National Review's Shortfall on Preexisting Conditions

Aside from the fact that, as I've previously stated, we all have preexisting conditions, a recent reading of Avik Roy (via Rich Lowry) and Ramesh Ponnuru offer up dispassionate arguments against the inclusion of preexisting conditions. If you've read my criticisms of Roy before, you know where this is going.

Ponnuru, on the MacArthur amendment allowing states to opt out of required inclusion of preexisting conditions:

"The impact of this legislation on people with these conditions is likely to be much smaller than people think."

Roy, as cited by Lowry on the same topic of exclusions:

"In practice, a tiny percentage of Americans were being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition prior to Obamacare."

Would you like to irritate these people and generally shut them up? Here's how you do it: Ask them to delineate how many Americans with preexisting conditions should be disqualified from standard ACA coverage -- 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000?

I highly recommend posing this very question to all members of Congress as well.

You see, they're simply attempting to alleviate their cognitive dissonance. When forced to determine how many Americans should pay the full price of their preexisting condition (or basically die), people usually choose between doubling down (further obfuscation of their position) or a public admission of their willingness to place logic above conscience; few will admit to error as it requires one to rise above the ego.



Now, when the inevitable happens and the target of the question refuses to acknowledge error of judgment, then use Jimmy Kimmel's eloquent statement to ask them to pick the one family in the room that should have to watch their child die because they couldn't afford the coverage.