James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal editorial page finds it amusing that "Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman" (the columnist for the New York Times) is outraged that House Republicans seek, in their words, to make government health care more responsive to "consumer choice":
Here's my question: How did it become normal, or for that matter even acceptable, to refer to medical patients as "consumers"? The relationship between patient and doctor used to be considered something special, almost sacred. Now politicians and supposed reformers talk about the act of receiving care as if it were no different from a commercial transaction, like buying a car--and their only complaint is that it isn't commercial enough.
What has gone wrong with us?
This is just the latest liberal spasm assuming the word "consumer" is demeaning, when the word "citizen" is so uplifting. So perhaps the Democrats could get behind more "citizen choice" in health care options? Krugman doesn't seem to see it from the other side -- if the "consumer" is denied care by Medicare (or ObamaCare), do they get to complain like a "consumer," or just grin and bear it like a "citizen"?
Taranto underlined why anyone would think health care was commerce:
Hmm, that's quite a puzzle! But we seem to remember that not so long ago, Krugman cheered on as Democrats enacted a law giving the federal government vast new powers over medicine and medical insurance. Where did they find the authority to do this? Why, in the Constitution's clause empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
Though if Krugman now claims the patient-doctor relationship is "sacred," maybe we can overturn ObamaCare as a violation of the separation of church and state.
Taranto also has a nice exploration of American poverty and cell phone usage at his column's beginning.
