When people make statements that are completely at variance with reality and they continue to repeat them and you know they are not crazy, it’s only natural to wonder, what’s going on?
I’ve concluded that for some people on the left, political beliefs are like a false religion in which the parishioners become unable to distinguish myth from reality.
How else can you explain the statements of Donald Berwick, President Obama’s recess appointee to run Medicare and Medicaid, on his way out of office the other day? For starters, he claimed that the Affordable Care Act (what some people call ObamaCare) “is making health care a basic human right.” Then he went on to say that because of the new law, “we are a nation headed for justice, for fairness and justice in access to care.”
Now I can’t claim to have read everything in the 2,700-page law, but I can assure you that “making health care a right” just isn’t in there. Nor is there anything in the new law that makes the role of government more “just” or “fair.”
To the contrary, a lot of knowledgeable people (not just conservative critics) are predicting that access to care is going to be more difficult for our most vulnerable populations. That appears to have been the experience in Massachusetts, which Obama cites as the model for the new federal reforms. It’s not that Massachusetts tried and failed to expand access to care. It didn’t even try.
True enough, Massachusetts cut the number of uninsured in that state in half through Governor Romney’s health reform. But it didn’t create any new doctors. The state expanded the demand for care, but it did nothing to expand supply. More people than ever are trying to get care, but because there was no increase in medical services, it has become more difficult than ever to actually see a doctor.
And far from fair, the new federal health law will give some people health insurance subsidies that are as much as $20,000 more than the subsidies available to other people at the same level of income. In fact, the new system of health insurance subsidies is about as arbitrary as it can be.
Berwick isn’t alone in making bizarre statements about health reform. Right after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, administration health advisors Robert Kocher, Ezekiel Emanuel and Nancy-Ann DeParle announced that the new health reform law “guarantees access to health care for all Americans.”
In fact, nothing in the act guarantees access to care for any America, let alone all Americans. Far from it. Again, take Massachusetts as the precedent. The waiting time to see a new family practice doctor in Boston (63 days) is longer than in any other major U.S. city. In a sense, a new patient seeking care in Boston has less access to care than in just about every other U.S. city!
The disconnect between belief and reality is not unique to our country. With the enactment of the British National Health Service after World War II, the reformers claimed that they too had made health care a “right.” The same claim was made in Canada after that country established its “single-payer” Medicare scheme.
Yet in reality, neither country has made health care a right. They didn’t even come close. Neither British nor Canadian citizens have a right to any particular health care. A patient with a mysterious lump on her breast has no right to an MRI scan in either country. A cancer patient has no right to the latest cancer drug. A cardiac patient has no right to open heart surgery. They may get the care they need. Or they may not. Sadly, all too often they do not.
The British and the Canadians not only have no legally enforceable right to any particular type of care, they don’t even have a right to a place in line. For example, a patient who is 100th on the waiting list for heart surgery is not entitled to the 100th surgery. Other patients (including cash paying patients from the United States!) may jump the queue and get their surgery first.
Imagine a preacher, a priest or a rabbi who gets up in front of the congregation and gets a lot of things wrong. Say he misstates facts, distorts reality, or says other things you know are not true. Do you jump up from the pew and yell, “That’s a lie”? Of course not. But if those same misstatements were made by someone else during the work week you might well respond with considerable harshness. What’s the difference? I think there are two different thought processes that many people engage in. Let’s call them “Sunday morning” thinking and “Monday morning” thinking. We tolerate things on Sunday that we would never tolerate on Monday. And there is probably nothing wrong with that, unless people get their days mixed up.
In my professional career I have been to hundreds of health policy conferences, discussions, get-togethers, etc., where it seemed as though people were completely failing to connect with each other. One day it dawned on me that we were having two different conversations. Some people were engaged in Monday morning thinking, while everyone else was engaged in Sunday morning thinking.
Here’s the problem. Whether the beliefs are true or false, if people didn’t come to their religious convictions by means of reason, then reason isn’t going to convince them to change their minds.
This same principle applies to collectivism and health care. If people didn’t come to the false religion of collectivism by means of reason, you are not going to talk them out of it by means of reason. If you remember this principle, you will save yourself the agony of many, many pointless conversations. (Townhall.com)
And Boy have I had a few of those (!!) over the past 3 years!
Especially, one very strident liberal who refuses to acknowledge that the penalty for not purchasing health insurance (the mandate) levied by the IRS against your taxes is thus a tax and the Justice Department has defended it as such in court.
But since politically it can’t be a “tax” he’ll defend to end of the earth that this penalty is not from a tax, even though it is levied by the government’s tax collection agency.
I cite many case where the Justice Department called it a “penalty” in public but then a tax in court and he just says “no they didn’t”.
So I counter with:
In a Department of Justice (DOJ) legal brief in the case of the State of Florida v. The Department of Health and Human Services, the Obama Administration argues the individual mandate (requiring Americans to buy a government-approved insurance plan even if they can’t afford it) is a constitutional exercise of Congresss power to collect taxes.
July 17, 2010: It is a Tax In Court, the Obama Administration defends the individual healthcare mandate as a tax, painting the mandate requirement as an exercise of the governments power to lay and collect taxes. Furthermore, Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.
October 18, 2010 In Court: Justice Department lawyers argue that the fine is a tax, which Congress can impose under its constitutional taxing authority.
Ian H. Gershengorn, a deputy U.S. assistant attorney general, he said the penalty will act like a tax, paid annually when individuals file their tax returns to the IRS.
October 19, 2010: It is a Tax When States suing the federal government over the constitutionality of the individual mandate they were answered with the response that Justice Department lawyers argue that the fine is a tax, which Congress can impose under its constitutional taxing authority.
And I get: “I noticed that in all of your articles about the court brief, none of them quote the court brief….”Again, just because the health insurance mandate penalty comes from the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes doesn’t make the health insurance mandate penalty a ‘tax’ — any more than the penalty for not filing a return can be called a ‘tax’.”
The doublespeak here is trying to disassociate the “penalty” from the TAX agency that would be collecting it and the fact that it is a tax. He knows it’s a tax, but ideologically that can’t be allowed so it isn’t.
Thus, reason is not an option.
But there is something darkly satisfying about playing cat and mouse with liberals like this. I haven’t figured out exactly what though. I’m sure it’s a dark part of me as well.
But I’m reasonable enough to recognize it. 🙂