Stupid arguments against healthcare reform
There are a few very stupid arguments against healthcare reform that keep resurfacing. Perhaps if I deal with them here, they’ll stop polluting my dashboard.
Question: Why don’t young people “divert some of their entertainment expenditures to a modest investment in private catastrophic coverage.”
Answer: Because there is no such thing as a “modest investment in private catastrophic coverage.” How big do you think these young people’s entertainment budgets are? The last time I looked into the market, that “modest investment” in catastrophic coverage (with a $10,000 deductible) was going to cost $300 each month. It hasn’t decreased since then. That’s closer to a housing expenditure than an entertainment expenditure. Saying that young people should just by healthcare instead of buying an iPod is sort of like saying that homeless people should just buy themselves a house instead of a pack of cigarettes. Are the cigarettes a wise purchase? Probably not. But the opportunity cost is a sandwich, not a house.
Question: Why can’t poor people just get their healthcare at the emergency room?
Answer: Emergency rooms aren’t very good with chronic conditions. They’re probably great for profuse bleeding or broken arms. They’re not good for diabetes, depression, AIDS, cancer, and so on.
Question: Isn’t it a slippery slope to absolute government control of everything? When is it going to stop?
Answer: No, it’s not a slippery slope. If the slope were slippery, this whole process would be a lot easier. We’re having trouble passing a plan that the majority of the country supports. Everybody but the willfully obtuse know something needs to be done in the healthcare field—but any efforts at reform face screaming resistance. Right now we’re just trying to do the things that most people think are a good idea. Nobody is going to collectivize you and send you to a farm in Siberia.
