False decision

A friend pointed me at a recent article (What America needs to decide: Is health care a market good or social good? (Julie Mack column) ), which emphasizes, to me at least, the problem with some much of passes for political analysis on the left: Goo-gooism and plain poor argumentation.  It's almost as if these folks don't want to win the political argument.

Take for instance this false dichotomy:

"We haven't resolved the core question," she said. "Is health care a market good? Or a social good?"

If it's a market good, then "we're all on our own," she said. If it's a social good, then there needs to be universal access,  in the same way that we've long had free public education for grades K-12.      

Ain't that begging the question?  Whether social education is a "social good" is being debated.

Why can't we sully our hands and make practical arguments. 

It is easy to make solid arguments that universal health care would portray it as an economic "good", and for that matter even an national defense "good." 

Granted this required making arguments, which can be challenged, and defending them.  Which is harder that just saying something is a "social good".  Not much harder, mind.

One can well argue the "social good" argument is up there with God's will -- either you buy it or you don't but you can't argue it.

This is of course a logical, calculated, and non-emotive argument. It is a frightening argument to some, because such and must entertain the value of health or education to the economy and the functioning of the state and society, it must establish criteria, it must entertain the pros of the opposition position. 

The article goes on to beg another question:

Yet if health care is a market good, that comes with the realization that some people will die for lack of health care. "Is that the country we want to be?"

It make me long for Chairman Mao: "People die all the time."
 
Don't beg the question, realize that whatever decision is made, different people will live and different people will die, some will be better off, some will be worse,

It is sullying to give arguments that make us understand that overall this country will be healthier, richer, or more secure.  It might even get the policies approved.