Jan 172011
 

Many on the left and many all on the right are unhappy with the health care reform as it now stands.  Does that mean we are allies?  Think again.  The things in HCR that Republicans oppose are the only thing that we support.  We need to hang on to the good things the bill contains and build from there.  The Republican justifications for repeal require a degree of rational distortion that could not be accomplishes by anyone but a highly educated professional: a Doctor of Bullshitology.  This fine Krugman editorial demonstrates the extent of the deception.

RepubliCareMy wife and I were thinking of going out for an inexpensive dinner tonight. But John Boehner, the speaker of the House, says that no matter how cheap the meal may seem, it will cost thousands of dollars once you take our monthly mortgage payments into account.

Wait a minute, you may say. How can our mortgage payments be a cost of going out to eat, when we’ll have to make the same payments even if we stay home? But Mr. Boehner is adamant: our mortgage is part of the cost of our meal, and to say otherwise is just a budget gimmick.

O.K., the speaker hasn’t actually weighed in on our plans for the evening. But he and his G.O.P. colleagues have lately been making exactly the nonsensical argument I’ve just described — not about tonight’s dinner, but about health care reform. And the nonsense wasn’t a slip of the tongue; it’s the official party position, laid out in charts and figures.

We are, I believe, witnessing something new in American politics. Last year, looking at claims that we can cut taxes, avoid cuts to any popular program and still balance the budget, I observed that Republicans seemed to have lost interest in the war on terror and shifted focus to the war on arithmetic. But now the G.O.P. has moved on to an even bigger project: the war on logic.

So, about that nonsense: this week the House is expected to pass H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act — its actual name. But Republicans have a small problem: they claim to care about budget deficits, yet the Congressional Budget Office says that repealing last year’s health reform would increase the deficit. So what, other than dismissing the nonpartisan budget office’s verdict as “their opinion” — as Mr. Boehner has — can the G.O.P. do?

The answer is contained in an analysis [Agent Orange delinked] — or maybe that should be “analysis” — released by the speaker’s office, which purports to show that health care reform actually increases the deficit. Why? That’s where the war on logic comes in.

First of all, says the analysis, the true cost of reform includes the cost of the “doc fix.” What’s that?

Well, in 1997 Congress enacted a formula to determine Medicare payments to physicians. The formula was, however, flawed; it would lead to payments so low that doctors would stop accepting Medicare patients. Instead of changing the formula, however, Congress has consistently enacted one-year fixes. And Republicans claim that the estimated cost of future fixes, $208 billion over the next 10 years, should be considered a cost of health care reform.

But the same spending would still be necessary if we were to undo reform. So the G.O.P. argument here is exactly like claiming that my mortgage payments, which I’ll have to make no matter what we do tonight, are a cost of going out for dinner.

There’s more like that: the G.O.P. also claims that $115 billion of other health care spending should be charged to health reform, even though the budget office has tried to explain that most of this spending would have taken place even without reform.

To be sure, the Republican analysis doesn’t rely entirely on spurious attributions of cost — it also relies on using three-card monte tricks to make money disappear. Health reform, says the budget office, will increase Social Security revenues and reduce Medicare costs. But the G.O.P. analysis says that these sums don’t count, because some people have said that these savings would also extend the life of these programs’ trust funds, so counting these savings as deficit reduction would be “double-counting,” because — well, actually it doesn’t make any sense, but it sounds impressive.

So, is the Republican leadership unable to see through childish logical fallacies? No.

The key to understanding the G.O.P. analysis of health reform is that the party’s leaders are not, in fact, opposed to reform because they believe it will increase the deficit. Nor are they opposed because they seriously believe that it will be “job-killing” (which it won’t be). They’re against reform because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

If the Republicans get their way, comprehensive health care will be available to the rich only.  The rest of us will get RepubliCare: the right to pay premiums until we need the coverage, and then be dropped.  Sure we need single payer, Medicare for all, but the ray to get this is not to repeal the current bill.  It is to remove Republicans, and a handful of DINOS, from office.

Share

  7 Responses to “Krugman: The Republican War on Logic”

  1. Superb description. Too bad the sheeple at faux news will never hear about it (they can’t or won’t read).

  2. “Sure we need single payer, Medicare for all, ..”

    Agreed.

    “but the ray to get this is not to repeal the current bill.”

    Wrong. The republicans are idiots. I don’t think anyone will argue that. But it is flat out against the law to force someone into a contract. Forcing the citizenry to involve themselves in contracts against their will under penalty of law is called “extortion” and is not a power, even with the current commerce clause, a power that congress can justify. It is, sometimes, possible to do the right thing for the wrong reason. So yes… I agree we need health care for all. But this isn’t the way to do it. You’re advocating “the end justifies the means” and unless I miss my guess you’ve strenuously argued against that in the past.

    • Social security is not voluntary. Neither is Medicare. I agree that the mandate in the absence of a public option available to all is a grave injustice, but why not replace the mandate with some other mechanism to prevent abuse?

  3. My favorite line of Krugman? — (from your link to NYTimes.com) “…the modern G.O.P. has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government…”

    …well guess what, Paul, THAT’S WHAT *CHURCH* IS FOR.

    There’s nothing in the Constitution that mentions “the suffering” nor “the unfortunate”.

    I can’t believe such STUPID people write for the NY Times. (Oh wait, Jayson Blair did, too — I take that back.)

    -Brian Henchey
    Talk Show Host / Comedian (Seeking next radio/TV opportunity)

    • Brian, regulars here are welcome to promote their own sites, but you have not become one. To post a comment, especially a first comment, with as must SPAM as content is highly discourteous. I welcome your opinion, but removed the SPAM.

      Those segments of the church that are not overwhelmed with spreading the Republican gospel of greed and intolerance for Supply-side Jesus (not the real one), that is authentic Christians, have done admirable work in assisting the poor, but their efforts have been insufficient to meet the need.

      The Constitution does mention providing for the general welfare.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.