Two Anti-Health Care Reform Fallacies

From the Wikipedia entry on fallacy:

“A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Fallacies differ from other bad arguments in that many people find them psychologically persuasive. That is, people will mistakenly take a fallacious argument to provide good reasons to believe its conclusion. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.”

From this starting point I’d like to begin with the biggest fallacy that healthcare reform opponents are offering. Something along the lines of this: “The Government can’t run programs well, so we shouldn’t want them to run healthcare.”

This is a fine statement on the surface (despite it being incorrect), but under the current legislation in front of Congress, the only thing that is remotely close to “being run” by the government is the public option; that part of the reform bill that says people can choose from many options but there will be offered a public option as well.

And herein lies the fallacy. The current legislation allows for free-market competition with more consumer-friendly regulations on private industry insurers so that there truly is a free market. If the government can’t run healthcare (or any other program), then why are you afraid of the public option? If the government is so bad, people won’t be jumping all over the public option, but finding the best private insurance they can afford.

Ah, but what if my employer drops healthcare coverage? Then you are free to 1) bargain for a sizable raise; 2) find coverage on your own; 3) quit if employer doesn’t pass health insurance savings onto employees. Companies currently pick up anywhere from 50% to 75% of health insurance costs. That total healthcare cost is hidden from people. Having the ability to competitively shop for insurance means you don’t have to stay working at a job because of the benefits.

The second fallacy that I’m hearing from my ultra-conservative friends (online and off) goes something like this: “Keep your damn hands off my healthcare.”

Aside from the ridiculousness of this stance, there seems to be some notions about the nature of insurance and the nature of societal and group contracts. First, the only way an individual is able to get health insurance in the U.S. under the current system is to be extraordinarily healthy, a good liar (the industry spends a lot to find liars, so you’d have to be really good to not get dinged) or to be included in a group by an employer (where the employer is required by the federal government to include you, regardless of your health history). So let’s say you do have healthcare. By it’s nature, you are already part of a larger group. Which means that your employer has to pony up if a coworker gets sick. But you also have to pony up, because while your employer might pay some of the increased cost over time, so will you. So you are already beholden to those in your group. Their decisions affect you. You are already in a communal state, albeit one masked by the notion that a) you have some kind of choice about the care you receive, although nothing like in single payer or private/public countries; b) you don’t understand how the current system works, don’t want to understand and as a general rule, despise the government you pay taxes to; c) you are a libertarian.

So under the current system, you allow your employer to control your healthcare and dictate costs, which you have zero control over, except to opt-out. You have limited choices under the current system. So keeping “my damn hands off your healthcare” means you continue to exist in a system where you have no say and in many cases become trapped at your job, because you are afraid to leave due to this horrible current system.

It is in the best interests of every single citizen of the United States to be for healthcare reform. While you may disagree with points of legislation, the system desperately needs reform and the conversation should reflect that reality, rather than scare tactics and stupidity.

  • http://moville.blogspot.com/ moville​.blogspot​.com/

    I too, am confused by the sanctimonious look on the chicken’s face as he takes the bullet for Colonel Sanders.

  • nobody

    “If the government can’t run healthcare (or any other program), then why are you afraid of the public option?”

    Because it will be subsidized, and will benefit from regulatory and capital advantages. It will thus be cheaper over the short to medium term, and thus more attractive. Unfortunately the subsidies will be unsustainable over the long term, forcing the government to reduce costs somehow. That will lead to rationing, and politically motivated allocations. At that point the system will deteriorate, but the private system will be substantially diminished, and substantial political interests will have become invested in the preservation of the “public option” — so we won’t be able to get out.

    • http://blurbomat.com blurb

      Good points, but what do you think of Germany, Japan, the Netherlands? They have public and private options.

      Japan’s numbers are far better in terms of life expectancy than the U.S. as are their hospital stay times (longer) and general health. I know, less high fructose corn syrup over there, just saying, the numbers (CIA factbook) are better for a citizen of Japan than the U.S. I’ll be sharing those numbers this week.

      I think you are making a certain degree of conjecture (as am I) about the future. Healthcare may deteriorate and it may not. As for your rationing argument, healthcare insurance is already rationed. Most policies have a limit in terms of how much they’ll spend per person and when you hit it, the doctor/hospital gives you the grim news. At least with a public option, there is a modicum of public ability to force changes in the system. With private insurance, most people have zero say in what kind of benefits they get and pay for from their employer. With reform, the playing field changes dramatically and companies have to compete.

      Thanks, as always, for your intelligent opposition. I wish there were more people like you out there. :-)

      • nobody

        Thank you for the kind words. I wish I were persuasive enough to inspire in you a greater faith in the ability of free people to organize themselves to provide for their own needs.

        I know very little about the German or Japanese systems. I think it makes very little sense to attribute differences in life expectancy to differences in health care finance. Differences in diet, exercise, risk behaviors, and cultural factors are probably at least as important. You note that the Japanese diet is far healthier than the American, and I expect there is a long list of similar differences in culture that explain much of the difference.

        I don’t think it’s conjecture to say that there are given political forces and trends in our society, and that these will have predictable effects on public policy and debate going forward. We’ve seen these forces operate in many different areas, and while no one can predict the future, it would be imprudent to imagine they’ll somehow operate differently here.

        And it is far easier to force change on a corporation, which must constantly maintain its relationships with its customers to maintain its revenues, than on a government supported by a majority, whose revenue providers must make payments whether they like it or not. If you are with the majority, it’s fine. If you aren’t, you have zero recourse.

        • TheNephew

          I would also like to note that it seems like our two political ideologies are diametrically opposed. However, I think your argument is principled from a position of less government, which is a perfectly legitimate and appropriate issue for this debate. My only concern is that you cite to amorphous political forces, but I would like to know with more specificity what those forces are. Granted I am more trusting in government as a force of public good, and embodiment of protection of both majority and minority rights, so it is hard for me to see the political forces you are worried about. (Granted, I am also very young so I don’t have many memories of this government’s less admirable times).

          • nobody

            Well, politicians tends to expand the scope of social service programs and underestimate their costs. We’ve seen consistent patterns of this with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, AFDC. They do so because the political logic always calls for “more”; it’s never satisfied by maintenance of some service level. And there is little political gain in raising taxes, or penalty for deficits, so there is a lot of wishful thinking in the cost estimates.

            All of this causes problems over the long-term — but politicians have a very bad track record for fixing problems and scaling back programs. People feel reductions in benefits much more strongly than increases, and the lashback on cuts in services or employment prevents politicians from dialing anything back.

            The electorate could control these trends if it was more demanding in the analysis and accuracy of political promises and statements, but voters are as reluctant to hear bad news as politicians are to deliver it. We would need a far more skeptical and businesslike electorate to properly manage programs of this sort. Absent that, it’s better not to start them in the first place.

    • TheNephew

      More to the point, we have public options already that exist for bands of citizens, like the elderly and veterans (Medicare and Veteran’s Benefitis, respectively). These two haven’t collapsed the market competition for these individuals. Granted, the economic efficiency of these two systems is up for debate, and both could use more efficient accounting, records, and streamlined processing. BUT that doesn’t mean that they are ineffective. More to the point, neither system has led to the rationing that you are concerned about. Although Blurb has done an excellent job explaining why rationing exists with your current healthcare, which is true, that rationing, at some level, exists regardless of what kind of medical system you are on. At some point the hospital, whether through private or public insurance, will have to say you can’t get every form of medical procedure that may assist your life. (Such a system would be a paragon of the waste you are talking about).

      However, which would you prefer? A medical system that is beholden to its shareholders (thus based on profit margins, and is NOT answerable to you), or a system where you elect the individuals who control the insurance, IE Congress? I’d rather have a system where my vote, and my voice can change health provisions as opposed to the zero control I, and you, have over our private healthcare. Ultimately if I am not satisfied with my public option, I can vote for better representation, meaning I have a say and the American public has a say regarding the direction of our healthcare. That is far more democratic then the total control private insurance companies have now.

      Your argument about politically motivated allocations, can’t be helped. You are right that politics also controls who gets what, and where. Meaning that the controlling party will be able to determine where allocations go as far as administration and other issues. However, this isn’t like a complex appropriation with numerous parts throughout the country (See F-22 spending) likely this kind of legislation will require a central office somewhere and very little political wrangling over minutiae. However, the funding and coverage issue are like any federal law, able to change depending on who is in control at the moment. So, although you may be right that politically motivated allocations will happen, that argument is far from unique when compared to virtually every piece of legislation which is subject to the same kinds of motivations. Legislation by nature is subject to the political machinations that create it. Thus, this concern shouldn’t be that disconcerting.

  • http://www.ohblahdah.blogspot.com ohblahdah

    Thanks for posting about healthcare reform!

    Today, I went to a town hall type meeting my newly-elected Congresswoman was holding at the City of Hope this afternoon. There were 500 people that didn’t quite fit into the 400-seat auditorium.

    I had RSVPd to the DNC/Obama Organizing America website and even printed out signs to share with my fellow Dems. I guess they were only accepting Rep. Judy Chu official town hall RSVPs. Dang. It was literally 113 degrees, which made it hard to “Stand Together for Health Insurance Reform.” She is my representative, but people from outside the district filled up the hall.

    I met some nice Union types, artistic entrepreneurs, full-time activists, and leftover hippie people. There were a few white-haired folks with MediCare who feel like they are entitled because “we paid for it.” Oh gosh. Not sure how loud it got inside. We were left outside to try and avoid the folks carrying Obama posters defaced with Hitler moustaches, but supportive of single payer program. Oy. Next time.

  • http://pixelfish.livejournal.com/ pixelfish​.livejournal​.com/

    Thanks for keeping up with this issue. I’ve linked to today’s discussion of the fallacies.

  • http://scott.littlemeanfish.com/wp midwinter

    I’m particularly amused by arguments about government bureaucrats running health care. As if that’s any different than the insurance company and HMO bureaucrats who currently run everything.

  • voiceskari

    Thanks Jon, for having your head in this debate and providing information.

    Here is a link to a commentary that ran in our local paper last week — http://​www​.mcclatchydc​.com/​o​p​i​n​i​o​n​/​s​t​o​r​y​/​7​4​4​5​7.html by Chris Gay.

    He is a writer in New York City. He wrote this for the Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star.
    © 2009, Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star

    He addresses the ” fallacy that the market is somehow the solution”. On point I think.

    In response to your comment: “With private insurance, most people have zero say in what kind of benefits they get and pay for from their employer. With reform, the playing field changes dramatically and companies have to compete.”

    You are 100% right — we have paid nearly $12K out of pocket this year alone due to our required cost to participate in the employer plan, denied coverage, co-pays, and deductables too high to ever meet. We have ZERO control and have no other option from this employer or anywhere else. My husband is Type 1 diabetic, read “pre-existing condition” = no options.
    We are forced into any health insurance we can get and we pay and we pay and we pay. Seriously — reform can’t come soon enough for us.