Many Republicans and conservatives continue to argue that health care is not a right.
However, most Republicans in the House and Senate made a stand through their arguments about the Terri Schiavo case that (controversial issues of consent and cognition aside) resided entirely on the premise that Americans have a moral and legal right to continued health care.
Consequently, there is only one question to pose to them, and it will stop them right in their tracks:
"So you wanted to keep Terri Schiavo alive not because life is sacred, but only because the Schiavos were able to afford the access to health care?"
Let me allow that to sink in for a moment:
"So you wanted to keep Terri Schiavo alive not because life is sacred, but only because the Schiavos were able to afford the access to health care? If the Schiavos didn't have the money to afford health care, would her life have been less sacred - yes or no? Unless you're saying that life is only sacred based on one's wealth, then you must agree that health care is a right for everyone."
Pwned.
More below the fold...
Since any Republican official who hears this will be caught off guard and find no help in his internal talking points library, the result will be somewhere between sputtering and silence; nonetheless, most are trained to be resilient in these situations and will quickly recover, so let me spell out exactly how not to let this ironclad trap loosen for a second by extrapolating all the potential scenarios:
D: "So you wanted to keep Terri Schiavo alive not because life is sacred, but only because the Schiavos were able to afford the access to health care?"
(Nobody would answer "yes, money is why life is sacred" even if were what they felt with every bone in their body, so the only alternative to sputtering or silence is to answer "no.")
R: "No, it was because life is sacred."
D: "Well, if the Schiavos didn't have the money to afford health care, would her life have been less sacred - yes or no?"
(Again, they are trapped into one possible answer)
R: "No."
D: "So since you believe that Terri Schiavo had the right to be kept alive as long as medicine allowed it regardless of financial means, then you agree that we all have a moral right to be kept alive as long as medicine allows it regardless of financial means?"
(Again they cannot say yes, absent some wonderful catharsis that would be greatly welcome)
R: "No."
D: "What's the difference?"
(From one possible option - to none)
R: "......"
Most will be silenced; the only avenues for them at that point are to 1). make an excuse and try to slip out of the room, 2). try and duck the argument to reargue that Schiavo was wronged (as their party ID plummets by the second - fine with me) or 3). admit that health care IS a right.
I am not naive; I know it is unlikely we will convince the vast majority of conservative Republicans even with this ironclad reasoning, but it so shuts them down and makes them question the core of their own values that it's an invaluable argument for both media and behind closed doors debate, especially at a time when the flipping of just a couple extra Republican Congressmen and Senators on health care could potentially be the difference in having enough votes to pass an even stronger public option than otherwise.
Most Republicans in the House and Senate made a stand through their arguments about the Terri Schiavo case that (controversial issues of consent and cognition aside) resided entirely on the premise that Americans have a moral and legal right to continued health care. Unless they'd like to revise their statements and argue on the record that they only meant for it for people with money, then they should be held to that standard.