Andrew Klavan has an opinion on whether “death panels” are a legitimate concern or not.
It begins to occur to you that this is how you are going to die: by the fiat of fatuous ideologues—that is to say, by the considered judgment of a government committee. They are going to snuff you out and never lose a minute’s sleep over it, because it’s only fair, after all.
The basic fallacy, it seems to me, is the assumption that “socialized” and “compassionate” are the same thing. This is where liberals are blinkered. They believe that their virtuous intentions (and in most cases they are extremely virtuous) will guarantee virtuous outcomes. “Don’t talk to me about real-world consequences! I’m talking about my feelings here!”
Thanks to Dave Lull and Loren Eaton, who both sent the link.
We need to somehow put out the meme that once socialized medicine is established, conservative politicians will also be able to play with it. For example, if most doctors rely on the government for their income, having been an abortionist in the past could kill a doctor’s current business.
They also don’t appear to ask good financial questions. At this stage of the argument over government health care, they won’t allow for the possibility that they could have no money to provide as needed, but that’s the crux of it in the scenario Klavan gives us. Liberals seem to think if there’s not enough money to work with, then someone somewhere is being greedy (it isn’t the liberals, of course; it’s always someone else).
You won’t be able to get liberals to accept that government resources are finite. That’s grand heresy.
We need to convince them Obamacare is a bad idea in a way they’ll be able to process.
You mean by voting them out of office?
No voting out of office until 2010. But they might benefit from being reminded that they can be voted out of office, and that any system they set can and will be used against them.