The Straw Man Argument

A "straw man" argument is when you create an opinion that is ridiculous or false, then argue against it. Think of a debate between a congressman and a scarecrow, with the congressman being allowed to tell you what the scarecrow would say if it could talk. The idea is to make one position look stronger by making it appear that the only other choice is untenable.

The straw man in the health care debate is the argument that we shouldn't meddle with the health care system because the majority of Americans already have fine health care. Why risk making things worse for 80% of the country just to try to improve things for the other 20% ( some of whom, admittedly, are choosing to spend as much on cigarettes, alcohol and street drugs each month as it would cost to get health coverage)?

Why is that a specious argument? Well, the fact is that we aren't being given the choice of keeping things just the way they are. Things are changing all by themselves, and not in a good way. Those 80% of people are in for a rude awakening if the American people, through the democratic process, don't take control of their own future.

I spoke to someone recently who works at a big health insurer. Her job is to collect deliquent accounts, the premium money from the employers who are using that company to insure their workers. She's facing a possible layoff.

Who lays off collection agents during a recession? A company that has a lot fewer accounts to collect from, that's who.

Insurers are hemorrhaging subscribers. And the people they are losing are the young healthy people who aren't making high incomes yet -- exactly the low risk people companies prefer to insure. And the more healthy people decide to "go bare," the more premiums have to rise to cover the sick people who "can't afford not to have health coverage." People who are already sick will make sacrifices to continue to pay their premiums that healthy people may not be willing to make. Costs are going up at a steeper and steeper rate. Small companies see it first, because they don't have enough workers to absorb risk if one of their employees get sick. But it's going to spread through the entire market, with entire market sectors suddenly dropping employee health coverage once one big competitor does.

Repeat: You aren't going to have the choice of keeping your current coverage if things don't change. Your insurer will eventually (say in 10 years) make the decision to drop out of the health care market and invest its money in more profitable ways. Insurers are financial institutions at their core. Losing money isn't what they do.

A lot of people assume that "big insurers" and "big pharma" are opposed to health care reform. In fact, they were right there at the table from the beginning this time around. Their futures depend on it. They need to see it happen, and they want to make sure the final product is favorable to their own interests. As we all do.

Give up the notion you can keep things as they are. Understand that if insurers are afraid of competing against a public choice, they are expecting that in the future their coverage will be less attractive than Medicaid is now. If, in the future, your health insurance plan is so bad you're wishing you had the choice of being on Medicaid, you will be very sorry your only participation in the current debate was to wave a teabag and say you're against any change.