Remember when Republicans argued against the Affordable Care Act’s non-existent death panels? They said it would be a form of government sanctioned death, resulting from a brutal form of rationing.
Flip Flop: Not only have they changed their mind, they are currently crafting a national message, debuting in the following Washington Post article. Eventually, bizarre Dickensian conservative rationalizations like this will work their way to the top of their platform. It’ll blow your mind.
Michael R. Strain- resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute: “Columnist Jonathan Chait wrote recently that those who may die are victims of ideology — “collateral damage” incurred in conservatives’ pursuit “of a larger goal.” If these are the stakes, many liberals argue, then ending Obamacare is immoral.
Except, it’s not.
In a world of scarce resources, a slightly higher mortality rate is an acceptable price to pay for certain goals — including more cash for other programs, such as those that help the poor; less government coercion and more individual liberty; more health-care choice for consumers, allowing them to find plans that better fit their needs; more money for taxpayers to spend themselves; and less federal health-care spending. This opinion is not immoral. Such choices are inevitable. They are made all the time.
A liberty loving conservative will love this stuff, because as Strain states very clearly, “This opinion is not immoral.” That guilt you’re feeling...let it go for liberty and “less health-care spending.”
Strain’s conservative rationalization included this odd comparison to speed limits and homicides:
Consider, for example, speed limits. By allowing people to drive their cars at speeds at which collisions result in death, our government has decided that the socially optimal number of traffic fatalities is not zero.
Likewise, thousands of people die in homicides in the United States every year. We could reduce this number substantially … (but) more intrusive monitoring, additional policing, stricter sentencing and other, harsher measures are not worth the benefit.
Strain is like every other conservative; they’ll warn everyone about the horrors of rationing, and then mindlessly suggest that rationing is good, moral, and most importantly saves money too.
And for those not as comfortable letting “some people die”…Strain eases their minds suggesting that he could be wrong...:
Repealing Obamacare could — although wouldn't necessarily — result in more people dying. But it clearly would not be immoral.
Clearly. The conservative Borg-like mind is now certain. Done.
EXTRA: Strain does offer a few “reform” ideas that will either bankrupt most families or look like a version of ObamaCare pieced back together with bailing twine. Strain blows any credibility by showing us he has no idea how expensive “low-probability events” will actually cost:
What should universal coverage look like? It requires a nuanced answer. The insurance system should be designed to financially protect people from low-probability events, rather than provide comprehensive coverage for all health events, as Obamacare envisions … universal coverage should concern itself with the catastrophic expenses associated with serious medical events.
Strain is also good using government force to get the wealthy to buy health care, what he calls “incentivizing.”
People who can afford such coverage should be incentivized to purchase it, and those who can’t should receive a government subsidy to do so (Like ObamaCare). It would require less spending, fewer tax dollars, less coercion and less regulation, leaving more money for other important government programs or for taxpayers to spend as they wish.
Strain summarized the convoluted GOP plan below:
The Burr-Coburn-Hatch plan would repeal the Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate to purchase insurance, and leave the current system of employer-sponsored coverage largely in place. It would cap the tax preference for employer-provided coverage (though only for extremely generous plans) and use the revenue to provide a tax credit for people who don’t get their health insurance through their jobs. Their plan would provide “continuous coverage” protection, so that people who remain enrolled in insurance can’t be financially penalized for getting sick; offer new federal funding for high-risk pools; and allow Medicaid participants to receive the tax credits and enroll in individual-market plans. A paramount goal of this proposal is to ensure that no one who is or becomes gravely ill goes without adequate medical care.
The plan has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, but according to the Center for Health and Economy, a health-care research organization, relative to Obamacare the senators’ proposal would lower premiums, result in roughly the same number of individuals covered by insurance policies and yield a significant 10-year net budget savings.
Translated; the lower premiums cover fewer medical events; “the same number covered by insurance” means 40 to 50 million people will be without coverage again; and the government will save money by abandoning the people they were supposed to protect.