Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Random Healthcare Walk

1. New York Times columnist (and Nobel laureate) Paul Krugman explained "why we need this reform" by citing a circumstance where an insurer revoked coverage after the policyholder got sick. But this already is illegal, and the policyholder in question was awarded $10 million in damages. How did this justify the new law?

2. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof plumped for reform via a story about his former next-door neighbor whose insurer capped costs for cancer treatments. But the patient there lived in Hong Kong and was covered by a British insurer. How did this warrant new U.S. law?

3. The only voters who hate the law more than conservatives are progressives, such as FireDogLake founder Jane Hamsher. If no one likes it, why is it law?

I don't claim to have the answers. Except that Democrats treat government "like Christmas"--which is the negation of cost control without improving America's health. And that won't stay a secret.


A_Nonny_Mouse said...

"If no one likes it, why is it law?"

Well, how quickly you forget -- It's because we have TENS of THOUSANDS of people DYING EACH YEAR due to the mere fact that they lack health insurance!!! Therefore, it's intuitively obvious --manifestly self-evident-- that as a compassionate nation we MUST immediately take over the whole of the health care sector of America (and incidentally, student loans, too --hey, why-the-heck not??) so we can RUSH HEALTH CARE INSURANCE TO THESE POOR CITIZENS (or maybe we're including non-citizens; who knows? who cares? the moral imperative to ACT NOW is too urgent to bother with mere details) and roll out these wonderful new entitlements in, oh, let's say 2014 or 2015. Y'know, because it's so URGENT and people are DYING and all. So we'll start collecting taxes, fees and surcharges RIGHT NOW and get around to providing these DESPERATELY NEEDED REFORMS in another 4 years. Or so. Because, as I said, we've got a CRISIS on our hands and it's a moral imperative to help these desperate people. Not this year. Not next year. Nor the year after that. But really, really SOON because --oh, the humanity-- people are DYING RIGHT NOW for lack of it.

OBloodyHell said...


Don't forget: we're "trying to save the American way!!"

Thanks to that mild-mannered man from Kryp///// "Hawaii" ("He's everywhere! He's everywhere!"), we may actually manage it. Or destroy it. Or something. Anything. Because -- you know -- as you say -- people are DYING RIGHT NOW for lack of it...


Assistant Village Idiot said...

Argument from anecdote is apparently powerful. With some.

Whenever I hear an anecdote offered as evidence - and that includes conservative/libertarian anecdotes - I narrow my eyes. Either you don't feel comfortable with numbers, or you think I don't. Either way, you need to be watched.

OBloodyHell said...

AVI, both have value in discussion. Anecdote, like analogy, is useful to illustrate a point. But it is, as you suggest, bad thinking processes to make your argument dependent on anecdote alone.