Every now and then we find a post that we do not think we can anything to. In fact, in so doing, we take away some of its magic and luster. So we repost here a really great piecefrom The New Majority that gets one thinking, which is of course always the goal. Think more, babble and blow smoke less. Words to live by (preventative advice perhaps– maybe we can charge for it?)

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance. Extending coverage to them has been a core goal of health reform proposals since the 1960s. President Richard Nixon offered a universal health plan in his first administration, but since then Republicans have hesitated to commit the nation to so costly an undertaking. Is it time to rethink? Should Republicans accept universal coverage as a goal? We posed this question to NewMajority’s contributors.

Eugene V. Debs — a “Democratic activist” who chooses as his pen name the name of an open socialist, and not one of today’s cuddly European socialists, either, but a socialist back in the days when socialist and Marxist were the same thing — tries to shame us Republicans into supporting nationalized healthcare: Why, it’s just us, Turkey, and Mexico without nationalized healthcare. “In every other advanced capitalist country” they’ve drank the Kool-Aid. Well, don’t I feel chagrined, not to be in the company of Cuba, Peru, the People’s Republic of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the Ukraine, and all those enlightened, prosperous countries with nationalized medical delivery systems. In Germany, the health delivery system was nationalized by Bismark. Spain implemented national health insurance under Franco, Austria adopted it under Nazi rule in 1939, as did the Italians in 1944. Makes you wonder what Mr. Debs has against the Turks, who are, in fact, one of my favorite people. As Mr. Debs eventually notes, “even a dictatorship like Singapore provides universal care.” Personally, I never thought that the fact that “even” a dictatorship did something was really a selling point for government action. Anyway, I suppose that Mr. Debs’ argument was used a lot during the revolution: There were the Tories, angrily denouncing their more adventuresome countrymen, “in every other advanced country they have a king.” So, case closed, I guess.

Now can we discuss this seriously?

Well, no, I guess not. Mr. Debs raises straw man after straw man: “Why even conservatives elsewhere embrace universal coverage.” Then we get some horror stories, only they’re not even real ones, just fictional. Sheez, Eugene, surely you can do better than that. I can come up with some horror stories of people denied care in just a few minutes. Of course, horror stories can be found in every country, and horror stories about people denied care in “universal coverage” nations abound. It is true that in countries such as France, Germany, and even the UK (I appreciate that Mr. Debs agrees that we ought to say “even” the UK, a subtle reminder of the failures of the NHS) most people are happy with their coverage — but of course shouldn’t he admit then that here in the good ole’ U.S.A. most people are happy with their care, too? To use his own phrase: Who are you going to believe Mr. Debs, “me or your lyin’ eyes.”?

And we’re told that if we really believed we shouldn’t endorse a government mandate of what Mr. Debs calls universal coverage, then we should repeal the law requiring hospitals to provide medical treatment to all comers in the E.R. Of course, that doesn’t follow, any more than opposing an expansion of Social Security or welfare or unemployment or workers’ compensation necessarily indicates a desire to abolish the whole system. (Holy moly, Democrats are opposing an increase in military budget – they must want to abolish the armed services! Are they crazy!) Mr. Debs also seems to take his anger about America’s emergency room policy out on me personally — that coverage isn’t good enough, so he’s mad, apparently, that I even brought it up. But if we are going to discuss universal coverage, that is part of the picture, isn’t it? Why don’t the liberals ever mention this? I mean, if some conservative says, “All Americans have coverage, Mr. Debs would jump in, wouldn’t he? “No,” he would say, “about 15% of Americans lack health insurance.” Well, isn’t the reality — the problem we are asked to deal with — that most Americans have very good insurance with which they are very satisfied, but a minority must rely on emergency room care? If we can’t even state what current U.S. policy is without a nasty, personal, rebuke from our resident socialist (or maybe just “Democratic activist”), how can we honestly discuss the problems with that system.

Meanwhile, the straw men keep coming – such as the one that anyone said that ER care was “consonant with real insurance.” Or the one that it is hypocritical to oppose a massive government scheme unless we are willing to have crummier insurance ourselves. I’m not sure I follow that, either.

And all this is necessary just to clear away the detritus. No wonder this debate never gets anywhere.

If we want to talk healthcare reform seriously, we need to lose all the self-righteousness, the nasty, smart-ass tone, the non-sequiturs and straw men. I am all in favor of expanding health coverage. I believe that we can have health insurance for basically all Americans, and that there are many ways to do it, but I think – as I said in response to the original question – that it is bad policy and bad politics for the GOP to suddenly endorse universal health coverage. I believe that one thing that makes the United States a superior place to live is that we have NOT followed our industrialized neighbors in their policies in this area. I believe that the more capitalistic, individualistic, lower tax atmosphere of the United States is good for America and good for the rest of the world, which benefits from our dynamism. I believe that the U.S. and its people have benefited from not having the type of system Mr. Debs wishes to impose on us, and I do not believe that the peoples of Europe have benefited from their efforts over the long term, once all factors are taken into account.

But then, why should Mr. Debs and I agree on this big picture? I’m a Republican interested in bringing my party back to power, and supportive of economic opportunity, limited government, and freedom. Democrats tend to be more interested in security and equality than in freedom and opportunity. Nothing inherently wrong with that — security and equality are pretty important to most people. But Mr. Debs is a self-identified Democratic activist, and given his chosen moniker, possibly a socialist/Marxist. He is almost certainly not interested in seeing Republicans retake power, and probably is not as concerned as I am about freedom, opportunity, and limited government.

All that said, now, Mr. Debs, would you like to seriously discuss nationalized healthcare and its alternatives? And if so, please let us begin by agreeing that it is OK to state what current policy is; and that “everybody else is doing it” is worthwhile knowing — it may lead us to ask why — but it is not, strictly speaking, an argument for us to do it.