September 29, 2007

If Liberals Are So Open-Minded, Why Do They Consistently Misrepresent Their Test Results As "Proving" Mental Retardation In Conservatives?
— Ace

Mind your M's and W's.

Via Dr. Helen.

Posted by: Ace at 03:22 PM | Comments (50)
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

1

Thank goodness someone out there actually challenges these crapola junk-science 'reports'.


I just have a double BA, and I can shoot these idiotic studies down in the flames they deserve.


Posted by: 5Cats at September 29, 2007 03:38 PM (Knaf0)

2
Personally, I think there is something seriously wrong with people who go into the field of psychologically. Most of them are power freaks. A higher percentage than normal appear to be perverts and murderers. And no, I'm not kidding.

Posted by: dave at September 29, 2007 03:53 PM (oR8jC)

3 According to the General Social Survey (GSS), a survey conducted by presumably mostly left-wing sociologists, liberals suffer mental illness at far higher rates than conservatives.

Percent having had a mental illness

Extremely liberal 30.0
Liberal 11.5
Slightly liberal 12.1
Moderate 4.7
Slightly conservative 7.8
Conservative 5.6
Extremely conservative 5.1

Posted by: Mike Z. at September 29, 2007 03:55 PM (GLMrI)

4 I just conducted my own "study", and found that Liberals tend to LIE at a much greater rate than do Conservatives.

Can I prove it? No more than Liberals can prove their studies, but I think the empirical evidence would support me.

I'm just sayin'


Posted by: Bruce at September 29, 2007 04:23 PM (2q+Ss)

5

...liberals suffer mental illness at far higher rates than conservatives.


No no no, Bush has fucked up reality so badly that liberals are the only ones sane enough to detach from it!  Just ask them.  They will gladly explain to you why everyone else is crazy.  Everyone except them and people who just happen to be fulfilled through the hurting and killing of others, and about whom we shouldn't be so judgemental.  Glad I could clear that up for you.


Posted by: sherlock at September 29, 2007 04:23 PM (ojW85)

6 Several hundred of that 30% are in congress.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 29, 2007 04:25 PM (77M+c)

7 I don't suppose there is any way to find out but... what was the *gender* of the participants?   What other possible reasons were "controlled" for in the study?

Posted by: Synova at September 29, 2007 04:51 PM (8HO37)

8 Ahh, I love the interwebs.

There was a time in my youth when this diarrheal flood of left-wing propaganda was just poured into schools and homes, and about all you could do if you doubted the assertions was do your research in a library and then by the time you got back the lefties were off on another meme and accused you of trying to change the subject if you tried to correct last week's crap.

It's still illegal to beat them with hammers, darnit.

Posted by: Merovign at September 29, 2007 05:11 PM (IaYDo)

9 If Liberals Are So Open-Minded, Why Do They Consistently Misrepresent Their Test Results As "Proving" Mental Retardation In Conservatives?

It's one of those liberal paradoxes sort of like why progressives, who claim to want social progress, don't believe in certain forms of social progress. I'll quote Deogolwulf in full since his post on this matter is short:

It is very odd that progressives — those who believe most strongly in the malleability of mankind and who thereupon push for unprecedented change in order to engender a significantly new and better society — are often compelled to express the opinion that some major aspects of society do not undergo any significant changes at all. Thus, if one talks of the decline in civility or of the increase in crime, one gets the stock-moronic response that “it’s always been that way”. One would think that such a response would be the last thing one would hear coming from the mouths of men who profess to believe not only that mankind is very changeable but also that a thing’s always having been a certain way is no justification for acquiescence or complacency in the light of its continuing existence, nor a barrier to its improvement, but rather even a spur to a determined fight against its very existence — and yet it is often the first thing one hears them say! But they are not called progressives for nothing. They do not believe in mere change, they believe in progress, that is, change for the better, as an infallible function of their ideas, and so, whilst their ideas predominate, at least as far as they can see them in policy and practice, they are loath to see any changes for the worse, except, notably, in the behaviour of reactionaries or foot-draggers, those dreadful people who oppose or appear indifferent to the promise of the better society to come.

Posted by: Mike Z. at September 29, 2007 05:15 PM (GLMrI)

10 You know, I choose to interpret the results of the study as saying Liberals rely on their instincts more then conservatives... I mean, the data does suggest it, after all the time to push the button was purposefully put at the point where instinct was the only thought process capable of responding... so if a liberal ever brings up this study I'll just say "Oh you mean that study that showed conservatives rely less on their instincts?"

Posted by: AR at September 29, 2007 05:35 PM (9EcSL)

11 Can I prove it? No more than Liberals can prove their studies, but I think the empirical evidence would support me. -Bruce

No, you're supposed to state it like this: "And everyone knows...."

Posted by: z ryan at September 29, 2007 05:56 PM (PDeVA)

12 It's still illegal to beat them with hammers, darnit.

It's not illegal if the police can't find the body.  In my defense, I exercised my liberal mental capacity and came to terms with my innate moral flexibility.

Posted by: not that ryan at September 29, 2007 05:57 PM (J3svr)

13 Here's a study for you: how about correlating conservatism/liberalism with a basic understanding of economics and the incentive effect?

Posted by: W.C. Varones at September 29, 2007 06:36 PM (nv/62)

14 Because it's true, you silly knuckle-draggers. It sounds like some people are protesting too much.


sniff

Posted by: Another Stupid Typical Fucking Moonbat at September 29, 2007 07:04 PM (VYZ0r)

15 I was listening to the Gobernor of Michigan yesterday explain to thegood citizens of Michigan how the citizens of Michigans need to be open and be less greedy when talking about funding our schools, etc.

Well, her extremely effeminate sounding wife, Dan Mulhern, has a nice little show on a local station. I'm not sure that it is not a sop for hat douchebag.

Well, after her wonderful speech, it seems that the nice little social studies teacher Dan Mulhern thought that anybody who didn't think that tax raises that would OBVIOUSLY go to parks and roads (which are WONDERFUL in Michigan) and teachers and schools was actually developmentally disabled. He didn't like having every single call that came in disagree with the great liberal Michigan idea of taxiong the shit out of the citizens even further, in the name of incredible economic growth.

I couldn't believe that he little cocksucker said that, but he did.

Of course, his little radio station has no feedback email.

What a piece of shit.

Posted by: E Buzz Miller at September 29, 2007 07:31 PM (v/XJX)

16 Why Do [liberals] Consistently Misrepresent Their Test Results As "Proving" Mental Retardation In Conservatives?

Could you give us some pointers to a couple of papers or reports that have made that claim? I ask because your use of quotes around the word 'proving' implies that you've seen some number of reports in which the word "prove" or "proof" has been used.  Scientists (liberal or conservative) don't tend to use that word because they know that nothing is ever proven in science, so I think it's pretty likely that you've just made the whole thing up.  Of course, wingnuts do tend to portray themselves as poor helpless underdogs, attacked and reviled from all sides,  so it's possible that many of you actually believe  it.  All I ask is to see a few actual examples.

Posted by: Bob Munck at September 29, 2007 07:56 PM (n0BzT)

17 don't tend to use that word because they know that nothing is ever proven in science, so I think it's pretty likely that you've just made the whole thing up.



You haven't happened to have been on the View Flat Earth society lately, have you?



Creationism for everyone!

Posted by: MlR at September 29, 2007 08:35 PM (mX6h5)

18 Perhaps liberals are better at reacting to changes because of all the experience they get slavishly following the latest party-line of political correct fashion.

Or then again, perhaps its just because the conservative volunteers in this study (likely college students) figured "What the hell, I'm getting 20 bucks and free doughnuts for participating in this study no matter what I do - why not just punch any damn button I like?  Fuck these shrinks."

This will likely become another "conservatives are troglodytes" shiboleth among liberals, just like IQ.  Liberals know two things about IQ: 1.) It doesn't mean anything, and 2.) Thiers is higher than yours.

Posted by: Martin at September 29, 2007 08:53 PM (DRd0Y)

19 Hey Munck, I came up with one link myself & there are 3 different links if you go to the article that the shrink debunks.

http://tinyurl.com/3cj7pv

Posted by: Chief Clancy Wiggum at September 29, 2007 10:30 PM (YacaW)

20 What I wanna know is: when are we gonna get utopia? I'm gettin' damned tard of this higgledy piggledy reality stuff. I want it all, now. And it better be poifect!

Posted by: ricpic at September 30, 2007 04:36 AM (tng3f)

21 Chief Wiggum, your tinyurl doesn't work.  It may be that the National Review site is down right now.  You're saying it claims to "prove" something?

Perhaps liberals are better at reacting to changes because of all the
experience they get slavishly following the latest party-line of
political correct fashion.


Maybe it's because the basic definition of "liberal" involves accepting or embracing change and the definition of "conservative" involves preferring stable or slowly-changing situation.

I browsed through the IronShrink site and found this:

Jost ... concluded that there is “a clear tendency for
conservatives to score higher on measures of dogmatism, intolerance of
ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and closure and to be lower in
openness to experience and integrative complexity than [are] moderates
and liberals
” (Jost, 2006, p. 662). In other words, conservatives are
pigheaded, closed minded, anal retentive, and less intelligent than
everyone else.
The authors also believe that conservative ideology is
driven by “the psychological management of uncertainty and fear”...


Note the striking difference between what he quotes (in bold) and his paraphrase of them (underlined). There isn't anything prejudicial or derogative in the former; those all seem to be desirable character traits for certain professions: mathematician, accountant, lawyer, etc.  IronShrink is the one who introduces the negative conotations like "closed minded."  He's the one who is being insulting to conservatives, despite obviously being one himself.  This appears to be typical of the cries of outrage by conservatives at the various psychological test results showing that Conservatives tend to be ... conservative. Perhaps IronShrink should do a bit of introspective analysis about why he assigns negative values to neutral traits in himself.

Posted by: Bob Munck at September 30, 2007 05:20 AM (n0BzT)

22 "Embracing change"?

Gimme a frakkin break Bob.

The Left has been screaming blue bloody murder over the possibility of any change in the middle east. It's better for us to have "stability," no matter what price the inhabitants of that region pay. As for the fact that millions of Iraqis voted freely for the first time in history, the Left has nothing but a collective snooze.

Posted by: qrstuv at September 30, 2007 05:24 AM (Z3lex)

23 And while I am at it... the Left's chief political philosophy is collectivism rather than individualism.

Collectivism is instinct. We evolved living in small bands where it was critical for us to work together for common goals. It was the difference between life and death. So it's natural that we think we should solve problems together, "be a village." The Left worries about "us" and "our" happiness and "our" well-being.

The "solutions" proposed by the Left *always* require collective action.

To "fix" health care, it is necessary for every single person to belong to the same  single-payer system. (Where single-payer systems are in place, notice the claims that anyone who works outside the system is threatening the success of the solution.)

To "fix" retirement, it is necessary for every single person to belong to the same  retirement system.  Anyone who makes their own choices threatens the success of the solution.

Reducing taxes is "taking money away from the government." Your money isn't yours, except where "we" have decided that it is.

But it's all pure, unexamined instinct.

It feels right; instinct does. But it is adaptive for the conditions of a hundred thousand years ago, not for large anonymous societies.

***
In contrast, it is a radical notion that people can all better off within a free-enterprise system where everyone acts in his own common interest. This is a radical notion and it defies instinct. It feels wrong. Witness how many on the Left cling to the idea of the zero-sum game. They really don't understand or see that economics is not a zero-sum game; or if they do, they have not thought through the implications of that. Instinct tells them that being selfish is bad, and they cannot move beyond that.


Posted by: qrstuv at September 30, 2007 05:53 AM (Z3lex)

24 Posted by: Bob Munck at September 30, 2007 10:20 AM (n0BzT)

I read that study as meaning conservatives prefer a logical worldview - one that is consistent within itself.

This would jibe with what I've seen throughout my life. As anyone could see over the last several years, it's not unusual for liberal individuals to hold several mutually exclusive and self-cancelling ideas at once. Mostly, they are against something rather than for anything and thus, more primative, tribal, and superstitious in their thinking. That is not openess of thought. Thus, the emphasis on emotion and a child-like gullibility.

Whereas, most conservatives I've known are very open to new ideas assuming they can be shown to be logically consistent with the world as it is, not as we wished it was.

I'm guessing that this is the reason for the reliance of the left on poor/fantasy science throughout it's history from Marx through Freud to Mead to the current man-made global warming scare. It's not to convince them(they already believe), it's to convince us. It's not them and their prejudices/pyscho-social problems, it's science!

Medved had a great example of this the other day when he had John Dean on. He kept quoting some halfassed conservatives as trogs study, and saying "It's not me saying this. It's merely science." Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot used this same kind of "science" as an excuse for concentration camps.

No matter where it springs up, the left is always the same.

Posted by: rinseandspit at September 30, 2007 06:24 AM (5ksba)

25 The Left has been screaming blue bloody murder over the possibility of
any change in the middle east. It's better for us to have "stability,"
no matter what price the inhabitants of that region pay.


"Stability" in that context is more about absence of violence, armed conflict, death and destruction. It's not an absence of change, but an absence of change specifically in the direction of increased civil violence. That certainly seems desirable to most people.

Reducing taxes is "taking money away from the government." Your money isn't yours, except where "we" have decided that it is.


But that's true of conservatives also, unless you're so far to the right that you're essentially an anarchist.  Conservatives also believe in taxes, for things like defense, prisons, law enforcement, etc.  My money isn't mine,  where "you" have decided to spend it for guns and bombs.  If a situation somehow arose where the only way to fund the Defense Department involved a massive tax increase, you'd be all for it.

"Collective action" is pretty much the definition of what government does. The difference is in choices: you want a lot of Defense, I want a lot of health care.

Posted by: Bob Munck at September 30, 2007 06:57 AM (n0BzT)

26 Stability" in that context is more about absence of violence, armed conflict, death and destruction

Do you mean like all those mass graves Saddam had?
Or do you mean like "Palestinians" blowing themselves up in Israeli pizza places?

Or did you mean like the USS Cole bombing?

Posted by: Jay at September 30, 2007 07:23 AM (4svNr)

27

"Stability" in that context is more about absence of violence, armed conflict, death and destruction. It's not an absence of change, but an absence of change specifically in the direction of increased civil violence. That certainly seems desirable to most people.


Shorter Munck: we, the Left, believe in a fairy-tale world where "change" to a more "progressive" society can be achieved in even the most entrenched, brutal, and despotic societies without the inflicting of mass death.  Sure, it's never happened before, and, sure, you really have to be quite juvenile and ignorant of human nature and history to even accept as possible such a thing, but juvenile and ignorant is what we do best!

"Collective action" is pretty much the definition of what government does. The difference is in choices: you want a lot of Defense, I want a lot of health care.

Sorry, but our priorities have constitutional support.  Yours do not.  It is inherently more appropriate within the largely immutable boundaries of the federal government to favor the appropriation of tax money for defense -- it's inarguably the most vital and exclusive function of Washington, DC -- than it is for the social engineering experiments your side favors.  These two philosophies are, objectively, not equally defensible, and I wish that liberals would stop playing dumb in pretending that they are.


And I question the wisdom or utility of anyone that looks to the federal government for a lot of anything, much less "health care" in the nation with by far the finest health care system in the world.  The feds can't operate a one-car funeral without burying the wrong guy, but liberals won't be satisfied until it projects its gross incompetence and inefficiency to every area in which the private sector is vastly superior.  Seems pathological to me.


Posted by: VJay at September 30, 2007 07:55 AM (kico6)

28 If I were a Rudyard Kipling descendant and felt like the "Just So Stories" weren't long enough, psychology is where I'd go. Having said that...

I actually don't think that liberals are more mentally ill than conservatives. Conservatives are more likely to distrust therapists and liberals are more likely to go to some quack who'll tell them it's not their fault. This would lead to underreporting for one and overreporting for the other.

Personally I'm a libertarian; I know I'm fucking crazy but I'm just fine with that.

Posted by: David Ross at September 30, 2007 08:22 AM (Bp+Y5)

29

If a situation somehow arose where the only way to fund the Defense Department involved a massive tax increase, you'd be all for it.


Do you mean something like WWII?  Or the govt. could sell a lot of bonds and debase the currency after the war to reduce its debt, as it did with WWII and Vietnam.  Nearly all conservatives believe high tax rates are counterproductive for the economy, and therefore govt. revenues, and are inherently bad for individual freedom.  We can argue about what is "high."


Posted by: Ralph L at September 30, 2007 08:23 AM (CQ7Bh)

30
Do you mean like all those mass graves Saddam had?
Or do you mean like "Palestinians" blowing themselves up in Israeli pizza places?
Or did you mean like the USS Cole bombing?

Yes, I'd call those things "violence, death, and destruction."  Are you saying that they aren't?

Sorry, but our priorities have constitutional support. 

No, the Constitution supports both defense and health care; it's just that you don't like some of it.  The Constitution says (Preamble):

provide for the common defence

;">
You like that a lot, because you can imagine conditions where you and yours need to be defended against foreign aggression.  However, the next phrase is

promote the general Welfare

and you don't like that, probably because you can't conceive of situations where you would be poor, old, sick, or disabled and you feel no responsibility toward others in your society who might be. You think the government is responsible for keeping Americans from dying from a terrorist carbomb; I think the government is responsible for keeping Americans from dying from a terrorist carbomb and from a curable disease.

"health care" in the nation with by far the finest health care system in the world.

You're kidding, right? Nobody thinks we have "the finest health care system in the world."  We're well down on any list you can find. 

Posted by: Bob Munck at September 30, 2007 08:37 AM (n0BzT)

31

Bob, most liberals government supplicants forget the general in "general welfare."  It's all about raiding the treasury and bossing other people around.


Who's creating the wonder drugs?  Why do sick rich foreigners come here for treatment?  You must have a weird definition of "finest."


Posted by: Ralph L at September 30, 2007 08:50 AM (CQ7Bh)

32 promote the general Welfare

Interpretations vary, but no Constitutional scholar has ever interpreted this phrase as support for modern welfare (which, you'll notice, the Founding Fathers didn't engage in much of back in the day).  You might also want to keep this part of the Constitution in mind:

"The powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

Posted by: Mike Z. at September 30, 2007 09:36 AM (GLMrI)

33 You're kidding, right? Nobody thinks we have "the finest health care system in the world."  We're well down on any list you can find.

Actually, if you rule out traffic accidents and homicides, Americans are reported to have the longest life expectancies of people in any western nation.  (The fact that we have a high obesity rate probably doesn't help our figure either.)  As a Canadian writing for City Journal puts it:

One often hears variations on Krugman’s argument—that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use, and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health. Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of any Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall, or a car accident. Such factors aren’t academic—homicide rates in the United States are much higher than in other countries (eight times higher than in France, for instance). In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don’t die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

And if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England—a striking variation.

Like many critics of American health care, though, Krugman argues that the costs are just too high: “In 2002 . . . the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman, and child.” Health-care spending in Canada and Britain, he notes, is a small fraction of that. Again, the picture isn’t quite as clear as he suggests; because the U.S. is so much wealthier than other countries, it isn’t unreasonable for it to spend more on health care. Take America’s high spending on research and development. M. D. Anderson in Texas, a prominent cancer center, spends more on research than Canada does.

Of course, Canadians, in some ways, have the best of both worlds: if their socialized system can cover them, then great; if not, then they can always rely upon the American health care system to cover their asses:

The Jepps drove 325 miles to Great Falls for the births because hospitals in Calgary were at capacity, Key said.


"The
difficulty is that Calgary continues to grow at such a rapid rate. ...
The population has increased a lot faster than the number of hospital
beds," he said.


Two of the girls were to be transferred to a
Calgary hospital later Thursday. The other two could be moved Friday if
their conditions remain favorable, Key said...


Reportedly, there wasn't a single hospital in all of Canada that could handle the Jepps' quadruplets.  So they had to rely on a hospital in New York Chicago Los Angeles Philadelphia Detroit Great Falls, Montana to do what no Canadian hospital (at least not one within the nearest 325 miles) could do.

Posted by: Mike Z. at September 30, 2007 09:48 AM (GLMrI)

34 Sorry, here is s link for the Jepps story:

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/08/why-were-canadian-quadruplets-born-in.html



Posted by: Mike Z. at September 30, 2007 09:50 AM (GLMrI)

35

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM


Posted by: Captkidney at September 30, 2007 10:25 AM (B191j)

36 W

Posted by: Ralph L at September 30, 2007 10:55 AM (CQ7Bh)

37 No, Bob, government per se is not about collectivism, unless you define the term so broadly as to be meaningless.


You would claim that our paying for national defense is somehow collectivism. To be sure, taxes are an intrusion, but let's contrast that to nationalized health care.

If each person pays for his own health care, it is then none
of anyone else's business if that person takes care of his own health. But if we all pay into a common shared pool of funds, we will most assuredly lose that personal independence. So if an overweight person eats a cheeseburger, the people around him can say to him, "Don't do that, you are going to cost us money." 

At that point, the choice of what to *eat* is no longer an independent decision.

Lest you think I exaggerate, you have heard that Britain is considering withholding medical care from smokers unless they quit the habit, haven't you? Just a bit more intrusive than taxes, wouldn't you say?

*****
Anyway, I find it quite interesting that you entirely ignore my other point: that free enterprise is counterintuitive. It most certainly defies instinct that, for example, some middle man can buy goods at one place and sell them at another, and that this action creates wealth. The Left has stubbornly clung to its zero-sum game thinking for a couple of centuries and persists in concluding that if a person is wealthy, that someone else must have been ripped off.

It is the instinctive conclusion, and it is wrong.

Posted by: qrstuv at September 30, 2007 11:05 AM (Z3lex)

38

promote the general Welfare

and you don't like that, probably because you can't conceive of situations where you would be poor, old, sick, or disabled and you feel no responsibility toward others in your society who might be.


I would take it as axiomatic that I am not "responsible" (via my forcibly seized assets, of course) in any civic sense for the well-being of perfect strangers, and, again, the Constitution would in no way disagree with me.  I am responsible for my fellow human beings who suffer, however, as a practicing Christian.  That's why I give to charity, which is something just a little different than forced government seizure of my property.  I know liberals aren't really big on the whole voluntary giving thing, but rest assured that there are those of us out there that don't have to be threatened with imprisonment if we don't do our part to help others.


I think the government is responsible for keeping Americans from dying from a terrorist carbomb and from a curable disease.


Nice try, Bob, but the "general welfare" clause has never, ever, ever applied to such anathema-to-the-Founders provisions as taxing the citizenry to pay for health care, and I defy you to find a constitutional scholar who has claimed otherwise.  The documented intentions of those who included that clause in the Constitution (i.e. the only intentions that matter, despite the perpetual attempt by liberals to elevate the self-serving intentions of the reader to more relevant status) invalidate your efforts to turn it into a "whatever-I-want-it-to-mean" piece of moldable clay.


So -- bzzzzzt -- favoring federal government appropriation of taxpayer funds for national defense is still objectively more defensible than appropriations for "health care", "education", or whatever other bullshit you clowns have sleazily and insidiously crammed into the federal purview since the Depression.


You're kidding, right? Nobody thinks we have "the finest health care system in the world."  We're well down on any list you can find. 


No, Bob, I'm not kidding, and the fact is that nobody with a functioning cerebrum thinks that the United Status doesn't provide the highest quality health care in the world.  Except in extremely rare (and usually counterproductive) cases, people don't leave this country to seek health care in others, despite the freedom to do so.  The same cannot be said of foreigners, who come here in droves to fend off the reaper every year.


Don't confuse the quality of care here -- which is, again, incomparably good without question relative to every other nation (best doctors -- hands down, best technology -- hands down, best medicine -- hands down, best facilities -- hands down) with the clusterfuck machinations involved with paying for that health care (largely created by the very same brain-dead government whose involvement in the system you inexplicably want to increase).


And don't pull your stupid "list" games with me either; those arguments have been shredded here and elsewhere repeatedly.  If you want to try specifics, go on and lead with the bogus "infant mortality" rate one; for some reason, people making the same case you are always seem to lead with the point most easily refuted.


But tell you what, Bob, if, God forbid, you should get a serious condition, stop back and let us know which of those superior health-care-providing nations you plan to visit for treatment.


Posted by: VJay at September 30, 2007 02:02 PM (kico6)

39
You would claim that our paying for national defense is somehow collectivism.


That's right.  If you tax everybody in the country and use the money to pay for a standing army, it's collectivism.  Likewise, if you tax everybody in the country and use the money to pay for disease prevention, it's collectivism. How are they different?

But if we all pay into a common shared pool of funds, we will most
assuredly lose that personal independence. So if an overweight person
eats a cheeseburger, the people around him can say to him, "Don't do
that, you are going to cost us money."


Sounds fine to me; they're looking out for his well-being.  If someone in your neighborhood lets his house go to hell, has rusted-out cars on his lawn, etc., the neighbors can say to him "don't do that, you are going to cost us money."  If you choose to live in a society, you're going to have a degree of interdependence with those around you. 

It's absurd to suggest that anyone will accost the fat guy at BurgerBurp about his cheeseburger; in a country of 300 million people,  his grease sandwich won't add even a thousandth of a cent to the tax bills of the people in the restaurant.  Do you go around your neighborhood lecturing to people who have too many kids?  Yet each extra rugrat is adding $70,000 to $120,000 to the cost of education, to be divided up among just the people in your county or school district over the next 18 years.  That's a much bigger bite out of your pocket than fatso is taking.  So are you wandering around your neighborhood at night, pounding on bedroom windows and yelling "STOP THAT?"

As to your mangled point about free enterprise being counterintuitive, I take it you've never taken a course or read a book about economics.  The advantages and disadvantages of unfettered free enterprise have been explored in great depth over the last several centuries.  No one actually thinks or claims that a national economy is zero-sum.

Posted by: Bob Munck at September 30, 2007 03:09 PM (n0BzT)

40

 So are you wandering around your neighborhood at night, pounding on bedroom windows and yelling "STOP THAT?"


Only in Mexican neighborhoods.  Oddly, they don't seem to understand and usually invite me in.


Posted by: Ralph L at September 30, 2007 04:42 PM (CQ7Bh)

41 Because they are desperate for any reinforcement that they can get to support their idea of their selfs, even if they have to make it all up.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 30, 2007 04:51 PM (dHK9t)

42 It's absurd to suggest that anyone will accost the fat guy at BurgerBurp about his cheeseburger

Try lighting up a cigarette in San Francisco.



Posted by: wiserbud at September 30, 2007 05:54 PM (EW49d)

43 Try lighting up a cigarette in San Francisco.

Or anywhere else civilized.  A cheeseburger's effects are spread evenly over the whole insurance pool, potentially 300,000,000 people, with microscopically-small effects on each of them.  A cigarette has a similar effect on the whole population, plus its secondary smoke has a much larger effect on the life-expectancy of everyone in the immediate vicinity.  So those people tell the guy to go commit suicide somewhere else.

Posted by: Bob Munck at September 30, 2007 08:09 PM (n0BzT)

44

"That's right.  If you tax everybody in the country and use the money to pay for a standing army, it's collectivism.  Likewise, if you tax everybody in the country and use the money to pay for disease prevention, it's collectivism. How are they different?"


Ahh... but you don't want to tax everyone, now do you.


No, you just want to tax the people that are already paying for their own, or could afford to pay for their own and choose not to. Yes bob, MANY people on that bogus "uninsured list" are people that CHOOSE to go without health insurance (and about 1/5 are illeagal aliens that don't deserve it). Do you think Madonna or Bill Gates or Ohpra have health insurance? Why would they, The intrest on their money alone for 1 month would pay for anything they could possibly need done medically for a year.


Any tax hike would not take from "everyone" and you know it. Just like the tax money that goes to the military doesn't come equally from "everyone". What you're really pushing for is just another step twards socialism.


How about this. instead of you and your ilk taking every deduction you can possibly find to lower your tax burden; tell the IRS that you want to pay the top 2% wage earner income rate on your gross income.


Until you do that, you are a liberal socialist and a hypocrite; but I repeat myself.


Posted by: theBman at October 01, 2007 03:17 AM (U+CHu)

45 Bob,

I claimed that the notion of free enterprise goes against human instinct.  In response, you tell me that textbooks don't claim that economics is a zero-sum game.

In other words, you yet again ignored my point.

As for the rest of it, I think collectivism is so ingrained into your thinking that you cannot recognize its absence.

It is a radical, new, and non-intuitive idea that we can all be better off without the government micromanaging our lives. The Left resists this idea tooth and claw. And that reaction is instinctual.

Posted by: qrstuv at October 01, 2007 03:27 AM (Z3lex)

46 I claimed that the notion of free enterprise goes against human
instinct.  ... you yet again ignored my point.


It's such an insubstantial and downright silly point that it didn't need to be addressed. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was published 230 years ago, and wasn't seen as radical or non-intuitive even then. If it seems radical to you, that's likely because you have no background or knowledge in classical economics. I suspect that it also makes you a college sophomore or younger, aflame with this wonderful "new" idea.  As the network promos say, "if it's new to you, it's not a rerun."

Posted by: Bob Munck at October 01, 2007 05:31 AM (n0BzT)

47 You know fuck-all about this, Munck. The Wealth of Nations was maybe the most radical publication of its time. And just because you can finally pin down a leftist or two who will admit that economics is not zero-sum, that doesn't stop them from legislating as if it were, demagoguing as if it were and it never stops them from presenting horrible economic scenarios that rely on static revenue projections.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 01, 2007 08:21 AM (uSomN)

48 "It's absurd to suggest that anyone will accost the fat guy at BurgerBurp about his cheeseburger"

You mean like the 90 lb stick at McDonalds who ordered a McSalad (or whatever they're called) ragging on a guy not much bigger than me for being fat because the bigger guy ordered a double cheeseburger, a medium fry, and a medium Pepsi that I saw on my lunch break about 2 1/2 weeks ago?

Though I've seen the little guy there a few times; he's always a douche.

Posted by: Ranba at October 02, 2007 07:19 AM (h2MEX)

49 As a test

Posted by: McLovin at October 03, 2007 03:40 PM (ipez1)

50 zymzbxvavzclkzweekgl, http://www.qhkewaegpq.com vvxlpqufad

Posted by: ezawzxdlbe at January 04, 2011 08:03 AM (tjN5V)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
125kb generated in CPU 0.28, elapsed 1.631 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.525 seconds, 286 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.