The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Signed, Nobody

9.9.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 4 of 6)

Such animosity toward the Bush administration is, of course, quite common among liberals, but it hardly constitutes an intellectually sound basis for challenging the FTC's findings, even when augmented by that tired canard about the administration's mythical hostility to science. Nor does the FTC's alleged "intent to encourage" CDHC affect that agency's credibility.

When Paduda gets around to dealing with objective data, it becomes clear why he prefers partisan innuendo. He quotes a ten-year-old Duke University study as follows: "Mature CON programs are associated with a modest (5 percent) long-term reduction in acute care spending per capita, but not with a significant reduction in total per capita spending."

The irony here is that the Duke study supports Governor Palin's position. The main rationale for CON statutes is that they allegedly reduce aggregate health care spending by preventing duplication of services in what progressives style "the medical arms race." If there is no reduction in total per capita spending, the CON program has accomplished nothing.

Paduda next tells us that Ohio eliminated its CON program with the result that (gasp) more health care facilities were built. He provides the totals for each type of provider, then delivers what he presumably imagines to be the coup de grace for this part of his argument: "These weren't being built to reduce costs."

This is a straw man, of course. Proponents of CON repeal don't claim that new facilities reduce costs. What Palin and others do say is that competition reduces cost. If your local hospital charges $1,500 for an MRI and a nearby MRI clinic starts charging $1,000, the hospital will be forced to reduce prices or lose business. But you can't benefit from such competition if a CON law prevents the MRI clinic from being built.

Paduda also tells us that quality of care is better in CON states. Quoting a JAMA study, he says that patients who had bypass surgery in non-CON states "were significantly more likely to die (5.1% chance v 4.4% in CON states) ..." I'm not sure that seven-tenths of a percent would be considered "significant" by many statisticians, but I am sure that this is one of the weakest pro-CON arguments I have encountered.

The letter is generously padded with a variety of unsupported assertions, including claims that the big three automakers "found that states with substantial CON programs had significantly lower health care costs" and that "specific procedure prices were also lower in CON states." These are popular talking points among CON proponents, but Paduda provides no empirical data to support either claim.

Paduda closes by correctly pointing out that Governor Palin's plan to repeal Alaska's Certificate of Need statute "continues to face strong opposition from within the state." Like Mr. Paduda, the health care establishment of Alaska is very fond of the status quo. They want the state to keep protecting them against competition. They had better hope that Sarah Barracuda moves to Washington in January.

McBRILLIANT & CO.
Re: Philip Klein's Grand United Party:

"While unifying the party itself is not sufficient to win the election, it certainly means McCain will be able to count on more foot soldiers." You bet it does. A lot more.

And it means that the opposition, including Obama's thugs and thugettes in the very wrongly named MSM, won't be able to use the previous division to point to confusion in Republicans and conservatives.

And it also means that the undecided public sees unity among Republicans and conservatives, while the opposition's big tent continues collapsing and fractiousness continues to characterize their campaigning.

McBrilliant and Gov. Palin at next year's inauguration? Absolutely.
-- C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia

ON THE FLOP SIDE
Re: Philip Klein's Grand United Party and John Tabin's A Conventional Flop:

It appears the Republican Party and its supporters have written off trying to hold on to the current number of seats we have in the House and Senate. It appears we have accepted the MSM's and Democrats' conclusion that we are going to take huge losses in November. Hey, but isn't it great we are now energized, thrilled, and apparently satisfied about keeping the White House!

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Trade, Health Care, John McCain, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Business, Satire, Islam, Law, Iran, Pakistan, NATO, Alaska, Oil