Decimal pointless

Somebody please explain to me what all the discussion about cost has to do with the government health care takeover debate. Conservatives are making a lot of noise about fiscal responsibility (generally a good thing in itself) and statists are doing everything they can to make the case that their actions are fiscally responsible. So...are conservatives saying they'd go along with government run health care if it was fiscally responsible? Are the statists saying they'll drop the whole thing if they can't make the financial case for it? Somehow I doubt it.

The debate over government health care should be limited to arguments about the proper role of the government in health care. Turning the debate into a financial debate concedes that it is proper for government to take over this role if it can be made financially viable. There is already a 'tanning' tax in the health care bill. I don't really want to challenge the government to go search from Arby's to Zippos to find enough 'health care related items' that can be taxed to fund its crusade to meddle in health care.

In reality, the debate about government involvement in health care is two debates. One debate revolves around the fundamental transformation of the relationship between American citizens and their government. The second debate comes into play simply because the health care debate has become a proxy for the debate between capitalism and socialism. These debates need to be separated and dealt with in their own context. The reluctance to engage in a straight up political debate about the merits of capitalism or socialism is clouding a number of issues. Capitalism is routinely disparaged in the mainstream, but when assertions of socialism are made the recipients feign offense and flatly deny them. As usual, it is the conservative side of the argument that is weakened by the framing of these debates.

Another government effort that aims at transforming the relationship between the American people and their government is about to spin up to full speed once more; Cap-and-Trade. It is predictable that the debate over cap-and-trade will rapidly fall into some of the same financial arguments we have seen with health care. Getting sidetracked by peripheral arguments around health care and cap-and-trade works to the advantage of the statists. Any good salesman knows that once he has you trying to figure out how to pay for something the chances are pretty good that you're going to make a purchase of some kind. But a question has to be asked. Why are conservatives arguing about how to pay for something that they have no desire for in the first place?

A defense of capitalism needs to be made, but it needs to be separated from these other debates. The defenders of capitalism have done a very poor job for a very long time. One of the main reasons is that they tend to make their defense of capitalism a peripheral part of other issues. There is an eagerness on the part of conservatives to seem reasonable that motivates them to make some bad choices. The case against government health care is complex and requires some critical argument. The argument is difficult to make in our sound-bite media culture and it is easier to just say 'we can't afford it'. While it may be easier and it may sound reasonable, it is also self defeating. Those on the other side of the debate simply don't care about the affordability problem. Acting as if they do?  Pointless.