actually, Obama won’t be engaging in any unilateral negotiations—he says he’s not a unilateral kind of guy. When he said that there is “no doubt” NAFTA needs to be amended, he apparently forgot to add “unless Canada and Mexico really aren’t in favor of it.” Obama was clearly not quite straightforward about his true position on free trade.
 
A final Obama misrepresentation regards the issue of public financing for his campaign. Last November, and again in February, Obama promised to “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” When in came time to start pursuing agreements, Obama looked at his fundraising figures and decided to break his pledge. He made no effort to meet with McCain in order to work out an agreement, even though he explicitly promised to do so. The excuse given for his turnaround was a complaint about the “opponents who become masters at gaming this broken system.” Of course, if the system is “broken”, it seems odd that Obama is so intent on preserving the status quo, and refusing public financing (which would limit the amount of money he could get from donations). (Though for the record, I believe that public financing is bad idea—politicians do deserve to have their campaigns underwritten by our tax dollars).
 
No politician keeps every promise made, but Obama has broken too many promises too quickly. The idea that Obama represents a new kind of politics is a pleasant thought, but not one borne out by reality. Obama represents the same old Washington—only the rhetoric is different.

 

Syndicate content