This short YouTube video is pretty darn funny!
(HT Brandon Robison)
Health-Care-Debate Humor
Previous post: Colorful Markets
Next post: Happy Birthday, James M. Buchanan
where orders emerge
EconTalk Podcast
Recent Episodes-
where orders emerge
Previous post: Colorful Markets
Next post: Happy Birthday, James M. Buchanan
Recent Episodes
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 25 comments }
Thank you Prof Don. I needed that this afternoon.
It’s possible that this video is much more funny — you be the judge.
Ai yi yi. Truth, gotta run.
Wow those guys are funny!!!
Here’s what some other doctors found;
More than 44,000 Americans die every year 122 every day due to lack of health insurance.
Thats the startling finding of a new study Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults that appears in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health.
HAR, HAR, HAR… so funny.
What are you doing in your practice — or your spare time — to help any of these people. Do you work at all without being compensated? And if you do, what are you doing to convince your peers to do the same?
195,000 people died in hospitals due to medical malpractice in the US, in the 2002.
Sounds to me like the uninsured have a good deal.
While trying to find more information regarding this study, I came across an interesting fact that, for 2006, people who were never married had an age-adjusted death rate 2.3 times those who are currently married. The findings from the study you reference only show a 40% increase in death rate for those without insurance.I suppose the government should force people to get married, that will reduce fatality rates much more than giving everyone health insurance. Based on the numbers, the increased risk to never married people resulted in 110,000+ extra deaths.
And most auto fatalities occur within 20 miles of the driver’s home. So the government should make everyone move.
“More than 44,000 Americans die every year 122 every day due to lack of health insurance.”
How do you know that it was lack of health insurance, rather than lack of health care, that killed them?
What are you complaining about? Aren’t you libtards always complaining about carbon footprints? Fewer people = fewer carbon footprints and less stress on Gaia!
You should be rejoicing.
Nice blog if you want to change links please contact me on http://ifail.info/
Ah yes – humor smooths over the mistake of confusing the (good) argument for a public option with the (bad) argument for a mandate very nicely.
Humor is also good at smoothing over the fact that insurance companies and doctors are convenient to cite when they oppose the public option because of what it would do to their profit margins but inconvenient to cite when they support the mandate because of what it would do to their profit margins.
I have nothing wrong with advocating something that helps your profit margins – I just have a problem with confusing your profit margins with “what’s best for the American people”.
I have a problem with anyone who purports to know and/or try to impose “what’s good for the American people”
Especially someone who could say with a straight face there is a good argument for a “public option”
… or have the hubris to assume they know there are no good arguments for something they disagree with.
I suppose if you’re not constrained by reality you could think there’s a good argument for the “public option” so I guess you got me there…
RE: “I have a problem with anyone who purports to know and/or try to impose “what’s good for the American people”"I’m suspicious too – but especially when it’s just a repackaged “what’s good for me”. I don’t totally write off the idea that someone could make some good points about what’s good for the people as a whole. They shouldn’t have the hubris to assume they’re definitely right.
I see no evidence of your claimed suspicion. Your occasional brief remark that you (fill in the blank) is completely overwhelmed by the reams of anti-liberty intervention loving verbiage you post here. Your thoughts that politicians would be measured and reasonable is laughable in light of political reality.
Deny it if you wish, but your revealed bias is very clear.
Re: “I see no evidence of your claimed suspicion.”Are you kidding me? So when AHIP says that the public option “would turn back the clock on efforts to improve the quality and safety of patient care”, are you under the impression that they really care about patient care, or that they are running the ad because of the way the public option would affect their own profits? And again – I’m not saying it’s bad to advocate something that helps your own profits. That’s a good thing. But give me a break. Of course it happens. We should be surprised if it doesn’t happen. Just like AHIP’s SUPPORT of the (in my mind unjustifiable) mandate.RE: “Your thoughts that politicians would be measured and reasonable is laughable in light of political reality.”I never even mentioned politicians, yetanotherdave. Now you’re hallucinating.
This informative post has the potent to give precise info about the dietary supplements that have positive effect on our health. sea veg is another product that is prepared from nutrients of see weeds and extremely useful for our body’s natural mechanism.
Wow, great blog. I love reading blogs about comdey. The world needs more laughter these days. Who is your favorite comedian? I would have a hard time choosing between Bill Murray. Have a great weekend!
In part 1, you’re responding to the voices in your head, not what I wrote. You have not show yourself to be suspicious of politicians beyond an occasional brief assertion, followed by voluminous diatribes on why intervention is such a good thing and politicians should just be cautious, etc.
In part 2, just who do you think will be in charge of a “public option” anyway? Can you not see the implications of your own positions?
RE: “In part 1, you’re responding to the voices in your head, not what I wrote. You have not show yourself to be suspicious of politicians beyond an occasional brief assertion”
The only suspicions I raised (and explicitly labeled as suspicions) were about proponents or opponents who confused what’s good for them with what’s good for the American people. And you never talked about politicians when you referenced my suspicions either. So what are the voices in your head telling you?
RE: “followed by voluminous diatribes on why intervention is such a good thing and politicians should just be cautious, etc.”
The voluminous problems with government intervention are usually well stated by the time I get there. I just have to agree because I can rarely state it better than Don or Russ. What I have to add is the caveats they always leave out. Don’t judge my affiliation by my word count. When I say I oppose the mandate, cash for clunkers, GM bailouts, protectionism or whatever else I mean that I oppose those things.
RE: “In part 2, just who do you think will be in charge of a “public option” anyway? Can you not see the implications of your own positions?”
You do realize it’s possible to have reservations about something, but still think that there are good arguments for it, right? You don’t have to completely support something to support it, or think that it is a completely bankrupt idea to oppose it.
Sigh…
When I say, “I have a problem with anyone who purports to know and/or try to impose “what’s good for the American people” I include you in that group. Yes, you say you don’t know all the answers, but then you prattle on with your pro-intervention philosophy. Sure, you couch your support for government intervention with all kinds of disclaimers like proceed cautiously and such. That may be fine and well in some abstract theoretical fantasy land, but it reveals a lack of understanding of the real world.
The problem with government intervention is as simple as it is inescapable. Once the government does something they will not proceed cautiously guided by science and reason and your good sense. They will proceed to engage in politics, with all the unpleasantries that entails. When they fail (and they will), they’ll claim they need more money, etc. We’ve seen it over and over. This is simple reality, not a slippery slope argument like you’ve mistakenly thought other comments of mine to be. You seem to be completely blind to this reality.
So whether you realize it or not (in spite of whatever rationalization you use to convince yourself otherwise; no matter how much you try to sound moderate; no matter what reservations you say you have) you support excessive government interference in many areas. Since it is the inevitable result of what you support, it is what you support. What you claim to mean matters not one whit when it is incompatible with reality.
I do not expect comprehension from you, but I hope it comes someday. Now continue down the rabbit hole if you wish, but you’ll be travelling alone.
RE: “When I say, “I have a problem with anyone who purports to know and/or try to impose “what’s good for the American people” I include you in that group. Yes, you say you don’t know all the answers, but then you prattle on with your pro-intervention philosophy. Sure, you couch your support for government intervention with all kinds of disclaimers like proceed cautiously and such.”Did you ever stop to think that I heavily caveat my support for the government AND my support for the market, precisely because I know that everyone is at risk of being someone who thinks they know what’s good for everyone else – and I don’t want to be that person. In my mind that’s better than a lot of people on here who brazenly declare that they know what’s best. I qualify because I know things aren’t as easy to figure out and get a straight answer on as we would like. Just because you pretend the answer is easy and self-evident doesn’t make it so.
Another example of your thinking being exactly backwards – can you really be that dense?
I’m the one saying the answers are not easy or obvious and that’s why government intervention is a profoundly stupid idea. Your the one saying government intervention can improve things, which would only be possible if the answers were simple and obvious. All your disclaimers don’t insulate you from that basic reality.
I repeat: So whether you realize it or not (in spite of whatever rationalization you use to convince yourself otherwise; no matter how much you try to sound moderate; no matter what reservations you say you have) you support excessive government interference in many areas. Since it is the inevitable result of what you support, it is what you support. What you claim to mean matters not one whit when it is incompatible with reality.