For another example of how “progressives” plan to villify those who fail to fall in with the party line on health care, one need look no further than Paul Krugman’s latest calumny:

Less than two weeks have passed since much of the medical-industrial complex made a big show of working with President Obama on health care reform — and the double-crossing is already well under way.

This is Krugman at his Orwellian best. The fact is that it was the President who double-crossed the “stakeholders” who were dumb enough to participate in his health summit.

But now that the “medical-industrial complex” has figured out that Obama was not acting in good faith, the “progressive” community is attacking the stakeholders.

As Democrat congresswoman Jan Schakowsky famously put it, “this is not a principled fight.” The advocates of government-run health care have no intention of debating honestly.

I always like to hear the reasoned arguments of our adversaries (see email below). I especially like his analysis of how costs are held down in the UK and Canada via “preventive medicine”. I think what he means is that all those colonoscopies that the NHS prevents Brits from getting greatly lower their colorectal cancer outcomes – thus saving the system lots of money via the premature death of patients.

From: [email protected]
Subject: Ha Ha!
Date: May 12, 2009 12:51:10 PM EDT
To: [email protected]

If you weren’t so stupid and so godamm funny I would actually be upset about your lies and stupidity concerning single payer health insurance. I never heard of any of your “films”, but I’m sure they’re as equally funny and misguided. Let’s see – whose opionion should I trust? – a nobel prize winning econimist PhD from Princeton or a hack nobody? Tough choice. As for Canadian healthcare or British healthcare for that matter, the main focus is on preventative medicine. That’s why the costs are so low. People in this country who are uninsured wait until the last minute to receive help, so costs ultimately skyrocket.

Aetna (one grand cocksucking “health” insurance swindler) actually requires a renal patient to pay a 50.00 co-pay out of pocket for each dialysis treatment. They also mandate that ALL renal patients need only three treatments a week. In Britain, if your doctor stipulates 5 treatments – you get 5 treatments – no copay. By the by, if you can’t afford the co-pay I know of many patients who apply for Medicare. So big, bad government actually subsidizes these multi-billion dollar industries. Does this make sense to you, you fucking moron? Socialized Medicine Now!  

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post about the ineffective way conservatives debate health care reform. Frank Luntz has been thinking about the same issue and has some advice for Republicans:

You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of REFORM … The status quo is no longer acceptable. If the dynamic becomes ‘President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,’ then the battle is lost.

In other words, stop fighting “reform.” Instead, fight for the right kind of reform. Luntz also suggests some verbiage that will be more effective when attempting to define the real peril of Obamacare:

It could lead to the government setting standards of care, instead of doctors who really know what’s best.

It could lead to the government rationing care, making people stand in line and denying treatment like they do in other countries with national healthcare.

President Obama wants to put the Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare. I want to put the medical professionals in charge, and I want patients as an equal partner.

I hope conservatives will listen to Luntz. The way our side has been conducting the debate has been hopelessly ineffective. If we don’t change tactics and start speaking to the issue in human terms, the cause is a goner.