Politics and Culture

It's important to argue statistics, projections, effects. It's especially important to independents who just want the best deal. If they could get better health care cheaper, the better.

For those committed to the left or right, the health care debate is all about ideology. If you're on the left, government health care is to be accepted de fide. If you're on the right, you see government health care as a stretch of highway on the road to serfdom.

The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek) by F. A. Hayek

It's interesting to read foreign newspapers. You're going to have to translate this one.

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/545317/0/esperas/diagnostico/especialistas/

My friends alerted me to this post from Think Progress (to which I always ask, "towards what?").

Ignoring the fact that most liberals when talking amongst themselves really want all of the things people are "misinformed" about ("give benefits to illegal aliens, support abortion, and ration care? Never!"), ahem:

72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants

a. If Obama doesn't intend to insure illegal aliens, why doesn't he subtract the 10-15 million illegal aliens from the phony 46,000,000 uninsured number he throws around.

b. Does the bill specifically exclude illegal immigrants?

79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover,

a. Part of that 79% includes the CBO who said that millions will lose their private health insurance under Obamacare, a prospect that people like Barney Frank and Barack Obama must consider a dealbreaker [sarcasm].

b. Obama has said he wants single-payer, as well.

69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions...

a. A panel will decide which procedures the government will fund. The panel is appointed by the president. You can take it from there. Here's a reaction.

75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly.

a. There will be a panel that will ration care. Obama himself has said that older people take up a lot of care and that a hospice might make better sense (cents). In every other country with a health care panel or commission, they come up with a quality years of life formulations to ration care. Ezekiel Emmanuel has said that he supports the concept and he's on the health care team. Peter Singer wrote an editorial in the mainstream New York Times saying the same thing.

Sarah says as much here.

b. "We are God's partners in matters of life and death"

-Barack Obama

We're on to the game, TP. Saying that it won't happen because the bill doesn't specifically say so is like saying, "Sure, you guys can play basketball. I have to go home with the ball though."

Here's what Democrats and leftists want from the American populace:

Don't use your brain. Don't take the next logical step. Trust us. We would never cover illegal aliens. We will bring down costs without rationing. We would never ever fund abortion.

Health care is complicated and boring. That's probably why the press is focusing on the rowdier town hall crowds and sensational statements by Sarah Palin instead of the plan itself.

As usual, it's hard to say whether people prefer this to the real issue or the media just think they do.

Whom does this benefit? It could be that the White House knows that the more people learn about the plan the more they'll dislike it so it prefers the distraction.

Meanwhile, CNN has banned talk radio personalities from coming on and commenting on the issue. Talk show hosts differ in their approach, intelligence, and knowledge. I guess a blanket ban based on a stereotype is easier than examining such distinctions.

I don't listen to all of talk radio, but the shows that I've listened to have done a much better job of covering the issue than television.

Finally, disinformation is inevitable. Let's correct those. The bill is the thing.

1. One theory concerning marriage fidelity matters is that one's personal conduct is a good predictor of one's public corruption factor. It may not be a completely 1:1 correlation, but I do think that dishonesty is a habit or: if one practices dishonesty, one finds it easy to lie. I'll add that the adept liar finds it difficult to tell the truth, if only because he's used to lying. When one practices honesty, telling the truth is easy and lying is hard. Wouldn't it be difficult to have two standards on the same sin, honesty (I have heard men say that it's OK to lie to women, but that's just a rationalization).

Mark Sanford's behavior dovetails nicely with this theory: personally and publicly corrupt, it turns out.

Other notoriously womanizing presidents- Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton- were also corrupt politicians, if not unaccomplished in other areas. Carter was neither corrupt nor an adulterer, just foolish.

2. It's important that politicians be personally and publicly honest; not only do they handle our money, but they're a reflection of their electors, us (people get the government they deserve) and an example to children. I might not care whether my mechanic or surgeon is having an affair, as I can check their figures or get a second opinion. Skill and talent are independent of one's morality.

3. I wonder whether cheating doctors perform more unnecessary tonsillectomies.

4. It would be rude to ask Eunice Kennedy Shriver how much she's spending on her end-of-life health care. It's none of my business. It shouldn't be the government's either, which is why I want an independent health care system.

5. Isn't it hilarious when ultra-left Hollywood asks for tax breaks to stay in business?

6. Republicans did well with Sotomayor and are doing fine on health care. Their strategy seems to be to give Obama lots of rope to hang himself or, non-metaphorically: let Obama enact lots of liberal legislation and watch him fail. When you're confident in the dumminess of the other guy's ideology and the good sense of the American people, you can play this game.

7. Useful idiocy watch: Benicio del Toro and Bill Murray travel to Cuba. Like Henry from Babalu, I expect del Toro to be an idiot, but Bill Murray should know better.

When Democrats accuse opponents of government-run health care of organizing "mobs," I don't know if they're appalled or jealous. The SEIU violence below was organized because the SEIU is "organized labor."

The guy with the camera said that he "didn't want to get involved." What kind of Brown Shirt is he? In fact, he's a disgrace to fascists everywhere. "Involvement" is your only use to the big pharma and carpet-bombing insurance companies, fella.

[Seriously, if you're a healthy guy, get involved in protecting people.]

Here's the dude who got hurt:

Democrats calling dissenters "un-American." Sen. Lincoln did apologize later.

“It’s so sad, because it’s diminishing to the process, it’s diminishing to our outcome,” Lincoln said in a conference call with reporters. “I think it’s sad that they choose to do that. I think it’s un-American and disrespectful.”

Did any Republican senator actually call a member of the left "un-American" during Bush's four years?

Democrats are more predictable than the 79 USC Trojans' offense or an episode of Pokemon. Their lack of creativity was on display this week when congressmen went home to make a case for health care insurance reform.

When on offense, Democrats will use one of two tactics. The first is to gather sympathy for a particular group:

The second is to demonize another:

or

When somebody ojects, Democrats call their opponents names and attempt to marginalize them. In social debates, dissent equals bigotry. When discussing health care, loudness equals Nazism. That's right! Nazis were famous for disrupting Weimar Republic town halls (except that nazis were also concerned with reducing costs on the backs of the "unfit") by asking their representatives pointed questions. Hitler demanded Hindengurg's birth certificate.

This one that's more disturbing because it was planned:

Notice the woman holding the Bible at :37.

What do these tactics have in common? They don't have anything to do with the issue, necessarily. They're based on emotion.

And, they only work if people are stupid: Dumb enough to support  a fundamental transformation of society based on a few sob stories. Dumb enough to think their concerned neighbors are crypto-nazis. Which is why these tactics rarely work. The sob stories won't work this time because the proposed legislation isn't just taxpayer charity like welfare or SCHIP: it seeks to change how the givers do business as well; people who can support themselves are being told how to spend their money- for no reason. That's why they're mad.

Only academically or politically segregated  liberals can think that the guy who's upset about losing his Kaiser is either a insurance industry flunkee or an ignorant fascist hater.

By the way, I don't like people yelling at town halls either. I think people should ask good questions and get good answers (sorry, Mr. Hoyer. Health care as Erie canal isn't a good response).