Now on ScienceBlogs: The Winkler County Nurse Trial, An Alleged Massive Conflict of Interest, and Morgellons
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« An Officer's Experience in Our Christian Military | Main | When the Worldnutdaily Isn't Crazy Enough For You »
Posted on: August 20, 2009 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton
Barney Frank gave perhaps the best answer I've seen to one of these idiots claiming that giving health care coverage to those that don't have it is reminiscent of the Nazis and makes Obama the next Hitler:
On what planet do you spend most of your time?
It's a good answer. And it continues. He gives such people exactly the amount of attention and respect they are due, which is none whatsoever. Ridicule may lawfully be employed where reason has no hope of success. Video below the fold.
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
PZ Myers 02.09.2010
PZ Myers 02.08.2010
Greg Laden 02.08.2010
Tim Lambert 02.09.2010
ERV 02.09.2010
Comments
Barney made Baby JESUS cry; that's no surprise since he's teh GAY and his umpteenth great zayde held growed up JESUS down while the romans nailed him to the cross.
Why does Barney hate MurKKKa?
Posted by: democommie | August 20, 2009 9:40 AM
I saw (somewhere) this clip, followed by Joe Blowhard Hannity whining about how mean Frank was. Kettleblind, indeed.
Posted by: FastLane | August 20, 2009 9:51 AM
I read that this particular lady is a LaRouche cultist. Has he thrown in with the wingnuts, or does he just generally like pissing in whoever's lemonade is placed in front of him?
Posted by: Shygetz | August 20, 2009 9:56 AM
Good for Barney!
Posted by: Dave Blake | August 20, 2009 10:04 AM
@Shygetz
Last week I went to a Joe Sestak town hall meeting (I wrote about it on my blog), and there were Lyndon Larouche cultists outside holding Obama/Hitler posters and handing out Larouche fliers with the Obama/Hitler graphic on them (I believe that's what the interplanetary traveller was holding up at the Frank meeting). To answer your question, he's always against the establishment.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 20, 2009 10:14 AM
She's claiming that a gay Jewish person (Rep. Frank) is supporting Nazi/Hitlerite policies. The stupid truly burns. I also doubt the irony of her rhetorical attack and Rep. Frank's response continues to sail over her head.
I too have read this lady is a LaRouche disciple. In fact the Right is trying to use it against the Democrats. The response I've heard from the Democrats is that they've effectively shut out LaRouche and his disciples from active party membership, including being convention delegates, while the inmates on the Right are both the base and the leaders in the GOP. I don't expect this nuance to appear on Faux News anytime soon, especially since 75% of its viewers were quantified to be delusional in a recent NBC poll that was designed to be conservatively biased.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 20, 2009 10:15 AM
This is such a crackup. Ed, did you find the Hitler comments just as ridiculous during Bush's term when it was the Left's favorite way to demonize Bush?
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2009 10:23 AM
And by the way Ed, are you truly a libertarian? You seem more like a big government liberal as of late. If you were a libertarian, it would seem like you would support the effort of these townhallers to defeat the government health care disaster. I don't see how any libertarian could be supportive of a government takeover of health care.
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2009 10:25 AM
Science Pundit: Last week I went to a Joe Sestak town hall meeting (I wrote about it on my blog), and there were Lyndon Larouche cultists outside holding Obama/Hitler posters and handing out Larouche fliers with the Obama/Hitler graphic on them (I believe that's what the interplanetary traveller was holding up at the Frank meeting). To answer your question, he's always against the establishment.
Ha! You had to go all the way to a town hall meeting. Last week I went to the post office and found the LaRouchies with their Hitler-fied Obama pictures. I was, like, ten miles west of Chicago at the time, so I wasn't exactly in wingnut territory.
The best thing, though, is that there were exactly two of them, and one did appear to be a total space queen. Everyone who walked past either ignored them completely or laughed. That made me feel slightly better about the state of things, at least in Cook County, Illinois...
Posted by: Geds | August 20, 2009 10:25 AM
mroberts, #7:
Well, to be fair, you have to admit that spying on people without warrants, keeping people locked up without trial, and starting wars against countries that posed little or no threat was a lot closer to what Hitler did than trying to get more people access to health care.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 20, 2009 10:26 AM
Most sane libertarians are empiricists; they see what works in the real world and work off of that.
Stop being a xenophobe and look at the rest of the world. Ya really think South Koreans and Taiwanese are socialist?
Posted by: gwangung | August 20, 2009 10:29 AM
mroberts said:
Actually, yes:
Posted by: Gretchen | August 20, 2009 10:30 AM
I'm not sure Ed has given his opinion on government involvement with health care, but he has frequently said he does not approve of deranged paranoid liars invoking the Hitler zombie.
Posted by: G.Shelley | August 20, 2009 10:32 AM
"If you were a libertarian, it would seem like you would support the effort of these townhallers to defeat the government health care disaster."
Yes but I suppose he, as a sane person, would prefer to have an actual rational discussion about the issue instead of yelling nonsense.
Posted by: senor | August 20, 2009 10:35 AM
As usual, this is feeding the wingnuts' persecution complex. Just recently Limbaugh responded by saying (paraphrased), "Yeah? Well yur ghey!"
Posted by: catgirl | August 20, 2009 10:41 AM
mroberts wrote:
Yep. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/05/abramsky_on_bushhitler_rhetori.php
I actually haven't said a word either way on the health care reform proposals floating around, for one simple reason: I don't know enough about the subject to take a stand either way. What I have done is point out the utter stupidity and dishonesty of the right's attacks on the program, again for one simple reason: those attacks are, in fact, utterly stupid and dishonest. I think there are reasonable arguments to be made against many of the provisions in the various proposals, but claiming that it's all a plot to kill off granny and that this is just like what Hitler did is absolutely fucking moronic and it destroys any credibility anyone has to say anything at all on that subject or any other.
I also find it amusing to watch the Republicans scream about socialized medicine, which is not even on the table. No one is proposing a British-style National Health Service. Hell, the Democrats couldn't even muster up the votes for a single payer system (which still is not socialized medicine). For that matter, they may not even be able to get the votes in their own party for a public option. The public option may well be a bad idea (and I don't for a moment buy the idea that it's going to save money - I'd be willing to bet that if it passes, total healthcare spending goes up, not down), but this ridiculous rhetoric being thrown at it by the right doesn't even begin to argue for that conclusion. Rather than argue honestly, these people seem to have lost their minds completely.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 20, 2009 10:46 AM
Most sane libertarians are empiricists; they see what works in the real world and work off of that.
Really?? Government healthcare DOESN'T work. Either these supposed libertarians are blind, or they deny reality. Just today ANOTHER article came about health care rationing:
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor
Yet, proponents of government health care continue to deny reality. Cuts like those in the article would NEVER happen in a free market system, yet they are routine in a government system. Sorry, but government health care DOES NOT work. The government has finite resources, therefore it must keep costs down by rationing health care. THAT is reality.
Yes but I suppose he, as a sane person, would prefer to have an actual rational discussion about the issue instead of yelling nonsense.
PLENTY of people are having a rational conversation. If you watch the videos of these townhalls, many people are asking great questions. Why doesn't Ed point out a few of those instead of cherrypicking whackjobs?
Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2009 10:48 AM
mroberts, have you never even walked into a hospital in the US? We close not only surgical suites but entire hospitals on a regular basis because the free market doesn't support them. We also ration health care here, only it's rationed by insurance companies on a profit basis. Government health care does work, and it's been shown to work MUCH better on both an absolute basis and a cost effectiveness basis, as shown by that leftist rag the Journal of the American Medical Association. You're wrong (as usual).
And Ed doesn't have to cherrypick whackjobs; they are out in force and heavily encouraged and organized by one of the two major US political parties.
Posted by: Shygetz | August 20, 2009 10:54 AM
mrroberts says:
"Really?? Government healthcare DOESN'T work."
Most of the Western world would disagree.
"Cuts like those in the article would NEVER happen in a free market system, yet they are routine in a government system."
Because the US didn't maintain a large military presence between WWI and WWII, the idea of a national army doesn't work.
Because the US doesn't maintain a decent train system, rail travel is inherently impossible to maintain, anywhere.
I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't make sense at all.
Yes, if budgets are cut then services are curtailed. That hardly makes for a real argument, though, does it?
And the argument that this kind of phenomenon wouldn't happen in a free market is, well, laughable. In our free market system,
a) a good number of people wouldn't have insurance, and wouldn't be able to pay for it
b) a good number of people would have insurance, but their carriers would drop them based as soon as they became costly
It doesn't really make sense to trumpet the values of the free market when our free market system has failed so miserably. Yes, you can find an anecdote here and an anecdote there showing that the Canadian system, or the British system, or the French system, doesn't rise to the standard of "perfect". But people who treat the free market with religious reverence baffle me.
Posted by: RickD | August 20, 2009 11:02 AM
mroberts:
Your minder stepped out for a smoke again? I am tempted to say that you don't know shit, but that's just not true. In fact ALL you know is shit. STFU.
Shygetz:
I think we're going to have to start doing interventions, for those wonderful people here are unaware of their addiction to trying to educate the willuflly indignorant mroberts.
Posted by: democommie | August 20, 2009 11:02 AM
mroberts wrote:
This is where I think you're just living in a fantasy world. I have no doubt at all that under any government-funded healthcare program, decisions will have to be made on where funds are most usefully spent. You can call that rationing if you want. But if you don't think that same thing goes on with the insurance companies, you need to lay off the crack for a day or two. Such decisions are inevitable in any healthcare system. I spend about $400 a month paying for one of my best friends to have medical equipment that keeps her alive and healthy because her insurance company will not pay for it, not because it doesn't work -- the technology is well-tested and very effective -- but because it's not financially viable for them to cover. I am baffled by people screaming about rationing who don't recognize that the insurance companies currently do engage in rationing, often on a completely arbitrary basis (virtually every insurance company has a policy of automatically refusing payment on a very high percentage of claims filed; how in the world is that not only rationing, but totally arbitrary rationing?).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 20, 2009 11:09 AM
Barney Frank is now officially my hero.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 20, 2009 11:09 AM
democommie:
Point well taken.
Posted by: Shygetz | August 20, 2009 11:17 AM
Man, I love, love, love me some Barney Frank!
We need many more liberals with balls enough to speak truth to idiocy.
Posted by: Nigel Patel | August 20, 2009 11:20 AM
The always delusional troll mroberts checks in with more lies while also providing evidence he understands health care economics equal to his understanding of scientific methodology and the theory of anthropogenic global warming, something much less than zero.
The Health Care bills being debated are not about "government health care", they are about health insurance reform, an expansion on the number of citizens covered, and an attempt to set the stage for the next initiative, i.e., to finance $36 trillion in unfunded Medicare insurance liabilities booked during Bush's reign.
Examples of Canadian and U.K. results are a red herring since the proposals on the table, and any long-term evolution, is not being proposed we end up anywhere near those two countries' models. In addition, countries that have some form of insurance similar to what the Democrats are proposing yield better results at far less cost (6% - 11% of GDP relative to our current 17% of GDP).
Howard Dean's new book does an excellent job of benchmarking superior models used by other developed countries who enjoy lower costs, better outcomes, near-universal support by the public, and cost advantages in their trade policies making them more globally competitive than us.
These models range from: 1) reformed privatized insurance similar to Democratic plans, 2) some, but not all, have added a public insurance option to a mix of private competing and/or supplemental plans, or 3) universal single-gov't payer, though still coupled to privatized care (the last is France, a model the Dems aren't close to even proposing, the Dems are considering 1 and possibly 1 & 2.
None of these countries used to model the Democrats' proposals use nationalized health care like mroberts dishonestly claims is being promoted by the leaders of the Democratic party. All of these countries enjoy far lower costs (some 1/3 of ours) with better results. Most of their employers pay some form of tax to help subsidize insurance, but its far less than the cost for our large companies to fund and administrate health insurance for their employees (which is what gives their companies a competitive business advantage over our large employers).
Dean also cogently argues that single-payer government insurance is a horrible idea for America, why it'll never fly here, and therefore won't be argued by the Democrats now or in the near-future. No one in the Democratic party is even remotely arguing for nationalized health care.
mroberts creates a strawman typical of the delusional wing of the conservative movement - which appears to have nearly devoured the entire movement.
BTW - mroberts has a blog. His only apparent regular commenter, OFT - aka Our Founding Truth - is a Christianist revisionist. OFT has been repeatedly kicked-off other blogs that discuss America's founding for his repeated lying - similar to David Barton's lies. These two make a fine pair. mroberts is also defining himself at his blog as a "classical liberal" - our founding framers are spinning in their graves.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 20, 2009 11:22 AM
Posted by: gwangung | August 20, 2009 11:32 AM
A large part of the developed Eastern world (Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Japan) also disagrees.
Posted by: gwangung | August 20, 2009 11:34 AM
mroberts: "Really?? Government healthcare DOESN'T work."
Yes it does. My healthcare is almost entirely run by the government and works just fine, thanks for asking. In fact most people in the industrialised world beyond your benighted borders enjoy government healthcare, including all of the countries whose citizens manage to pay less than those of the US yet manage to receive better quality care.
Rationing also have bugger all to do with who runs the healthcare system. Private insurance rations healthcare as well - that is how insurance works, although you're clearly not familiar with the concepts beyond your issued talking points.
Posted by: Captain Obvious | August 20, 2009 11:49 AM
As an economist who has worked in the health insurance industry for 20 years, I almost have to laugh at suggestions that the President is proposing socialized medicine, or a "government takeover." At no point has anyone in the administration or the Congress argued that the means of production - in this case the hospitals, clinics, physicians and allied health care professionals - should be put under government control. No one is conscripting physicians into a government-financed plan, no one is arguing that the government should run all hospitals, no one is even demanding that a majority of Americans enter a government health program, even though we all will eventually (and yes, "get your government hands off my Medicare" is the best modern example of irony I can think of).
It's also important to note that even classical economics includes an understanding of "public goods," which are not well-allocated (if one is thinking about long-term aggregate economic health) by the market. National defense, the environment, education and, I argue, health care are all public goods, in that we all benefit when our neighbors get a fair share of them, but we would never include those benefits in our own personal economic calculations. Having a healthy, productive workforce that is no longer threatened with bankruptcy if unexpected medical problems occur is a long-term benefit to our economy.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | August 20, 2009 12:01 PM
I also don't know enough about the issues to take a stand either way. And I'm afraid I don't have the time to read and digest the entire bill as well as research how the bill differs from what we have now.
Are there any trusted resources anyone here would recommend I consult to get up to speed on this issue? I'd like to become more educated on the subject but am a bit overwhelmed. I don't know where to start.
Thanks,
Posted by: Jay H | August 20, 2009 12:06 PM
Could you please show me the reality in which there are infinite resources?
Posted by: itchy | August 20, 2009 12:35 PM
"the insurance companies currently do engage in rationing, often on a completely arbitrary basis"
I disagree. They have a very strong and rational basis for doing so. It's a principle called BTC.
Oh, sorry: what it means?
It's "because they can".
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 20, 2009 12:41 PM
For a discussion at another blog, I compiled a table of health outcomes by nation, from World Health Organization stats. In category after category, the US falls below Western Europe and the wealthier Asian countries, and just above Eastern Europe and Latin America. Considering that we're spending 50%-100% more (as a fraction of GDP) for that care, I find it hard to understand how everyone else's system is supposed to be so much worse for them. There were a lot of excuses made for these figures -- R&D, bad lifestyle habits, violence -- but I'm not convinced they can explain poor results when we spend so much more.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | August 20, 2009 12:58 PM
Right. Invading a country based on trumped-up claims about the threat they supposedly posed us, gutting civil liberties, initiating massive espionage programs, fomenting bigotry as a political tactic, and dragging American citizens off to be tortured and held without trial isn't any more Nazi-like than trying to set up a decent universal healthcare system.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 20, 2009 12:59 PM
mroberts is a typical wingnut in that he is either lying or incredibly ignorant of our current situation. Every other industrialized country pays less for health care and gets more. Any imperfections that they have also happen in our system. We have rationing already and long wait times, and on top of that we have millions of people with no coverage at all. Get back to me when you find a problem that other countries have that we don't already have with our current system.
Posted by: catgirl | August 20, 2009 1:03 PM
@Posted by: CPT_Doom | August 20, 2009 12:01 PM
Excellent point, especially the explanation of public goods.
Posted by: Owen | August 20, 2009 1:22 PM
Could you add that there are also "millions more who are underinsured and don't know it"? I don't think that's something other countries have, either.
Posted by: gwangung | August 20, 2009 1:25 PM
Sorry, but government health care DOES NOT work.
Sorry, but if your standard is simply whether it "works", then you're totally wrong. Government health care absolutely does work. Many of my relatives have needed essential, life saving care for things ranging from heart disease to cancer, and have gotten it. They're still alive, and in fine shape might I add. That's government health care working.
Empirical reality is not your friend, here.
The government has finite resources, therefore it must keep costs down by rationing health care. THAT is reality.
And private insurers have infinite resources? Hate to break it to ya, but private insurers keep costs down by denying health care, not by rationing it. At least in my country, under godless socialism, we actually get care, and don't have to take out a second mortgage to obtain it.
Posted by: Fortuna | August 20, 2009 1:32 PM
And can we add that it does so in the United States, as well? (Medicare and the VA?)
Posted by: gwangung | August 20, 2009 1:57 PM
You and the IBD, fortunately, are proud to speak for reality. Thank goodness.
Posted by: william e emba | August 20, 2009 2:08 PM
Indiana University today released a survey finding "a surprisingly large proportion of Americans believe what the White House has dubbed 'myths' about health care reform."
http://chppr.iupui.edu/research/healthreformmyths.html
We're burned,chipped toast ...
Posted by: mediajackal | August 20, 2009 2:20 PM
A large part of the developed Eastern world (Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Japan) also disagrees.
Posted by: gwangung | August 20, 2009 11:34 AM
No, Gwangung, I think they've become "provisionally western" since they've become economic powerhouses. If they become a bit more powerful, they get to be white.
catgirl:
"mroberts is a typical wingnut in that he is either lying or incredibly ignorant of our current situation."
I don't see that as an either/or proposition. I'm confident that mroberts is both colossally stupid AND pathologically dishonest.
Posted by: democommie | August 20, 2009 2:27 PM
Thanks, Ed. MY current tagline was getting a bit shabby.
pdb
Posted by: Pieter B | August 20, 2009 2:34 PM
Another congressmen stands up to the jackasses:
" WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A woman asked Rep. Allen Boyd at a town hall meeting the other day if health care reform proposals would force people to let the government access their bank accounts."
"That's not true," the Florida Democrat responded. "When someone sends you something on the Internet that sounds crazy, how about just checking it a little bit?""
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/health.care.bad.info/index.html
Posted by: JohnV | August 20, 2009 3:37 PM
Try this one:
Ridicule is he only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them...
-- Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 20, 2009 3:46 PM
I'm confident that mroberts is both colossally stupid AND pathologically dishonest.
...and driven by a pathological hatred of all things "liberal," without necessarily having any clue what that word really means.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 20, 2009 4:20 PM
What an honor!
Posted by: gwangung | August 20, 2009 4:47 PM
"Government healthcare DOESN'T work"
Let me also point out that the VA system is a US federal government run healthcare system (admitedly with some costs shared by outside insurers and Medicare), and it provides excellent care that is routinely found to be as good or better than that available through private health care organizations. Not only does government-run health care work in other countries, it works HERE in the USA.
Posted by: Carpus | August 20, 2009 4:55 PM
I'd like to point out, too, that we already have public medical programs for the most expensive populations to treat...the old, the poor, and the soldiers. What we are talking about is, at the most, extending similar systems to populations that are cheaper to treat. In the end, it won't even end up being that much.
Posted by: Shygetz | August 20, 2009 5:06 PM
I must say the Chinese health care system is suddenly looking pretty appealing.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 20, 2009 5:09 PM
mroberts: Publicly funded health-care/health insurance has worked ever since it was invented back in the 1800's by that most radical of all pinko-commie leftists, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. I realize you are scientifically illiterate, but must you be so damnably ill-read in history too?
And how exactly does Shrub not being Hitler mean that Obama is? I think you're going to need to provide an explanation for how its crackup when people mock those who call Obama a fascist but a grave political sin for Bush jr. to receive the same treatment.
Carpus: Not only that but we also have a highly effective, publicly funded inoculation, vaccination program, and preventative medicine programs through for the very young through our public schools.
Posted by: Julian | August 20, 2009 5:37 PM
Government healthcare DOESN'T work.
Balls. If it weren't for Medicare and the VA, few Americans over 65 would have access to any healthcare at all.
Posted by: Shay | August 20, 2009 6:02 PM
And without a government run health care system, we're living longer: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/08/us-life-expectancy-hits-record-779-years.html
I'd rather keep it that way, thanks all the same.
Posted by: mwright | August 20, 2009 6:13 PM
Now, this is all sorts of malformed thoughts and writing....
Posted by: gwangung | August 20, 2009 6:20 PM
mwright @ 53 stated:
No one is proposing a government run health care system. The Democrats are working to reform health insurance, not nationalize health care.
Using your logic we must look to who is best at life expectancy rates to model our health care system after. Japan ranks third in the world in life expectancy and first among all industrialized, developed nations at 4.6 years longer than America.
So using your logic, you're proposing we adopt Japan's system, which provides universal health care coverage through a mixture of private and public coverage. They also subsidize those unable to afford or unable to get insurance through their employer, eerily similar to what our President Obama is proposing. Japan also spends approximately half of what we do here in America.
Something tells me even your own logic will not cause you to actually understand the issues and proposals on the table and honestly and critically evaluate them. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 20, 2009 7:33 PM
Too bad you didn't bother to actually read more than the headlines. Without 'government health care', the US ranks behind at least a couple of dozen other countries that do have 'government health care'.
What did you do? Place?
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | August 20, 2009 7:48 PM
Michael Heath, #55: Japan ranks third [Link provided.] in the world in life expectancy and first among all industrialized, developed nations at 4.6 years longer than America.
Interesting list in the link. Does Taiwan count as a "First World" industrialized nation? Because if not, then the US ranks last among the industrialized democracies.
mwright, it is never a good idea to make statistical inferences based on a single datum.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 20, 2009 7:54 PM
Chioptera - I used to visit Taiwan frequently in the 1990s. When I first started traveling there I would say it was not a developed nation, but going through their own industrial revolution at warp speed. It was astonishing at how fast they were progressing. When I was there last in 2000, I would still think no. Like mainland China, they had made great progress in their main city, Taipei, but the rest of the country, including their shipping port was still living a lifestyle of an undeveloped nation.
I'm not sure what's gone on there in the last 9 years.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 20, 2009 8:11 PM
mwright:
urfullofshit.
Posted by: democommie | August 20, 2009 11:39 PM
As comedian Ron White so elegantly put it, "Doctors can cure you of the most deblilitating disease, give you 20/20 vision, etc. BUT......YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!
Posted by: Brad Hart | August 21, 2009 1:20 AM
At the moment, Americans pay more than other countries and get much, much, less for their money. What sane person would argue for such a system? Who would be in favour of buying a single potato for $35 when they could by a bag full of the exact same potatoes for $1? Apart from those making money from it, of course. If the free market was so well equipped to deal w/ it, healthcare in America wouldn't be in the shape it currently is.
Posted by: tincture | August 21, 2009 2:00 AM
@tincture:
Yabbutt...
I'm currently debating someone over on Pharyngula who claims that healthcare in America isn't currently a free-market, and that deregulation would bring costs down and improve coverage.
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 21, 2009 5:01 AM
Heh, because deregulation always improves things for the consumer... I wonder if some people actually stop to ask why regulation was introduced in the first place.
Posted by: Ramel | August 21, 2009 5:18 AM
Of course. Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. Increased deregulation would only strengthen the cartels and screw the public even more.
Posted by: tincture | August 21, 2009 5:21 AM
Isn't that the point of Republicanism?
Posted by: Ramel | August 21, 2009 5:51 AM
So, Satan takes a meeting the entire GOP leadership and the reichwing's talking shitheads. He shows them a powerpoint of the world run amok; war, pestilence, famine, endlessly proliferating tv reality shows and says:
"This can be yours. The only thing I require is the blood sacrifice of your entire base of useful idiots."
Newt Gingrich, the group's spokesslime says, "What's the catch?"
Posted by: tdemocommie | August 21, 2009 7:43 AM