The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Debatable Points Are "Myths"

Text Size

Debatable Points Are "Myths"

By W. James Antle, III on 8.25.09 @ 10:36AM

Well waddya know? A majority of Americans believe "myths" about health care reform. The story frequently puts the word "myth" in scare quotes and is careful to qualify it as "assertions the White House has called myths" and arguments that are "considered a myth by the White House." As well they should, because many of them are just debatable points. They should have gone one better and quoted experts arguing that the some of these myths have at least some factual basis.

For example, I've argued at length (both in the post itself and in the comments thread) that if the final health care bill does not expressly prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion, it will fund abortions over time. This is acknowleged by some Democratic supporters of the bill and is implicit in the one amendment to clear a major House committee that even nominally restricts the flow of taxpayer funds to abortion.

The House bill sets up funding streams that are not clearly covered by the Hyde Amendment. It is not subject to the same restrictions as abortion coverage for federal civilian employees or military personnel. The distinction between taxpayer funds and government-collected premiums that the "myth" claim hangs upon is at the very least debatable. And the Senate bill is less cagy about abortion than the House bill.

Most of the "myths" are similar -- they describe debatable effects of the health care bill. And in some cases, I think the facts are more clearly on the side of the supposed "myth" makers. I was recently on a radio talk show where the liberal guests were in high dugeon over people calling Obamacare a "federal government takeover of health care." But this is at worst a hyperbolic claim. By creating a public option, imposing an individual mandate, expanding regulations of who and what insurers must cover, expanding Medicaid, and offering new subsidies, this approach to health care reform at the very least enlarges the federal government's role in health care. Would straight single payer not qualify as a "federal government takeover" because there are even more socialistic approaches?

Myths, they explained.

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 2:21PM

Antle, there is a reason juries decide on the PREPONDERANCE of evidence -- and that is the problem with your all or none "logic". In 99% of the cases the health care bill will not cover abortions. In 1% of the cases, it only covers it IF the insured gets subsidies and IF that particular plan covers abortions. You can always make a 1% argument on virtually any government bill.

Another "myth" is that the bill covers illegal aliens. If you place the language in the original source, it clearly does not. So your argument is weak and is only presented to get social conservatives riled up. It is not real.

That said, I'm with you on the public option. It is a government takeover of health care in the longer term. First, it is a MYTH that you can use the public option to lower costs. Any insurance actuary will tell you that the group census is different between plans. Given a different set of people, you have different actuarial dynamics. The public plan will attract different types of people. With adverse selection, the insurance companies will drop the high cost individuals and they will go to the public plan. If the public plan is costed properly, then eventually it will be more expensive that private plans. But therein lies the real issue. How will they cost out the public plan? Will they include buildings, utilities, management (including the Secretary of Health), reserves, investments, auditing by a private accounting firm, etc.? I don't trust a political entity, whether it is Democrat or Republican, to tell us the true cost because they are elected and thus have a constituency. So if the argument for the public option is for cost control, it fails when you get into the details. I don't know why Democrats have not been challenged on the facts here. A public option makes no sense.

The Democrats really want single-payer -- we all know that. If you believe that health care is a right, then that is acceptable. If you believe that health care is a privilege, which I do, then it is wrong.

An argument can be made that Republicans want to get rid of Medicare and Social Security. Both Tom Delay and Dick Armey have repeatedly made that argument. I don't know why those on the left haven't used this scare tactic. In point of fact, if you don't support Medicare and Social Security you will not be elected.

Dixie Pixie| 8.25.09 @ 3:32PM

The fastest way to “win” a policy debate is to get the other side to concede their arguments as myths, nonsense, and/or nonexistence. My favorite liberal trick is “ Lets debate whether Obama-care wants to snuff granny by first conceding Obama-care won't snuff Granny”. Even Glenn Beck fell for that one. Obviously the trick is to render nonexistence the central point of the argument in favor of the liberal position.

Falling that trick liberals like to claim the opposing argument is nonsense. The trick is to convince the public the bill does not mean what the language of the bill states and any claim to the contrary is foolishness by a fool. The purpose is to put down the argument by putting down the person. The liberal uses this trick to claim intellectual / moral superiority over the person. Thus a twofer for Liberalism.

The myth trick is to deny even the existence of the argument. The purpose is to use the “authority figure” of liberalism to convince the public it is seeing unicorns. The classic phrase “ Who do you believe, Obama or your lying eyes” applies. This is mostly used when a liberal has lost the argument and just wants it to go away.

To put it all together the current liberal argument for Obama-care is:::
“” There never was “Death Panels” in the Obama-care Bill because we took took out the relevant passages. Besides the passages were never there in the 1000 page Obama-care Bill as the bill never existed as Obama has never conceded the existence of the bill as his. Besides Obama is such a intelligent and moral giant of omnificent authority then any difference between Obama's pronouncements and reality just means reality is in error.””
Thus for Liberals it is the real world that is the problem not Liberal Theory.

The funny point is by denying reality liberals end up looking like gibbering loons. On cue, John McCain pops up and agrees with every point of the liberals position and begs for any deal possible.
Maybe Glenn Beck has a point about clowns with large clown shoes.