Apr 21

Breasts, Testicles, Prostates, Men, Women, Pain, Politics

OK, I didn’t have a good title for this post. That one got copied right into the tags field. Trolling for traffic? You betcha.

One of the bad things following the passage of Obamacare and Sarah Palin’s invocation of “death panels” is that now it’s considered necessary by some (certainly not all) conservatives and libertarians to automatically assume that any research finding that might also reduce costs is automatically some variant of “rationing” or on the slippery slope to a “death panel”.

To wit – this one by Althouse, linked last week by Instapundit following a link to Dr. Helen’s rather innocuous post on rates of prostate screenings.

No matter how I look at it, I can’t see the relationship between the rates of prostate screening, pain research, pap smears, expense, fairness, and the Buffett-rule that Glenn Reynolds apparently finds obvious. So now I’m wondering about him falling for or into mere drama where anything can be taken to be “rationing”. Or a precursor of a “death panel”.

Is stretching an idea, meme, partisan point, etc., to the breaking point the same as jumping the shark? If not, it should be!

2 Responses to “Breasts, Testicles, Prostates, Men, Women, Pain, Politics”

  1. Bryan Caskey says:

    It’s not fair that women get to live longer than men. I propose a fairness tax on every year that women’s life expectancy exceeds men’s.

    I think Instapundit was making an absurd argument about health care to illustrate the absurdity of the Buffett Rule.

  2. Donna B. says:

    I could think that too if he (and Althouse) hadn’t been responding to any study that suggests screening of any type may have no or adverse effects for some time now.