« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Left’s Distraction on Health Care

Sustained attacks on character as proxies for assaults on policy are a consistent left-wing construct.

In the battle over healthcare reform, one man has become a thorn in the side of the left and the left’s reaction to his talking points is an interesting story in how the left fights.

Rick Scott, the former CEO of Columbia/HCA, has started a group called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights (“CPR”). In a new ad campaign, CPR is doing what we all should be doing — highlighting the stories of patients stuck in Canada’s and Great Britain’s healthcare systems.

The ads are powerful. Here is a sample:

Katie Brickell was told by Britain’s NHS at age 19 that the government wouldn’t pay for a pap smear until age 20, she waited. A year later, the government decided they needed to save more money and moved the minimum eligibility age to 25 years. At age 23, she was diagnosed with cervical cancer and has been told the disease is not treatable.

In 2005, Kate Spall’s mother was diagnosed with renal cancer. She was forced to wait two months for surgery that might have saved her life. But by the time her name was called on the waiting list, the cancer had spread to her kidneys and she later died.

After waiting for the government to treat her kidney cancer, Angela French’s family convinced her to see a private doctor, which she paid for out of her own pocket. The doctor told her the situation was urgent and operated on her immediately. But when Angela tried to get the government to pay for lifesaving cancer drugs, she found out that patients in her geographic area were not eligible for the medication, even though patients in other parts of the country were covered. As of the filming of the ad, Angela was still waiting on government approval so she could receive the medicine.

We know, because Senator Jay Rockefeller, among others, has already told us that government, in Obama’s healthcare system, will make cost/benefit analyses and some people may not get treatment they want. In other words, the same criticisms the left has hurled at HMO’s for years will now be done by Uncle Sam.

We also know that Obama’s healthcare options are bad for Americans because it will take away freedom to choose our own coverage and costs.

So how has the left responded to the points Rick Scott has made? They haven’t. Instead, they have attacked him directly.

Ben Smith, writing in the Politico, tells us Barack Obama’s allies meet every morning by conference call at 8:45 a.m. to build their talking points. The calls operate as a left-wing character assassination squad run by John Podesta of the Center for American Progress (“CAP”). Podesta was also Co-Chairman of the Obama-Biden Transition Project. The attacks on Rick Scott took shape on one of these calls.

On March 3, 2009, Jonathan Cohn wrote at the New Republic that Scott is “public enemy number one.” Ezra Klein, who also coordinates attacks against the right with journalists on a private email list, then took to the American Prospect to attack Scott for business practices at HCA. Two days later, John Podesta, on Fox News, tried dodging a question Rick Scott had raised about the costs of Obama’s program by smearing Scott. On March 11th, Christopher Hayes parroted his left-wing brethren at the Nation writing, “Having Scott lead the charge against healthcare reform is like tapping Bernie Madoff to campaign against tighter securities regulation.”

There has been no refutation of his arguments. There has been no refutation about his objections to Obama’s proposals. Instead, they have tried to discredit him personally. Sustained attacks on character as proxies for assaults on policy are a consistent left-wing construct.

We’re going to be seeing a lot more of it. But on our side, we need to pay attention to what Rick Scott is saying. He’s giving us the ammunition we need to fight back.

COMMENTS

  • mbecker908

    please refrain from using the word “ammunition”. I’m not personally mature enough to read that and not have unprintable thoughts cross my mind. Thanks.

  • red4ever

    Excellent point about how the government will now be making the decisions that the insurance companies — none of whom are doctors now make. And they will make the same pennywise, pound foolish decisions. Oh, let’s not pay for a cheap test for everyone so we can pay for very expensive treatments for a few.

    Geographic area? That’s a new limitation. Who decides the folks on Nova Scotia gets cancer drugs but the folks in Manitoba don’t. I mean that makes no sense. Cancer doesn’t recognize political boundaries.

  • tominkorea

    And this Rick Scott fellow… he needs to shut up, too.

  • tominkorea

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s

  • DerKrieger

    and don’t stop calling them.

    I have called my Senators (Pryor and Lincoln) every other day and I was given a guarantee from Lincoln’s staff that she’s against national health care reform that places government in charge. I just can’t escape the nagging belief that she’s only against it because a) she’s up for reelection next year and b) her vote won’t be required if the Dems pass it via reconciliation.

    Pryor is still uncommitted. I guess the wind isn’t blowing any particular direction strong enough yet for him.

  • leehedstrom

    Since I am a member of an HMO, I can comment on this blog. It is the policy of HMO’s to routinely have a gatekeeper doctor to assess cost benefit analysis.
    That is how they keep their costs down. If that system is grown exponentially, that is the Canadian and U.K. plan. If Obama puts forward his plan we should expect a gatekeeper to tell us whether we re deemed productive enough, or eugenically fit to receive treatment. Since we are building our whole national identity on a system which uses eugenics as a plumbline for a persons role in society, we should expect to have our DNA on file to tell us whether we can have children, Tell us whether we get medicine, or surgury, and if our children are either mentally or physically deficient, according to a eugenicist, that child will be aborted. We have progressed back to the concentration camp doctors who did experiments on women and children. We comdemned those German doctors to death because of their inhuman treatment of others. The United States is now following that same path, thanks to the policies of the Obama administration. Plannerd Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger said it best; The purpose in promoting birth control was ” to create a race of thoroughbreds” from the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921, page2. She also said; ” More children from the fit, less from the unfit—- that is the chief aim of birth control”. from the Birth Control Review, May 1919, page 12. However, most of those who were targets of her conflagration were minorities, immigrants, and the poor. She wanted the poor to be sterilized, blacks and other minorities, to be weeded out, and immigrants were” human weeds who should never have been born”
    If our healthcare system is to be a real healthcare system, which treats the sick, rather than using them as guinea pigs, or worse, we need to stop this charge toward eugenics based healthcare.

  • DerKrieger

    If you can’t access this WSJ editorial I can past the entire article.

    Republicans and the ‘Public Option’
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124199822823204897.html

  • Rapunzel46

    One reason I never signed up for an HMO is I wanted my doctor to decide what care I needed not a nurse or a business executive. Granted some HMO’s are better than others, but many like Kaiser started what Obama wants years ago and people have died as a result and what they offer is still better than the care many receive in England or Canada. We have a Canadian friend who needed an MRI of the knee and she ended up paying cash here in the USA because she was on a very long waiting list in Canada to have it done… when it showed she needed a knee replacement surgery she had to wait another year to get the surgery. This kind of thing is not what I want here in the USA.

    People always blame doctors for the high cost of insurance, when in fact a huge part of the cost is the cost of manpractice insurance. George Bush was correct when he kept saying we needed to get lawsuits under control…. but above all I do not want businessmen making a decision for a patient instead of a medical professional who spent 16 years or more learning the necessry knowledge on which he makes his/her decisions.

  • ss396

    wrote a column on this cost benefit analysis stuff, pegging it to the hip replacement for Madelyn Dunham, the President’s grandmother. Ms. Dunham received the surgery, but died a couple weeks later. Was it worth it? Ms. Goodman wonders. She apparently forgets that no one knew Ms. Dunham was going to die that quickly.

    The President wondered the same thing.

    Obama told a New York Times reporter that he would have paid for the operation himself if necessary, but then he asked aloud whether society should be expected to pay for such treatment of any other terminally ill parent or grandparents. Was this a “sustainable model”? asked the presidential grandson, adding, “So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficulty moral issues.”

    If he had known that his grandmother had two weeks to live, would he still have paid for the operation himself? That question does not seem to have occurred to him. How can it? We don’t know when someone is going to die, so how can anyone even do such a cost-benefit ruling? But we can surely hasten someone’s death by denying elderly care. Sure, individuals of the elderly are expensive health maintenance prospects, but one’s value is not to be measured purely by what they can currently contribute to society in competition with rest of the workforce. That is not a “difficult moral issue”. That he should think so is frightening. But he wants to deny us any alternative to this.

    Ms. Goodman goes on to mention the Terry Schiavo case, but only as the generator for a growth in living wills. She conveniently forgets how the left was screaming about government intervention in what should have been a purely family issue. Oh, the convenience of selective memory.

  • Husker
  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit
  • bk

    And I’ve never gotten the impression that my treatment suffered. This is with a wife having two babies, ER visits here and there, all the usual kid-related stuff, etc.

    I’m not saying it never happens, but I never felt like there was anyone standing between us and our doctors.

    But I sure as hell wouldn’t trust the US government to run it and give us the same level of care we see with the NHS in the UK.

  • bk

    You CAN’T pay for it yourself. You’re left out of the decision-making for all practical purposes.