I’ve had a few posts up recently regarding healthcare reform, most recently T.R. Reid’s 5 myths regarding international approaches to healthcare. Casey recently pointed me towards Ann Coulter’s echo of Reid’s piece, writing that he found it quite convincing. I think he’s too smart for that–oh Casey, you are such a Socrates. Anywho, here’s how a sophist would respond to Coulter’s five points (I am particularly proud of point four):
- The logic in the first point seems faulty to me. The solution to two private enterprises colluding together is to introduce a third? Or a 45th? What, exactly, prevents the 45 from colluding together? Multiplicity alone does not negate avarice.
- The logic in point two: there are plenty of services the government supplies that 1) have no competition and 2) we cannot opt out of. Don’t like the war in Iraq? Don’t feel we need public schooling (or, for that matter, don’t have children)? Pay up.
- Point 3’s anecdotal logic is too ridiculous to warrant comment. Only a die-hard conservative would claim that American insurance companies don’t try to negate coverage. Without collective power, individual “choice” does not out-weigh institutional frameworks.
- Point 4: back to analogy. Would you rather have health care work like: police, education, military, and fire departments, or like hamburger joints, dry cleaning, and insurance? Do I even have to comment here?
- Point 5: Yeah, right.
