Dan Lourie writes:
"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its “mandate,” were developed by a conservative think tank and signed into law by then Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The mandate was the tool by which “free loaders” (Romney’s words) could no longer have their medical expenses paid by others. The Supreme Court deemed that mandate constitutional.
"Republican candidate Romney promises to overturn the ACA, and Congressional Republicans have voted fruitlessly 33 times to annul it. All of them, it should be noted, have health insurance plans with benefits at least equal to the ACA.
"Which of their fellow Americans do they want denied access to health care? Neighbors’ children with pre-existing conditions? Neighbors’ wives, daughters and sisters who cannot afford pre-natal and other reproductive care? The 45,000 Americans who die annually for lack of access to health care? Republican opposition to the ACA is obscene, rife with ignorance, misunderstanding, lies and an immoral disregard for the health and welfare of others. Their blind allegiance to the know-nothing tea party doctrine should embarrass thinking Republicans. Surely a plan raising the American health care system above its current abysmal world ranking of 27th should be the goal of all Americans."
Here in one letter of less than 300 words is the complete arsenal of leftist talking points. let's take them one by one.
"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its “mandate,” were developed by a conservative think tank..." This is the transcription of a lecture delivered by Stuart M. Butler of the Heritage Foundation in 1989, entitled "Assuring Affordable Healthcare for All Americans." At the bottom of the second page is this phrase: "Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation..."
As one reads the transcription, it becomes apparent that this man is not proposing anything like the ACA. But rather than discuss its details, I'll let you follow the link and read it yourself. Inconveniently, Dr. Butler wrote a refutation of those who mischaracterize his lecture from 1989. He specifically refutes the idea that "a conservative think tank" developed the ACA. Indeed, he takes to task those who would take a small phrase from his lecture and make it the major theme.
I will say, though, that just because a "conservative" proposes something doesn't make it conservative. And one "conservative" does not make a movement. Also, proposing a mandate is not the same thing as proposing government controlled healthcare. Regardless, the essay, attributable to a "conservative, is prima facia evidence that unlike the political left, we conservatives welcome the exchange of ideas.
Further, the mere fact that the Left is bringing up supposed conservative support for government healthcare is a tacit admission that it is not a conservative position. THEY know the difference! But I wonder, who is fooled by this kind of rhetoric? Oh, yeah. Mr. Laurie. Doubtless he read something on a leftist website and simply regurgitated it in his letter.
"...and signed into law by then Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney." What might this be about? The ACA is federal legislation passed by congress and signed by President Obama, not Governor Romney. And Romney is hardly conservative, so citing his prior support for government healthcare lends no weight to the argument. Regardless, Romney has made clear that he believes that states can do things that the feds cannot. Mr. Lourie is obviously mixing concepts. His muddled prose definitely detracts from his position.
"The Supreme Court deemed that mandate constitutional." And the Supreme Court said that blacks were property in Dred Scott. Next question.
"...Congressional Republicans have voted fruitlessly 33 times to annul it..." No, the house has voted twice to repeal it, and is passed both times, with the help of some democrats who also voted for repeal.
"Which of their fellow Americans do they want denied access to health care?" This is a pet peeve of mine. Apparently, if one opposes the government "solution" to a problem, then one must somehow be in favor of the problem. This is vapid and anti-intellectual. No one with an IQ above room temperature believes that being in opposition to bad legislation means that they are in favor of the problem.
Say, let's see how he likes his own medicine. Might we also ask Mr. Lourie why he is in favor of 10 million Americans being without healthcare under ACA? The ACA is not univeral healthcare. Is Mr. Laurie in favor of letting people die? Hmm?
"Republican opposition to the ACA is obscene, rife with ignorance, misunderstanding, lies and an immoral disregard for the health and welfare of others." With breathless hyperbole Mr. Lourie characterizes his ideological opponents as monsters and ax murderers. But I don't know why I'm typing these refutations. All I have to do is call Mr. Lourie names. I can make all sorts of claims with the same fidelity for the truth that Mr. Lourie embraces, and like him, neither advance the debate nor engage the ideas.
And this pontification about morality mystifies me. Whose morality is he talking about? Who is he to pass moral judgments about other people? This black-and-white morality needs to be abandoned in favor of more nuanced understanding. He needs to stop imposing his morality on others and stop the hate.
"Surely a plan raising the American health care system above its current abysmal world ranking of 27th should be the goal of all Americans." He can't know that ACA will raise our ranking. He doesn't even know if healthcare will improve, or cost less, or be more efficient. Just because his side has said so does not make it so. Nor is he in a position to dictate what the goal of all Americans should be. There are lots of reasons our health system is ranked poorly, not the least of which is the fact that government has so totally messed it up. What ACA is really about is offering a government fix to the government fixes previously installed.
Mr. Lourie, like all true believers, lives in a world of stark contrasts. If you oppose what he favors, you are not simply wrong, you are evil. If you are not for him, you are against him. He believes that government is the answer to all life's problems, government is where we should look every time we need something or perceive some injustice. It would never occur a person like Mr. Lourie that there are a variety of solutions to the problems of society, solutions that are often quite different than his. But he wants none of it, because he is not only convinced he is right, but that there is no other way to look at things.
A friend recently posted this quote from William F. Buckley, and it's very perceptive: "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
"Which of their fellow Americans do they want denied access to health care?" This is a pet peeve of mine. Apparently, if one opposes the government "solution" to a problem, then one must somehow be in favor of the problem. This is vapid and anti-intellectual. No one with an IQ above room temperature believes that being in opposition to bad legislation means that they are in favor of the problem.
Say, let's see how he likes his own medicine. Might we also ask Mr. Lourie why he is in favor of 10 million Americans being without healthcare under ACA? The ACA is not univeral healthcare. Is Mr. Laurie in favor of letting people die? Hmm?
"Republican opposition to the ACA is obscene, rife with ignorance, misunderstanding, lies and an immoral disregard for the health and welfare of others." With breathless hyperbole Mr. Lourie characterizes his ideological opponents as monsters and ax murderers. But I don't know why I'm typing these refutations. All I have to do is call Mr. Lourie names. I can make all sorts of claims with the same fidelity for the truth that Mr. Lourie embraces, and like him, neither advance the debate nor engage the ideas.
And this pontification about morality mystifies me. Whose morality is he talking about? Who is he to pass moral judgments about other people? This black-and-white morality needs to be abandoned in favor of more nuanced understanding. He needs to stop imposing his morality on others and stop the hate.
"Surely a plan raising the American health care system above its current abysmal world ranking of 27th should be the goal of all Americans." He can't know that ACA will raise our ranking. He doesn't even know if healthcare will improve, or cost less, or be more efficient. Just because his side has said so does not make it so. Nor is he in a position to dictate what the goal of all Americans should be. There are lots of reasons our health system is ranked poorly, not the least of which is the fact that government has so totally messed it up. What ACA is really about is offering a government fix to the government fixes previously installed.
Mr. Lourie, like all true believers, lives in a world of stark contrasts. If you oppose what he favors, you are not simply wrong, you are evil. If you are not for him, you are against him. He believes that government is the answer to all life's problems, government is where we should look every time we need something or perceive some injustice. It would never occur a person like Mr. Lourie that there are a variety of solutions to the problems of society, solutions that are often quite different than his. But he wants none of it, because he is not only convinced he is right, but that there is no other way to look at things.
A friend recently posted this quote from William F. Buckley, and it's very perceptive: "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
No comments:
Post a Comment