The Fallacy of "Rationing" - and Some Better Arguments Against Socialized Medicine

SSSSSHHHHHHHHHH!! Don't wake up other republicans to the hole in the rationing argument. Some of them might listen.

1. You might have a point with the rationing argument, but Obama's already making the case about healthcare being a huge reason for our growing debt. He's already moving against the 'we have too much debt argument'.
2. The Bill O' Reilly defense. I call it that because that's his favorite way of defining the argument against healthcare reform. If 2 in 10 people are in a hopeless situation of their own making, why help out the 8 who are in a bad situation that's out of their control? Unfortunately for this argument, too many people have seen their healthcare costs skyrocket. Too many people know too many other responsible people who are suffering because of healthcare costs.

Good try but I agree with Skayne's response -- I don't think fighting healthcare reform by equating all uninsured people with drug addicts is going to do it.  Sounds to me like the updated version of 'welfare queens.'

Are these examples better than Molotov's in terms of tax dollars already being spent for 'undeserving' purposes:

• tax dollars paid to a Halliburton subsidiary to construct showers for soldiers in Iraq wherein said soldiers were electrocuted by faulty wiring, then paying them again to repair their own shoddy work
• tax dollars needed to hire U.S. Attorneys to prosecute federal drug offenses
• all federal prison costs -- who likes the idea of their tax dollars being spent on the care, feeding and health of criminals?

You include this:

If Republicans point out that any universal healthcare scheme would include heroin addicts, meth heads and others who brought their health problems on themselves through poor individual decisions, independents and moderates would reconsider supporting Obama's plan.

Think you might incur the wrath of independents and moderates who brought health problems on themselves by engaging in legal activities -- alcohol, smoking, poor diet, no exercise -- like diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc.?  I'm not arguing that it makes any sense to make poor individual decisions, I just think you need to acknowledge that there are undoubtedly some moderates, independents and I'd daresay more than a few Republicans whose individual decisions have contributed to their health problems, without ever having been drug addicts.

We already pay for healthcare for many of these people (go to the ER in the middle of the night).

We already pay for "socialized medicine" in many ways. There is a sign right in the ER lobby that  says treatment can not be refused based on ability to pay. Illegal aliens (at least in Texas) are well aware of this. The problem is that many of them use the ER for "primary care", which is very expensive. Why not acknowlege the situation and deal with it?

The argument against a government run universal health care program should be based on the government's lack of success in running other programs:

Medicare-bankrupt

VA hospitals-what a nightmare!

Instead of looking to private industry to help solve the problem, Obama is going for the  "big government" sloution. Of course, more voters beholden to the federal government.

Look at what Wal Mart has done with prescription prices, and what Walgreens and many supermarkets have done with in store clinics. Why not partner with these providers that are already in place?

In my opinion, we need to leave employer programs in place and let the government formalize care for those that do not have coverage. We are already paying for it through higer costs anyway. After all, if 45 million Americans don't have insurance, that means that 255 million Americans do have insurance.

I like the "junkie" argument, but only if it is framed correctly.  There's a definite argument to be made here on this score - why should the taxpayer bail out individuals from their own poor choices?

I prefer, however, the "control" argument.  When the state pays for something, it always comes with strings attached.  So when the state decides it wants to pay for your health care, the state will demand, one way or another, that you change your habits as well.  Mandatory preventive care?  Definitely a possibility.  Calls for things like a special tax on fast food will become more palatable; after all, if the state pays for the consequences of all those Big Macs, why shouldn't the state tax them through the roof?  Socialized medicine will become a behavior modification tool.  We will be instructed by our benevolent government to eat only certain foods, to exercise at least this much a day, and to avoid all risky habits.  In this country, anyway, I think that's the inevitable result.

"Who likes the idea of their tax dollars being spent on the health of junkies?"

This argument is incredibly shallow and cynical.  Put aside for just one second the fact (no doubt contested by many readers here) that the 'addicted' brain is physically different from the 'normal' brain, and that alcoholism and drug addiction are generally referred to as diseases by the mainstream medical community.  If you need me to back that up, In 2004. the World Health Organization concluded, in reference to alchohol, that "dependence is as much a disorder of the brain as any other neurological or psychiatric illness."

I'm sure that nearly everyone who reads this has been connected at some point to someone with a serious substance abuse problem, and hopefully they have seen benefits of proper treatment and counselling.  The fact that we'd throw our addicted family members, friends, etc. under the bus to make a political point is dangerous and sickening.