Health Care Reform - Comparison Tool and Fallacious Opposition

Ever wonder what the health care proposals really are, and how the various versions compare? Here's a very helpful site.

Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals - Kaiser Family Foundation

It might be a little out of date if/when President Obama offers a smaller/modified plan, which could occur Wednesday. Another place to get information is here at Reuters, though it does not have the side-by-side comparisons.

I have been referring to these, especially as the opposition claims that the proposed bills create a socialized medicine plan, or that this is a government takeover of health care. By my reading, it's clear that they do not. The world has examples of socialized medicine and government-run health care. These plans are not that.

So, why is the opposition using these words, then, when they argue against the plans? There are a couple of frequently used rhetorical devices which might be at work, but they are both logical fallicies.

Straw Man: They may be creating a Straw Man. This is a fallacious argument where one side creates a characterization of the opponent's position which is easier to argue against, but which is not the opponent's position at all.

Example: If my position is "Puppies are good pets" and you decide to argue against me as if my position is "Puppies don't make messes" you might sound like you're talking about the same thing, but really you've created a straw man. And, since most people know that puppies do make messes, if you can get people to believe that my position is "Puppies don't make messes" then you can convince them to disagree with me, without actually addressing my position.

Slippery Slope: This is a fallacious argument where one side says that the opposition's position will lead, very clearly and inevitably, to an end-state position, so they argue against the end-state.

Back to the puppy example: If my position is "Puppies are good pets" and you believe that the end result of owning a puppy will be ruined carpets and furniture, you might argue that keeping our belongings safe is more important than puppies. Notice that I did not argue that we should have a puppy, nor did I maintain that a puppy would not cause some damage. You took my statement as the first step down a slippery slope.

[Another possibility is this - They're just wrong: The opposition hasn't actually read the opponent's position, but assumes it says one thing when it says another. {The general public probably has too many of this third group, but then again, the general public supporting the plans contains many who don't know the details either. I mean, let's be honest -- this stuff is complicated and good concise information is hard to find. So let's just deal with the people who are arguing from the informed positions, rather than ignorance.}]

When they argue that the plans should not be enacted because we don't want a government takeover of health care, I believe the majority of the politicians arguing this way are doing some combination of Straw Man and Slippery Slope.

By the way, some opponents are trying to stop the plans on more logically consistent grounds. Paul Ryan's comments (most of them) during the Blair House Summit argue against the plans because they increase the deficit. If one believes that the deficit must not go up due to these plans, and if Ryan's numbers are right, then there is a logical argument against the plans. But it's not the argument being used as a talking point or a rallying cry. Even Ryan threw the "government take-over of health care" in at the very end -- around 5:45.

It's hard to sift through the actual counter-proposals from the opposition when the emphasis keeps being placed on aspects of the plan which do not exist.