For the third time in the last two days, the website of The New Republic has come out with a decidedly “Democrat-Unfreindly” article. Here, we have one from Jon Cohn, [1] questioning the wisdom of government healthcare, as an example.
And I have to ask; Is The New Republic trying to regain it’s credibility by ditching the left? Was it stung that badly by the recent questions about it’s fact checking?
I wonder.
Update:
I get a note from Cohn, this morning, saying in part:
I don’t want to seem presumptuous
Uh-oh. You always know there’s some presumption attached to that line…
I don’t want to seem presumptuous, but before characterizing an article as “questioning the wisdom of government healthcare” and “ditching the left” perhaps you should take the time to read it.
If you did, you would discover that it is not an argument against universal health care. It is an argument *for* it.
…
As a magazine, we have been vocal advocates of universal health care for some time now. The very same issue in which this appears contains two other articles on the subject. One — the staff editorial — dissects claims, made by certain Republicans, that the problem of the uninsured has been exaggerated.
…
I have no idea how many people read your blog. But I would appreciate it if you would correct the item.
Well, Jon, I did, in fact, actually read your article. Where else would I be getting this idea from, but your own words? While you apparently went to some lengths to argue for the government running things, you brought up a goodly number of reasons why we shouldn’t… and then failed, (Miserably, in my view) to counter the reasons you yourself broached.
Example:
As Mike himself acknowledged, none of this seals the case against universal health care. On the contrary, maybe the trade-offs between covering everybody and fostering innovative health care are inevitable–and perhaps innovation has to come second. Maybe what is good for some people with Parkinson’s isn’t necessarily in the best interests of the country as a whole. On the other hand, people with Parkinson’s can contribute more to the economy (and society in general) if their symptoms subside. They might also need less ongoing care, which could actually save money. Besides, true innovation ultimately benefits everybody by pushing the boundaries of the medically possible. Can we really count on a universal coverage system to weigh all of that? In other words, can we really be sure that universal health care won’t come at the expense of innovative medicine?
It’s a valid set of questions,
Actually, no they’re NOT a valid set of questions. They are all overridden by what you fail to consider… the rights of the individual… in terms of “By what right does government decide not to allow someone’s illness to be treated with every known curative that can be brought to bear by the individual’s doctor?”
I find it alarming that the left allows the government to deal with such issues by simply deciding not to cover the patient for it, almost in an arbitrary fashion, but complains bitterly when private insurance does the same, in some cases. (Irony abounds: Such private insurance edicts are usually as a direct result of governmental controls on such plans.)
And here in the end is why your article is to my mind one of the best arguments against Government run health care;
If you’ve listened to Rudy Giuliani or any of the other Republican presidential candidates lately, then you’ve probably heard them claim that creating universal health care would necessarily lead to inferior treatments, particularly for deadly diseases like cancer. But that just isn’t so. While the United States is a world leader in cancer care, other countries, such as France, Sweden, and Switzerland, boast overall survival rates that are nearly comparable.
I like your use of words… if you’re a used car salesman. Here’s the reality you’re trying to hide with this chocie of words: “nearly comparable”… translation… “inferior”. If that were not the case, you’d have pointed out their record as being superior. Since it is decidedly not, you had to find other words to couch it in. So, it DOES, in fact, “lead to inferior treatments”.
You tried to hide this point, and failed.
You also try to hide the facts here:
While the United States is a world leader in cancer care, other countries, such as France, Sweden, and Switzerland, boast overall survival rates that are nearly comparable. For some variants–such as cervical cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and two common forms of leukemia–the U.S. survival rate, although good, lags behind at least some other countries.
The claims for leukemia are particularly onerous, given the state of industrialism in the repspective countries represented. (You may recall, that the causes are thought to be environmental in nature, though of course susceptibility is not.)
But it’s one thing to say that universal coverage could lead to less innovation or reduce the availability of high-tech care. It is quite another to say that it will do those things, which is the claim that opponents frequently make
Here again, you hide. The reason such claims are made is because governmental involvement has invariably led to such reduction in innovation and thereby, quality of care..
Every.
Single.
Time.
And yes, even in the examples you cite, as I point out, above.
Those are two examples of many within the article, chosen at random.
In the end, your article seemed to me a fair argument against government healthcare. Usually, you only see those kind of weak arguments when someone is trying to back off of a position without admitting to doing so for political reasons. OK, I could have been mistaken as regards your intents.
OK. I’m a fair guy. I gleefully acknowledge that TNR has been, and is, heavily invested in the socialist line, still doing everything it can to lean left, in spite of the facts your article (perhaps unintentionally) exposed.
Now… about this Beauchamp thing. Do you suppose you can get Frank Foer to answer some questions on the record? No, I suppose not.