George,
There’s more than one way to skin a cat. And until Obamacare (meaning a federal takeover of the U.S. medical system) is killed, I’m not about to discourage the opposition, so long as they’re being accurate about it, whether they take the 10,000-foot view John Stossel prefers or the “death panel” approach — which, by the way, prevailed.
Stossel’s a wildly effective communicator, and his approach may be effective when targeting people who are already skeptical of government intervention in the marketplace, or who are looking for arguments to offer others who share that skepticism.
But I’m pretty sure most Americans — even some with free-market or conservative inclinations — are not as suspicious of the government as Stossel is. They have few objections to government-subsidized student loans and low-cost mortgages and cash for clunkers and Social Security and a vast array of public programs because they believe in the illusion of a free lunch. Stossel’s arguments against statism from far above the fray may not persuade them at all.
On the other hand, highlighting the details of Obamacare and their implications may push people to, as Thomas Sowell puts it, think beyond stage one. To consider the unstated (but perhaps not unintended) consequences of the plan.
The “death panel” argument worked because it is plausible. And did it really overstate the case? Even people on the left who are hawking universal coverage, from Mickey Kaus to Eugene Robinson to Camille Paglia, felt obliged to address the death-panel debate and said, yeah, they were worried about bureaucrats rationing care for seniors nearing the end of their lives. (Kaus even suggested the real “death panels” weren’t in Section 1233 of the House bill but instead the IMAC Medicare review panel that Obama will not give up so easily.)
And it won! It put the Obamites on the defensive. It may have also killed an explicit “public option” in any final bill while allowing an opportunity for opponents to go after other aspects of the plan (such as mandated coverage or regulatory boards that would design allowable insurance coverage) that could impose the same, freedom-killing rules by stealth that a public option would do in the open.
Yes, the entire Obamacare approach is hostile to freedom, individual responsibility, medical innovation, and the dynamism of American society. But there’s more than one way to win that debate. Opponents of the plan are going to have to do more than highlight the damaging principles behind this proposal. Finding clever, attention-grabbing ways to use the details in the plan to undermine it should be encouraged.
