Tags: Healthcare Reform | Hillary Clinton | Medicare | democrats | sanders | warren

Dems Stoop to New Low in Healthcare Debate

Image: Dems Stoop to New Low in Healthcare Debate
On July 30, 2015, then-Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., after speaking at a rally with registered nurses and others. Many Democrats were finding less to like about Trump's healthcare law. Sanders’ call for "Medicare for all" seemed to rekindle aspirations for changes beyond "Obamacare." Hillary Clinton argued that the healthcare law is working. (Jacquelyn Martin,/AP)

By
Monday, 26 Jun 2017 02:05 PM Current | Bio | Archive

So the Democrats, after opposing Donald Trump in the 2016 election partly out of what they claimed was concern about his incivility and coarseness, are now pursuing a debate about healthcare legislation in Washington, D.C. by characterizing the Republicans who disagree with them about policy details as mass murderers.

Think that’s an exaggeration?

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential candidate who remains among its most prominent and mainstream voices, tweeted Friday, "If Republicans pass this bill, they're the death party."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted, "I’ve read the Republican 'healthcare' bill. This is blood money. They’re paying for tax cuts with American lives."

Ezra Levin, an influential Washington organizer of the resistance to Trump, tweeted Sunday, "Trumpcare will kill tens of thousands of working class people, and with the savings it cuts taxes for billionaires."

This line of argument carries a powerful emotional charge. It isn’t, though, a particularly useful, constructive, or clear-minded way to think or talk about writing laws.

To start with, there’s the Washington-centric misconception that the killers are the congressmen. Disregarded are any other actors playing roles in our healthcare system. If federal politicians are murderers for adjusting healthcare laws, what about all the state-level politicians who failed to enact Mitt Romney-style comprehensive coverage in their own states before Obamacare? Were they also murderers for failing to act? What about doctors and hospitals who refuse to treat non-emergency patients who are uninsured and can’t pay?

The system could probably treat more people if doctors, nurses, and medical-device and drug-company executives earned less money. Does that make every BMW-driving surgeon a murderer? Is every individual American a murderer who spends any discretionary income on movies or trips to Disney World rather than charitable donations earmarked for uncompensated care to his local hospital?

It may well be that as a moral matter, voluntarily paying for a poor person’s healthcare is a superior use of money than driving a fancy car or taking an expensive vacation. But an individual’s choice to consume rather than donate doesn’t make that individual a murderer — or even a killer. Neither does a congressman’s decision not to compel the individual, by taxing him, to do so. The failure of Democrats to recognize this signals a fundamental confusion.

There’s also a false certainty in the claim that higher taxes for more health insurance will translate into extended lives. Some of the more honest Democrats acknowledge this if one listens to them carefully. Even Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for example, in repeating an exaggerated claim that Trumpcare would cause 28,000 unnecessary deaths, conceded, "Nobody, obviously, knows exactly what would happen." Obviously.

The "Harvard" study — really more of a blog post by one Harvard professor, two non-Harvard medical students, and two scholars at a liberal think-tank — that Sen. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton cite is more nuanced than they claim. It mentions two studies — "outlier results" — raising doubts about whether insurance coverage translated into better health.

It concedes, accurately, "insurance is a necessary but not sufficient factor to receive quality health care." Ironically, its model for projecting what it calls" excess deaths" is based entirely on extrapolation from "analyses of the Massachusetts health reform."

Again, that is a state-level reform of the sort that might have spread organically and successfully if President Obama and the Democrats in Congress hadn’t decided to impose it nationally.

Democratic accusations about additional deaths are often made without any price tag attached. Assume, for the moment, that Democrats are right that money should be taken away from higher earners and redistributed instead for the purpose of extending life-years or improving health.

There’s a whole universe of possible interventions other than subsidizing heath insurance or Medicaid. Auto-ignition breathalyzers to prevent drunk-driving accidents, a nationwide 55 mph speed limit with aggressive enforcement, disabling texting from cellphones in moving cars, some sort of intervention in Syria — all might, at least potentially, save more lives at a lower cost.

Failing to enact these measures doesn’t make politicians murderers, or even the moral equivalent of murderers. It’s just a political difference of opinion.

Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of "JFK, Conservative." Read more reports from Ira Stoll — Click Here Now.

© 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Ira-Stoll
Democrats, after opposing Donald Trump in the 2016 election partly out of what they claimed was concern about his incivility, now pursue a debate about healthcare legislation in Washington, D.C. by characterizing the Republicans who disagree with them about policy as mass murderers.
democrats, sanders, warren
697
2017-05-26
Monday, 26 Jun 2017 02:05 PM
Newsmax Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved