Brian Baker: Socialized medicine: You’re for it or against it
By Signal Contributor
Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

On June 15 The Signal published a column by Steve Lunetta entitled “In search of elusive compromise” in which he tries to rationalize his support for government-run health care by claiming that “compromises” could be made that would make it more palatable to conservatives.

Early in his column he rattles his electoral saber:

“Even if the Republican AHCA is signed into law, four years later, if the Democrats control Congress (and current trends say they will), the AHCA will be swept aside for yet another program.”

Back in October, “current trends” were solidly showing that the Pantsuit Woman was going to be president. Look how that turned out.

There’s an old joke that goes like this: “What’s a camel? It’s a horse built by a committee.” The point being that “compromise” isn’t always a solution to an issue.

In fact, it’s often vastly overrated, especially when you’re talking about core principles.

What if the Founding Fathers had tried to find a “compromise” with King George? Look how well Chamberlain’s “compromise” with Hitler turned out. There’s the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which ended with a little dispute called the Civil War.

The plain fact is that some differences are so fundamental that there’s no compromise possible.

Once again Lunetta’s trying to rationalize his support for socialized medicine. This time he’s taken a couple of the proposals that I and others like me have made – medical tort reform and the removal of state barriers to product sales – and proposed that there be some “compromise” to modify them to fit into the mold of socialized medicine, completely ignoring the fact that those proposals are made to provide a stark alternative to having the government involved in health care at all.

That wouldn’t be a compromise on the part of free-market advocates; agreeing to such a proposal would amount to waving the white flag of abject surrender. It would render those proposals moot and meaningless.

On top of all of that, we have the historical record which clearly shows – during the past half-century at least – any ground the left gains through “compromise” doesn’t end the debate on an issue.

It merely becomes the starting point for their next set of demands. It’s slow suicide by conservatives and Republicans.

The final truth is that what Lunetta’s trying to do is very akin to trying to be a little bit pregnant. In reality, you either are or you aren’t.

Steve supports government-run health care, which is socialized medicine, whether or not he wants to admit it. I, and people like me, don’t. It’s that simple and fundamental.

 

About the author

Signal Contributor

Signal Contributor

Brian Baker: Socialized medicine: You’re for it or against it

On June 15 The Signal published a column by Steve Lunetta entitled “In search of elusive compromise” in which he tries to rationalize his support for government-run health care by claiming that “compromises” could be made that would make it more palatable to conservatives.

Early in his column he rattles his electoral saber:

“Even if the Republican AHCA is signed into law, four years later, if the Democrats control Congress (and current trends say they will), the AHCA will be swept aside for yet another program.”

Back in October, “current trends” were solidly showing that the Pantsuit Woman was going to be president. Look how that turned out.

There’s an old joke that goes like this: “What’s a camel? It’s a horse built by a committee.” The point being that “compromise” isn’t always a solution to an issue.

In fact, it’s often vastly overrated, especially when you’re talking about core principles.

What if the Founding Fathers had tried to find a “compromise” with King George? Look how well Chamberlain’s “compromise” with Hitler turned out. There’s the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which ended with a little dispute called the Civil War.

The plain fact is that some differences are so fundamental that there’s no compromise possible.

Once again Lunetta’s trying to rationalize his support for socialized medicine. This time he’s taken a couple of the proposals that I and others like me have made – medical tort reform and the removal of state barriers to product sales – and proposed that there be some “compromise” to modify them to fit into the mold of socialized medicine, completely ignoring the fact that those proposals are made to provide a stark alternative to having the government involved in health care at all.

That wouldn’t be a compromise on the part of free-market advocates; agreeing to such a proposal would amount to waving the white flag of abject surrender. It would render those proposals moot and meaningless.

On top of all of that, we have the historical record which clearly shows – during the past half-century at least – any ground the left gains through “compromise” doesn’t end the debate on an issue.

It merely becomes the starting point for their next set of demands. It’s slow suicide by conservatives and Republicans.

The final truth is that what Lunetta’s trying to do is very akin to trying to be a little bit pregnant. In reality, you either are or you aren’t.

Steve supports government-run health care, which is socialized medicine, whether or not he wants to admit it. I, and people like me, don’t. It’s that simple and fundamental.