Libertarian healthcare scare tactics

Will Wilkinson,

Will Health-Care Innovation Survive Obamacare?

by Will Wilkinson on July 13, 2009

I have the sense that many defenders of an even-more-fully-government-run health care system have a hard time taking this question seriously. But they should.

Wilkinson's question presumes that unabated technological innovation in healthcare is by definition a good thing. That's a highly debatable point and one I suggest Wilkinson grapple with before challenging anyone else to question their beliefs.

As his post continues Wilkinson acknowledges that much of our out-of-control healthcare spending is driven by ever advancing technologies. He then proceeds to whistle right past that point and discuss an expensive cancer treatment that has been used in the U.S. but that originally New Zealand's health ministry wouldn't pay for at one time. I have no idea what the point of that anecdote is.

We're not looking at anything similar to New Zealand's healthcare system in this country. The treatment was eventually approved for public payment in New Zealand anyway and even before the government agreed to cover it citizens could purchase the treatment themselves. It's a story that on the surface sounds vaguely frightening, "Government healthcare won't pay for your cancer meds!" Upon closer inspection though there's absolutely no substance to the story and it has absolutely no relation to the healthcare debate occurring in this country.

If Wilkinson has an affirmative case to make in defense of the status-quo healthcare system in this country he should go ahead and make it. Opponents of healthcare reform prefer to sling this sort of mud precisely because all of the evidence and all of the data point to one simple truth - our healthcare system is bankrupting us, it is immoral and the only way to address either issue is for a robust public plan that increases coverage for all Americans. There's no way to deny those basic facts so opponents avoid them altogether prefering instead to lob these sorts of hand grenades into the debate. These opponents of reform oppose any growth in government on ideological grounds. Their concern is not with the efficacy of one healthcare system as opposed to another but rather some grand ideological struggle. Meanwhile tens of millions of American families are faced with the brutal realities of our healthcare "system" every single day. Waxing philosophically about the proper role of government is an interesting academic exercise but doing so in the face of massive human suffering and a policy crisis of epic proportions is libertine in the extreme.