Facts Are Stubborn Things

--by James W. Squires, M.D.

In 1770, John Adams observed: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the states of facts and evidence.”

One year after the enactment of health reform, public discussion of health reform is dominated by words and phrases that include “Government takeover of health care” and assertions that the law is unconstitutional. In my opinion these assertions do not rest on a body of facts. Rather, it reflects wishes, inclinations and political dictates.

Here, also in my view, are some facts:  (1) The rapid and sustained rise in the cost of health care in a significant contributor to the national debt. (2) Health care costs in New Hampshire are among the highest in the country. (3) The cost of health care plays a major role in business decisions in New Hampshire and the nation. (4) We spend far more on treating disease that preventing it. (5) Among the 1.3 million residents of New Hampshire, somewhere between 110,000 and 130,000 lack health insurance.

The Affordable Care Act attempts to address each of these five stubborn facts and much more.  Unfortunately, opinions are not facts.  Take, for example, the view that the law is unconstitutional.  No, the law is not unconstitutional and the matter will not be settled for years to come.  The facts are that a number of lower courts have expressed a variety of opinions on the subject.  Not until the Supreme Court makes a decision will the matter be settled.  Until then, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land.

How the health reform debate plays out will be largely determined by whether or not our nation and our state can separate facts from wishes, inclinations, and political passions.  As for me, I fall in line with Mr. Adams and fervently hope we can stick to stubborn facts.

Comments

[James Squires]

I believe the Constitutional issues relating to the Affordable Care Act are currently unresolved and will remain so until an opinion is handed down by the Supreme Court. My concern is with statements such as: The health reform law is unconstitutional. Equally flawed would be a statement that the health reform law is constitutional. Both statements transform an opinion into facts. The debate over health reform seems to me to be dominated by expressions such as these making it difficult to address the urgent problem of the rapid rise in the cost of health coverage and delivery.

[s White]

On what "facts" do you base your opinion that the law is not unconstitutional? That's what I would like to know, because I have read a lot of arguments that are pretty convincing that the Constitution has been violated. I would like to hear how you would back up your opinion with specific examples of the "facts!"