The ongoing (and coming?) health care debate will no doubt be a gold mine of sloppy and dishonest reasoning. We've already noticed some examples of this already. Just as the debate over gay marriage seems to inspire certain particular patterns of fallacious reasoning (the equivocation on "marriage" and the slippery slope), I think the health care debate will have its own definitive fallacies. At the moment, I'm thinking that we'll see a lot of red herring–changing the subject from the less appealing facts of the matter (for instance, the fact that Americans pay more for health care and get less than other developed nations) to tangentially related, yet incendiary, notions such as "socialism."
But I think we'll also see a whole lot of weak analogy–in particular comparisons of health insurance to any other complex consumer product. Here's one from George Will yesterday:
Some advocates of a public option say health coverage is so complex that consumers will be befuddled by choices. But consumers of many complicated products, from auto insurance to computers, have navigated the competition among providers, who have increased quality while lowering prices.
Those things are different in that they are largely optional purchases. Sure, you "need" them, but you don't need them. I might mention, by the way, that auto insurance is legally mandated for all drivers (yet another difference from health insurance–and I doubt, by the way, that Will would advocate such a mandate). In any case, before one starts comparing health insurance to any other consumer product, one ought to take note of the vast differences. Few products typical consumers (i.e., anyone of any income level) would absolutely have to buy involve possible outlays of hundreds of thousands of dollars. And few of those products carry with them (often in their fine print) the real possibility of physical and financial ruin.
In the interest of fairness, I should point out that this entire piece, however bad, does not argue against the feasibility or desirability of single-payer health coverage. In fact, it does a lot to make the case for it (though not on purpose). Will's purpose is merely to argue against the "public option." I think his argument is bad (citing as it does Mort Kondrake and a health insurance industry funded study), but I think such an option is a bad one (for other reasons).