Lousy argument #1: The number of uninsured (e.g. 50 million) is exaggerated.
I'm not sure why this is thought to be helpful to opponents of reform. If the number is correct, then that's a LOT of people without insurance. If the real number is smaller by an order of magnitude (e.g. 5 million) then that's still a LOT of people without insurance. But here's why it's a crappy argument: the smaller the number is, the less excuse there is for refusing to insure those people.
Let's say--counterfactually--that the real number is 5 million. And let's say that 1 million of those are children (so that we're not picturing people who lack insurance because of poor choices they made.) What excuse is there for failing to provide basic health care to 1 million U.S. children?
Perhaps the excuse is:
Lousy argument #2: The uninsured can already get healthcare in emergency rooms.
I still hear this from people (including some doctors) who should know better. Three big problems with this argument.
- First: if, as you claim, the uninsured are already getting adequate healthcare in emergency rooms, then it won't cost us any more to provide adequate healthcare in doctors' offices. In fact, it would cost less. (Who do you think pays for the ER visits?)
- Second, do you really believe that children with cancer, with asthma, with juvenile diabetes, with genetic metabolic disorders are adequately treated in ERs? Really? Have you ever been in an ER? Do you have any idea what it takes to treat these problems?
- Third, if this is your argument, please never let me hear you complain about waiting times in ERs. Don't come crying if your true medical emergency isn't treated in a timely fashion. Little Bobby is getting his chemotherapy in room 3 and little Suzie is getting a breathing treatment for her asthma in room 4. We just don't have room for you now; hold pressure on the bleeding and sit in the waiting area. If you lose consciousness, please let someone know and we'll do our best to move you up in the queue.
Lousy argument #3: The government doesn't do things well or efficiently, so we shouldn't allow the government to provide health insurance.
The first part of this argument is certainly true on some level, but the second part is a non sequitur unless there is a better alternative. If the argument is that the private markets do a better job of allocating health care resources, then why haven't the markets insured (for example) the uninsured children? The market has been operating since...always, so why is there still a problem? (If you're tempted to say "there's no problem" or "the problem is exaggerated," see Lousy Arguments #1 and #2 above.) Note, by the way, that this is a perfect argument for dismantling Medicare and Medicaid. If you believe we should do just that, then you lack historical perspective...if you were old before Medicare or disabled before Medicaid, you were just SOL.
I'd entertain this Lousy Argument if the people floating it proposed an alternative.
Posts
