Why do you believe what you believe?

While Support for congressional health care reform has fallen to a new low (Rasmussen), there are still people who seem to want it. Today, I talked to an acquaintance still rooting for health care reform about what he believes it will look like and why he wants it. My interviewee asked that his name not be shared, so we'll call him "Bob". Below, Bob's comments are marked off in block quotes, with my rebuttals outside them.

Well, first of all, everybody should be able to go to the doctor when they get sick. It's just not fair that some people can't afford to take their kids to the doctor, or get medicine when they need it.

Who, exactly, can't afford to get medical care? The impoverished have access to Medicaid. 68% of American voters have health-insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. A lot of people have been throwing around numbers regarding who is uninsured. The latest census numbers say that 45.6 million people in America are "uninsured". I put "uninsured" in quotes because, as The Cato Institute points out, "...roughly one quarter of those counted as uninsured — 12 million people — are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), but haven't enrolled. This includes 64 percent of all uninsured children, and 29 percent of parents with children. Since these people would be enrolled in those programs automatically if they went to the hospital for care, calling them uninsured is really a smokescreen." 45.6 million minus 12 million leaves 33.6 million. Of those, (quoting Cato again) "Approximately 5.6 million are illegal immigrants, and another 4.4 million are legal immigrants but not citizens." Subtracting the 10 million non-citizens, we have 23.6 million uninsured. The Cato article also points out a study "...by Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford, [which] concluded that nearly three-quarters of the uninsured could afford coverage but chose not to purchase it." The remaining 25% (generously rounded up) are about 6 million people -- out of a population of over 300 million. That means that more than 98% of Americans have all the health insurance they want. Cato also points out (the citation is unclear, but I think this came from CBO numbers) that "[o]nly about 30 percent of the uninsured remain so for more than a year, approximately 16 percent for two years, and less than 2.5 percent for three years or longer" So, more than 98% of Americans have health insurance, and for the vast majority (over two thirds) of the uninsured, being without insurance is a very temporary situation. Who are you so concerned about insuring that you think we should up-end a system in which most people are happy with their insurance, less than 2% of citizens are without insurance, and 70% of people momentarily without insurance get insurance in a year or less?

Umm... but you said that you didn't count people who aren't citizens. That makes 10 million more uninsured.

Yes, it does. Are you suggesting that people who are not citizens should get free insurance paid for with our tax dollars, and by going into debt that our children will have to pay?

You don't need a doctor less because you aren't a citizen.

That's true, but when we apportion resources solely according to need, what we get is a failed, socialist state. In the end, someone has to pay for all of this. If we offer free health care to everyone who shows up on our doorstep, we will have more and more people show up on our doorstep until we are so broke, and so deep in debt, that we as a nation cannot support ourselves, let alone anyone else. Federal benefits are for our citizens, because they are the ones subject to our taxes and responsible for our debts.

Well, even if you feel that way, they've already said that illegal aliens won't be eligible for benefits.

Yes, a lot of people are saying that, however, the amendment that would require proof of citizenship before collecting benefits under this program was defeated in committee, leaving no legal way for anyone to prevent illegal aliens from using the program.

Look, you just told me how many people have insurance -- shouldn't we make it cheaper for them?

What evidence do you have that the proposed "reforms" would improve prices for the consumer?

What evidence do you have that it won't?

This logical fallacy is called arguing from ignorance. You cannot prove that peanut butter repels hippos by pointing out that there isn't a study saying it doesn't. But, since you asked, I'll humor you... "The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage program. In response, many insurers may stop participating in the program, while others could increase the premiums they charge seniors. Millions of seniors will likely be forced off their current plan and back into traditional Medicare." -- Cato.org "the bill imposes a 40% excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000 for an individual plan and $21,000 for a family plan. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers via higher premiums." --Cato.org "the bill would push $35 billion in Medicaid costs off onto already cash-strapped state governments" --Cato.org How convenient -- increase costs for the individual states so that they have to raise taxes at the state level, giving states the blame for rising taxes instead of the federal government, which actually caused it. That's before we even get to the penalties on families who don't buy the "right" insurance, and "fees" on producers of medicines and medical equipment that will surely be passed on to the consumer.

But Obama said no new taxes.

Yes, President Obama did promise that. Unfortunately, he lied. Let's agree to use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of the word "tax": "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes".

Okay.

The bill clearly states (page 29, first sentence) "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.". Don't have the money to pay? Then do not pass go, pay the government up to $25,000, and go directly to jail. CNN points out that "[t]he Baucus proposal would pay for reform in part by imposing $349 billion worth of taxes and fees on insurers and other health industry players, such as pharmaceutical and medical equipment manufacturers." Obama and Baucus call these "fees", but is a charge on property for public purposes. It's a tax. It will be passed on to you as higher insurance premiums, more expensive medicines, procedures, wheel chairs, oxygen machines, and so on. From the same CNN article, the bill "...would be a 35% excise tax on insurers for plans that cost more.." (I've seen both 35% and 40% quoted repeatedly -- there's no way to know which it will be, but either is unacceptable.) In other words, if your insurance is better than the government wants you to have, they will tax it at 35% to pressure you to change. "Excise" comes from Latin, and it means, literally, "to cut out". Excise taxes, such as those on gas and cigarettes, are designed to make something so expensive that people stop doing it. The government doesn't want to make your insurance better, they want to get rid of better insurance so that you don't know how bad yours is. Because the health care reform plan would cost well over 2 trillion dollars instead of the $829 billion that its supporters claim. This will either bankrupt the program almost immediately, explode the deficit, cause even more new taxes, or some combination of the above.

Yeah, well, it would be easy for me to buy all that you say, and be afraid of losing the awesome insurance my job gives me. But I have to think about the single moms, the people whose jobs don't give them insurance, and people who don't make as much as I do.

I'm one of them, and I don't want this, for good reason. I took the time to write about why, please read it.

What degree do you have that makes you think you know so much more than our elected officials? How do I know what you say is true?

I don't have a degree. I am, however, willing to read the bill. Our leaders not only can't be bothered to read it, but vehemently oppose allowing us to read it, because letting us read it diminishes the ability of our leaders to force on us things we wouldn't approve of. The closest we can come is to read the Chairman's mark, which is the plain-language version of what was initially introduced, and follow what our President and legislators say in the news. Our public servants have thus far said that we will not be allowed to see the final bill before it is passed. If it's so great, show it to us. In the mean time, don't take my word for it. I've linked my sources, read them. After I made my final points (above) Bob fell back on his initial emotional argument, the first one I defeated. When we ended the conversation, I'm not sure if I had convinced him or not. He couldn't answer my arguments, but he didn't seem willing to let go of that emotional starting point. Here's hoping logic eventually takes over.