Bullock Texas State History Museum
Partisan Supporters of Reform Don't Need a Salesman Like King
RECEIVED Mon., Aug. 3, 2009
Dear Editor,
Michael King's “Point Austin” of July 31 [News] contains so many nonstarters, logically, that I hardly know where to begin. Leaving aside partisanship, supporters of reform don't need a salesman like this.
First, is King aware of the Hippocratic Oath? It might surprise him to know that most professionals in any field take their ethical obligations very seriously. Are there unethical doctors? Of course … and there are unethical columnists for alt weeklies, too. I don't presume King is unethical … nor should the doctors in general.
Second, King equates favoring tort reform with favoring the abolition of all legal remedies. It is frivolous claims that draw the ire of tort reform supporters, not legitimate ones. I realize this is subjective, but still ….
But the real howler is the statement that the fact that we spent billions and trillions on defense means we have that money for health care. What? Does King know the meaning of “spent”?
If I buy a house I can't afford, do I then have money for a car I can't afford? It's easy to accuse our opponents of bad faith … much harder to directly face their actual arguments.
Michael King's “Point Austin” of July 31 [News] contains so many nonstarters, logically, that I hardly know where to begin. Leaving aside partisanship, supporters of reform don't need a salesman like this.
First, is King aware of the Hippocratic Oath? It might surprise him to know that most professionals in any field take their ethical obligations very seriously. Are there unethical doctors? Of course … and there are unethical columnists for alt weeklies, too. I don't presume King is unethical … nor should the doctors in general.
Second, King equates favoring tort reform with favoring the abolition of all legal remedies. It is frivolous claims that draw the ire of tort reform supporters, not legitimate ones. I realize this is subjective, but still ….
But the real howler is the statement that the fact that we spent billions and trillions on defense means we have that money for health care. What? Does King know the meaning of “spent”?
If I buy a house I can't afford, do I then have money for a car I can't afford? It's easy to accuse our opponents of bad faith … much harder to directly face their actual arguments.
Mark Coffey
