Economist Michael Strain, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, surely knew he would attract criticism for writing in the Washington Post that sometimes the best healthcare policy is not that which results in the fewest deaths. We don’t pass laws that ensure zero traffic deaths (a 10-mph speed limit), or zero murders (ban guns and knives and place armed sentries on every corner). Why should we be terrified if some accountant tells us repealing a mandate could increase deaths?
But the clickbait-y headline on his article guaranteed a visceral reaction: “End Obamacare, and people could die. That’s okay.”
For shock value, this headline is hard to beat, but clearly it distracted plenty of readers from Strain’s sensible points. See liberal organs flip out on Twitter here, and here.
Strain’s points in the piece are important and true, but many liberals obviously don’t share Strain’s goal of repealing Obamacare. They very easily could have just harped on the headline, if they were just trying to score points. Many would, and some did. But others acknowledged what all journalists know: The author probably didn’t write the headline.
In fact, Steve Benen, a liberal blogger at the Rachel Maddow Blog, made it explicit:
And Benen, while totally rejecting Strain’s conclusions, even acknowledges the logic of Strain’s central — and most difficult — argument. As Benen puts it: “At the broadest possible level, Strain’s overarching point seems fair, if not obvious: we don’t invest limitless resources into protecting everyone at all times and in every instance.”
I won’t referee the rest of Benen-vs.-Strain. I just wanted to point out that it’s possible to argue with charity, even when we vehemently disagree, and can easily score points. And the national discourse —and thus the nation— is better when we argue this way.
