The local daily yesterday printed, under the headline "Summit displayed deep philosophical gulf on health care," an article, labeled "Analysis," by Dan Balz of the Washington Post. We learn in the first sentence that, regarding the debate on health care reform, "it's clear that both sides are certain they are right on substance" and that there is "a genuine difference" between the Dems and the R's. The two sides agree that the health care system is "ailing" but disagree about the remedy:
Democrats think more government is the answer; Republicans say the opposite, that market competition is the best antidote to the ailing system.
Let's begin our analysis of Mr. Balz's analysis with a language note. An antidote is something taken for poison. In the above sentence, "the ailing system" stands for the person who, on account of having swallowed poison, is in mortal danger. The antidote is not to the ailing thing; it's to the poison; and, consequently, the sentence should have been edited--or, if it was edited, unedited.
What is the evidence that Republicans agree that the health care system is in need of repair? George Bush was president from 2001 through 2008. For most of that time, Republicans were in the majority in Congress. Where were their proposals then, when they could have enacted them? I think, on the evidence, that the Republicans do not regard the failing health care system as a problem. They constantly repeat the line about our health care system being the best in the world, and wonder aloud, their jowly faces contorted by crooked grins, where Canadiens will get their health care if we "reform" our system. I take them at their word.
Since the article is allegedly "analysis," you might expect some evaluation of the opposing claims. What you get instead is the Republican party's talking point about the Dems' solution--"more government"--and a complete failure to address the absurd whopper at the heart of the Republicans' call for market solutions. What do they think we have now? It's the market system that has failed. It doesn't work. When companies try to profit by selling health insurance, they do things like deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. In tough times, when healthy people decide to do without insurance, they raise rates on their increasingly unhealthy (and desperate) pool of customers, thereby driving out the remaining healthy ones, so that rates must be raised again, and so on. The result is run-away costs and millions of uninsured. That's what the vaunted market has wrought.
If one side were to say that the square root of sixteen is four, and the other were to insist that, no, it's five, Dan Balz would probably write an article praising the "intelligent" and "civil" dialogue of the antagonists before concluding that, since this is a democracy and the different views cannot be reconciled, the voters will decide what is the square root of sixteen. How wonderful!
Comments