There’s a few things at play there, partially physical and partially psychological.
One thing I’ll say, though, is that the idea that chi is the body’s electric field is a modern idea. In the past, chi was regarded as a kind of metaphysical energy, that is, non-physical, sort of the same way that Christians wouldn’t go digging in your body, looking for your “soul.”
In reaction to scientific criticism, folk medicine practitioners have given pseudoscientific explanations for their claims.
If you really want to hear some people who’d be able to give a far better explanation than me, ask them over at James Randi’s forum here:
You sound like you want to say too much for a 300-word piece.
First of all, since you are planning on writing a letter to a local newspaper, I’d skip the issue of morality (as suggested by wgeary). Unless you are writing a page-long treatise on the immorality of taxes to the NYT (or some other paper that holds itself up on a pedistal) in an effort to spark some actual debate, this argument will do no good. In fact, it may very well back-fire on you. Newspaper readership of late has dwindled so much that once-venerable papers such as the WSJ and NYT have resorted to printing pieces that appeal to people who have no use for useful information (such as issues affecting commodities, bonds, the value of the dollar, and so on). The people that they are now targeting are probably not the sort of people who care about the morality of stealing money from the rich to line their own pockets. They will not want to hear about why you think it is not a good idea to take money from people whom they see as robber-barons simply because of an idea as quaint as morality. Save your words.
I would instead try to focus on the economics and history of universal health-care and socialist programs. Using the thug comparison is a good idea. It is simple to explain and straight to the point. I would certainly toss in a line or two about the monstrous problem that we are already facing because of the current entitlement programs. This is certainly something that many older folks simply may not even be thinking about since they won’t be around to experience the fallout from all of these programs. This is certainly something that should spark the interest of anyone under 50. I would hesitate to suggest writing about how universal health-care would be paid for. I think we all realize that tax-funded universal health-care would be paid for by taxes on the highest earners. So again, it would be useless to tell the pig that it should voluntarily give up its place at the trough. Though I happen to think that inflation should be included, I don’t think you’ll have enough space. The amount of words that it would take to adequately explain inflation (even the very basics of it) would take away from more important subjects and ruin the flow of the letter. If you plan on talking about mandatory health-care instead of universal health-care, I’d put in a few words about the the criminal consequences that must inevitably follow mandates. This is something that is never talked about when Hillary’s plan is promoted. Finally, I might suggest throwing in a few words about the effects of universal health-care on freedom of choice. I know more than a few people who go to holistic healers and take vitamins and supplements. Granted, their insurance doesn’t pay for these things now, but universal health-care would certainly be a significant blow to alternative medicine.
I am not sure how skilled you are when it comes to writing. Making a convincing argument in 300-words or less is certainly a daunting challenge. Regardless of what route you take, I would suggest pointing readers to somewhere where they can find out more information about universal health-care. The most important thing to remember is that a 300-word letter is the print equivalent of a 30-second soundbite. You should use words that any reader can understand.
Also, while I disagree completely with your assertion that the debate needs to reduced to a few numbers, I can’t see any other way to win. The debate has been one-sided for so long because special interests and bleeding-heart politicians keep tossing out misleading statistics about the numbers of uninsured. Please provide an update if you find any reliable numbers.
Finally, please post a draft of your letter before it is submitted. I certainly have not been able to write a short letter that made the points that I want to make. It would be interesting to see someone succeed at making a convincing argument in 300-words.
for what it’s worth, here in australia we have had a hybrid system ie. universal coverage in public hospitals and heavily subsidised general and specialist services. there are private hospitals, and doctors can charge whatever they wish, above the mandated minimum.
public hospitals are always in the news over shortage issues (specialists, beds, theatres, nurses etc.). this should surprise nobody, as free service creates unlimited demand. what does focus the mind is the monster that this system will become for future taxpayers. in australia, medical costs have outpaced economic growth in percentage terms every year without exception since the universal health scheme was introduced in 1973. i think the same situation prevails in america. throw in an aging population for good measure, and sooner or later your health budget dwarfs every other spending component. theobvious future unsustainability in budgetary terms would be the way i would sell the argument, as this speaks to people’s self-interest and commonsense.
I also thought about exploring the idea of infinite need. Libs always try to persuade by appealing to the compassion of their position. You could illustrate the absurdity by always considering a greater compassion. Ex: They say it’s compassionate to take someone else’s property/money for a sick child. Let’s say the child has a runny nose. I’d guess it’d cost about $100-$300 to treat. I’ll settle on $200. So for $200 a child can see the doctor for his runny nose. Well, what can $200 do elsewhere? How many starving children in Africa can be saved with $200? They say it’s uncompassionate to not take someone’s property in order to treat a child. I say it’s uncompassionate not to take ALL of EVERYONE’s property and send it to starving Africans.
You see how indefinite and gray compassion can be? It can go on and on. It basically boils down to either enslaving yourself to the compassion choices of others or maintaining the right to choose for yourself. I’m a rational, thinking human. Why can’t I choose? Once you submit to the idea of allowing others to dictate what you should be compassionate about, you hand over everything. Needs are endless, so how do you keep from being drained by the endlessness of it? You maintain your right to decide. You cant reason which need deserves what.
Maybe illustrate the absurdity of liberals drawing a compassion line by drawing my own, more extreme line? It also tends to indicate the evil that comes from trying to do good via evil means. It kinda goes into my idea about little thugs and big thugs and how exponentially greater just a strand of evil can be when its in the hands of great power vs a purely evil motive limited to the hands of very limited power.
also, look at lifespan as a goal. How can the greatest increase in avg lifespan be effected worldwide? It seems transferring the majority of America’s wealth to Africa would yield the best results. This reminds me of a guy that was citing unemployment numbers as an indicator his country was doing the right thing. Yes, its a factor to consider, but he thought it was all-encompassing. I then told him that its easy to get full employment. All you gotta do is outlaw transfer trucks (18-wheelers) and require that all cargo be delivered by wheel-barrow. You’d turn a one man job into 300. you’d turn 10 hrs of employment into weeks of employment. Thinking has gotten so pop-filled. No one goes deeper. They dont see the robbed men, only the robber spending their money.
I just thought back to something I saw on C-Span several yrs ago. I dont remember the specifics, but I remember there were farmers talking to congress. One by one these farmers would tell woe-filled stories about how their crops had failed and how they faced financial ruin. They seemed to be good ole folks and the atmosphere seemed to be one where you couldnt possibly query them objectively without being seen as arrogant and insensitive. So these farmers just presented their stories. They could tell what they wanted and leave out what they wanted. The could embellish unimpeded. But even if every utterance from their mouth was true, I couldnt help but seeing a certain picture in my head.
I kept seeing in the place of the liberal congressmen, starving people. I saw people standing there, ribs jutting from their sides, holding little plastic bowls. They were holding these bowls out to the farmers, but instead of putting food into them they were just going on and on with their sob stories.
Sorry if I take this a little off subject, but I have to comment. The argument that more money is needed in Africa is, in my mind, little different than the argument that more money is needed in schools. What is needed is fundamental reform from the bottom up, not from the top down. This gentleman makes an interesting and compelling case: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/159. I’d certainly choose a different example if you were going to make such an argument.
Getting back to topic, have you come up with an outline for your letter, yet?