Reforming the Definition of “Reform”

Thinking about quasi-socialized medicine is naturally depressing: even graphs pertaining to the government’s attempt at commandeering the health system look sad.  The frowny-shaped negative projections made for every permutation of Democraticare sum up general feelings regarding the Cuban emulation of health delivery.  The charts would make Nancy Pelosi pout if she were capable of such an expression.

Aw, I’m just teasing her because it masks how horrifying it is to consider that she’s one of America’s most powerful people.  But she and her equally dismaying senatorial counterpart in Harry Reid know they’re fighting against time and information.  They undoubtedly mutually begin weeping uncontrollably if they make eye contact in private, which would make for the best YouTube offering ever if captured on video.  According to calculators, the cost of Nevadacare is many blinking eights; that’s why the Senate is currently attempting to shoehorn a bill through before the public realizes what’s in same plan.

Elected Democrats should be worried, as we’re not buying what they’re selling.  That’s in part because we have no money due to their actions; of course, we wouldn’t consider their pitch even if money was less tight.  Regardless, we’re tuning out any health care plan that boasts of how little it will add to or subtract from the deficit  (h/t Teri Christoph).  It’s like listening to competing cell phone commercials proclaim that their respective networks are fantastic: we’ve learned to distrust all of them under all circumstances.

And why should we become more credulous?  We’re basing our skepticism upon every move made by the federal government since Barack Obama’s inauguration along with every scheme laid forth by the Democratic Party ever.  As with global not-really warming, we’re understandably dubious that any claims regarding state-influenced health care are or will ever be true.  It would be safer to wager the cost of stamps will decrease.

More broadly, the problem is the implication that the government will be thoroughly involved in each Democratically-presented plan.  True health care reform will have zero direct impact on the federal budget: its goal should be making it affordable for us to buy on our own.  The alternative is to assume a government that has devalued the phrase “trillion dollars” will reduce costs.

The public’s sensitivity to the prospect of going broke while putting doctors on the federal payroll is why members of the reigning party use the word “reform” whenever possible.  The description sounds positive in the vaguest of ways without conveying their true intentions.  Specifically, they wish to avoid using the word “government” followed by a hyphen and then a word such as “run” or “regulated.”

It’s just like how liberals are scared to utter the phrase “gun control.” Instead of using the politically toxic construction, they now claim to oppose only “gun violence.”  That still ignores that cops and private citizens who shoot bad guys are engaging in a form of quite useful violence.  But the left learned that they had to tone down the classification of their actual beliefs if they ever want to put forth marginally respectable showings in future elections.

That said, they won’t ultimately prevail if they’re only armed with semantic tricks.  For one, most Americans can’t explain what the “public option” is (h/t Mary Katharine Ham).  But explain what the public option is to them, and they’ll be guaranteed to hate it.

People are already wary of the unconscionable public sums that have been wasted financing banks and car companies.  The last thing someone whose taxes are propping up General Motors wants is to take part in the initial public offering for another federal takeover.  It’s especially so considering this one pertains to our collective well-being.

The current bill is food stamps for your health.  If pollsters used that phrase in their questions, support might drop even more precipitously, although I feel they’ll be unwilling to accept my wording advice.  To extend the food metaphor, Congress is trying to estimate grocery costs for every citizen over the next decade.  They should instead let individuals and families address their own present and near future budgetary needs.

Sadly, that won’t happen, even though they know better.  Honest Democraticare forecasts note the cost of ensuring insurance for all will follow the same path of every other program ever conceived by our government: it’ll go up, a lot, quickly, and permanently.  Other than hardcore government adorers, the only other segment of people in favor of anything Congress is currently attempting with health care are those who don’t know the details.

So, let’s keep dragging it out.  Keeping on your particular senator’s case will help.  There’s one maxim to remember about Democratic health plans: peoples like less the more they know.  Every day of debate is another day for more voters to learn why a “public option” will reduce options and harm the public.

Our goal is to pressure Congress to do nothing.  It’s a good strategy in general and definitely in particular here.  We’ll have to wait until the merciful era that begins in January 2013 to see genuinely beneficial change in the form of competition across state lines, extending tax breaks to individuals purchasing plans, and other similar free market strategies.  But it’s infinitely preferable to tolerate a presently flawed system in lieu of letting Congress install a failed system.  It’s better to cope with a non-cashed-in clunker for a bit longer than to be eternally relegated to bumming rides.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Popularity: 1% [?]