Oct
24
24
Hey, You Stole Our Schtick!
Shorter Michelle Malkin
The bogus death statistic that won’t die
- GAHHH! MULKIN SMASH PUNY POLITICAL OPPONENT ATTEMPT TO USE APPEAL TO FEAR AND EMOTION TO ACHIEVE HEALTH CARE AGENDA! THAT SUPPOSED TO BE ONLY FOR MULKIN AND MULKIN FRIEND LIKE YOU BETCHA LADY AND CRIES A LOT GUY! ARGGGHHHHHH! MULKIN SMASH!!! MULKIN THE FEAR MONGERINGEST ONE THERE IS!!!!!
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
Rusty Shackleford said,
October 24, 2009 at 15:55
But the science is infused with left-wing politics…
And topped with a secular humanist reduction. Might I suggest you accompany it with a microbrew?
Stephen said,
October 24, 2009 at 15:56
But the science is infused with left-wing politics.
Ah, so when she said the statistic wasn’t true, what she actually meant was “the researchers who formulated the statistic are socialist freedom-haters, so I choose to ignore their findings.”
Rusty Shackleford said,
October 24, 2009 at 16:02
One of the names of the dead at the alleged Grayson website is “Richard Hurtz.”
Davis said,
October 24, 2009 at 16:06
Your title says it all.
One of the commenters claimed that illegal aliens skewed the findings.
g said,
October 24, 2009 at 16:27
Dead for lack of health care? Hmph. If only those people had made responsible choices they wouldn’t have died. That’s just the way it goes. Tomorrow’s column – the shocking and evil holocaust that is abortion!
GregB said,
October 24, 2009 at 16:36
If they hve any dying to do, let them do it now and decrease the surplus population.
-Ebenezer Malkin
Rusty Shackleford said,
October 24, 2009 at 17:00
Perhaps she will put forth an alternative number of Americans that die every year for lack of health care, and we can discuss with her whether that situation is acceptable.
Sirius Lunacy said,
October 24, 2009 at 17:03
OMFG the numbers in that study were exagerated to drive home the point of it! That sort of thing has never been done in politics before. This is an outrage! WMD in Iraq! WMD in Iraq! WMD in Iraq!
The difference being that there were no WMD in Iraq, whereas there are people ,whatever the actual number is, dying because they lack health care. And we can do something about it.
Not-So-Newbie McNymchanging said,
October 24, 2009 at 17:32
Malkinmath:
44 thousand Americans who die because of no health insurance – Bogus statistic.
2 million teabaggers in D.C. on 9/12/09 when every reasonable estimate places the number at 60 or 70 thousand at best – It’s true because I say it is and SHUT UP, THAT’S WHY!!!
El Cid said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:03
Is this a visiting Sadlynaught to the Malkinites’ site?
Also, again:
Gary Ruppert said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:06
The fact is, shut up is the only reponse you liberals deserve. Stop hating on the Heartland and Patriots and use some facts and logic for once, liberals only use personal attacks and liberal bias in the media, well we conservatives use reasoned discourse and reality, so SHUT UP.
Iris said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:09
Hear that, Obots? That’s the sound of us proud Reagan Democrats, us Appalachain Bubbas, our boots marching firmly away from your emotional manipulations and your insulting statistics, the same distortions you used to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination by playing the race card, and us millions in the silent majority will refuse to “play dat, yo”.
Scott said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:11
Us Heartland Patriots use reasoned discourse and reality!
(blows up federal building)
(bombs clinics)
(shoots cops)
(burns crosses)
(mails anthrax)
(shits in pants)
YOU CANNOT DISPUTE MY REASONING, LIBRUL MONSTROS
El Cid said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:14
We Southern conservatives are the only true patriots. The Heartland is a bunch of sissies who never even went to war with the federal government
in order to preserve slavery for plantation ownerspreserve local state democracy.Arky said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:19
After a careful review of the doctors’ kitchen counters, Malkin concludes they are dirty fucking libtards and so can be ignored.
Victory!
Also: The term “Mulkin” causes me to envision a pubic wig on a rampage. Please make it stop.
Not-So-Newbie McNymchanging said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:22
…your insulting statistics, the same distortions you used to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination by playing the race card
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but wasn’t Hillary Clinton involved with healthcare reform back in the day?
You’d think her alleged supporters would still care about the subject (in a good way, that is) no matter who the President is.
The Tragically Flip said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:23
Ok, let’s follow Malkin’s thinking to its conclusion. 44,000 people don’t die every year from lack of insurance. Shall we say “only” 30,000 do? There, now that’s so much better, why bother with health “reform”?
Unless her contention is that a trivial number* of people die from lack of insurance, all she has is an effort to substitute a smaller yet still utterly unacceptable number of insurance deprived deaths for another larger one.
The number is certainly in the 5 figure range whatever the inherent methodological weaknesses of this study.
* – not that there is a “trivial” number of human deaths, but let us say a number smaller than the number that supposedly die from the inefficiencies or ineptitude of UHC and single payer systems
Sirius Lunacy said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:33
The number is certainly in the 5 figure range whatever the inherent methodological weaknesses of this study.
Even if it weren’t, even if we were to suppose this study is off by as much as a factor of ten. That would still mean we have the equivilent of a 9/11 every year dying because of lack of health care. Now Malkin and all the screaming yellow wankers on the right were 110% behind spending a trillion dollars to prevent another 9/11, so why are they so dead set against spending a mere billion to stop another 9/11.
El Cid said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:41
The number of people who die from lack of health insurance coverage is trivial; not necessarily that the numbers of people are few, but that all of those people would be considered to be trivial, worthless people.
The Tragically Flip said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:41
Malkin:
To boil it all down in plain English: The single-payer scientists had no way of assessing whether the survey participants received insurance coverage between the time they answered the questionnaires and the time they died.
The study sayth:
Malkin is basically contending that all these people who were unable or unwilling to afford insurance between 1988 and 1993 all got insurance between then and 2000, so the fact that they died had nothing to do with anything.
We all know insurance got so much more affordable in that time. Ever more employers offered comprehensive insurance during that time.
So something else must explain that minimum 1.4 factor in death rates among the survey’s uninsured!
B/N said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:43
Interesting aside: Michelle used to, herself, whine about the cost of health insurance:
Her position on health care generally comes down to whining that she doesn’t have enough money for the best stuff, but that she has enough money to get by. All those people who don’t have as much money as she does need to STFU.
Matthew 25:40, indeed.
El Cid said,
October 24, 2009 at 18:44
It still wouldn’t matter. All you’d have to clarify is a statistically significant differential mortality rate among people who lacked health insurance between 1988 and 1993, no matter their health insurance status later.
You could even then go on to claim that any significant set of years spent without health insurance increases mortality rates. I.e., via possible mechanisms including not seeking preventive care or tests for conditions which then cause more serious harm later.
She doesn’t realize she’s setting herself up for an even stronger argument.
Anthony said,
October 24, 2009 at 19:01
OT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XivhwO_zWWg&feature=related
If you don’t understand why this is so awful. By the rules of operant conditioning she had to scare the dog away from eating those treats. Which means there are really only two ways of doing that. Injecting ipecac into the treats, or beating it. Judging by the way the eye twitches it’s probably the latter.
Snarla said,
October 24, 2009 at 19:30
If because 40,000 killed yearly due to lack of access to health care in America, we should…?
I’m drawing a blank.
Snarla said,
October 24, 2009 at 19:36
whoa, that was weird. Okay, no more pointy triangular things in posts.
Gary Ruppert said,
October 24, 2009 at 19:43
The fact is, freedom Heartland and patriot USA and boners and pie because shut up.
MonkeyChild of the Dragon-King said,
October 24, 2009 at 20:03
thanks for the handy summary, Scott. I’m makin’ flash cards.
“Let’s see, which reply to make to [local wingnut in local forum]…”
and all I have to do is pull out a card at random.
teh Universal Schlong said,
October 24, 2009 at 20:11
Oooh, I love it when you unhinge your jaw like taht my sweet little Maniacal Munchkin
Rightwingsnarkle said,
October 24, 2009 at 20:13
OK, so the way I see it is that I have a choice about who to believe, about who I think is the more credible in this matter – the editorial board of the New England Journal of Medicine, or Michelle Malkin?
Hmmmmm, that’s a tough one.
On the one hand, they’re a bunch of physicians and scientists directing the country’s most widely-read and respected (among physicians and scientists working in related fields) and oldest peer-reviewed journal.
And on the other hand, she’s a shrieking harpy who mostly appears on Fox “news” and at her own web site.
Can I get back to you on that one? I really need more time to think this through.
Lurking Canadian said,
October 24, 2009 at 20:34
You could even then go on to claim that any significant set of years spent without health insurance increases mortality rates.
Exactly. It is possible that the result confuses correlation with causality. Most people without health insurance don’t have health insurance because they’re either (1) already sick or (2) poor. People who are already sick or poor are more likely to die than people who are not sick and/or rich. However, as arguments against universal health care go, that one is essentially “let them die to reduce the surplus population”.
Can I get back to you on that one? I really need more time to think this through.
Shorter every wingnut everywhere: Scientists who find results I don’t like are biased liberals, even if they are funded by independent agencies and publish in respected peer reviewed journals.
Scientists who find results I like are brilliant searchers for truth, even if they are funded by health insurance companies (or oil companies, or…) and publish in Bought And Paid For Flacks Weekly.
El Cid said,
October 24, 2009 at 20:41
Exactly. These are precisely the wrong kind of people for insurance companies to cover anyway, because they may cost more money in their “necessary” medical care, and, well, they’re poor, so you’ll get less money out of them.
And since the purpose of a national health care and health care funding system is to make sure that a small number of insurance companies and heavily subsidized pharmaceutical companies can maximize their profits, it’s pretty clear that these people should die, whether or not the data proves that they actually do.
Stephen said,
October 24, 2009 at 20:45
You know, back in the day, even small-government advocates admitted that the government has to step in and cover market failures. That’s why we managed to build a system of roads, highways, schools, fire and police forces, etc., without a bunch of flabby teabaggers marching in protest and demanding that their Congressmen put a stop to it.
Nowadays, small-government advocates just shriek “NO! THERE IS NO MARKET FAILURE!”
Bitter Scribe said,
October 24, 2009 at 21:12
Dead for lack of health care? Hmph. If only those people had made responsible choices they wouldn’t have died. That’s just the way it goes. Tomorrow’s column – the shocking and evil holocaust that is abortion!
Hey, at least in both cases they’re willing to offer their valuable advice.
Not-So-Newbie McNymchanging said,
October 24, 2009 at 21:26
You know, back in the day, even small-government advocates admitted that the government has to step in and cover market failures.
That was when they were semi-conversant with basic economics.
Nowadays, small-government advocates just shriek “NO! THERE IS NO MARKET FAILURE!”
If only the teabaggers were bright enough to articulate their beliefs coherently, they would realize they’re advocating this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle said,
October 24, 2009 at 21:30
Is it me, or are McMegan’s fan-boy commenters a bunch of racist lunatics?
DS said,
October 24, 2009 at 21:49
Michael Steele? Is that you?
Smut Clyde said,
October 24, 2009 at 22:14
The term “Mulkin” causes me to envision a pubic wig on a rampage.
A ram-page? Was it a “.co.nz” website by any chance?
laym said,
October 24, 2009 at 22:16
You liberals with your research and statistics, and your evaluation of best policies based on that information. Why, next thing you know, there will be no place in our politics for screamers and would-be-bullies. And then where would be? I’ll tell you where … HitlerCommieSharia, that’s where!
Loneoak said,
October 24, 2009 at 22:17
Once we have health insurance reform, hopefully with a robust public option and something approaching universal coverage, how quickly will Mulkinites start making up numbers demonstrating that people are dying because they now have insurance?
Josh Fulton said,
October 24, 2009 at 22:27
“Pentagon to use cyborg flies to spy on people.”
http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/pentagon-to-use-brain-dead-cyborg.html
Marco said,
October 24, 2009 at 23:22
I thought the scary black man was making FEMA camps for Michelle and her ilk? When is that going to happen because I am sick of her bullshit.
The Kid from Kounty Meath said,
October 24, 2009 at 23:51
O/T: Are we ever gonna get an 18th-century Malkin-tent, or does she make enough terrifying faces to render ‘Shops unnecessary?
M. Bouffant said,
October 25, 2009 at 0:13
MM would work better as a harpy/demon in some of that 14th &15th century stuff.
Smut Clyde said,
October 25, 2009 at 0:15
Weird demon-infested 14th / 15th-century art? Say it isn’t so.
gainsayer said,
October 25, 2009 at 1:32
boners and pie
Veiled Jason Biggs reference.
Loneoak said,
October 25, 2009 at 1:35
Weird demon-infested 14th / 15th-century art? Say it isn’t so.
Could K-Lo be the real wife of Vigo the Carpathian?
The Tragically Flip said,
October 25, 2009 at 4:38
I have to warn you all, 100% of Canadians who die were covered by socialized healthcare!!!
jim said,
October 25, 2009 at 4:39
Wow.
“Nyah nyah nyah, it’s not 44,000 dead every year – it’s only, like, 42,800 tops” is actually the strongest healthcare argument I’ve heard from a wingnut in quite some time. Get me my smelling-salts & drag me to the fainting-couch: Malkin may actually be technically right!
I don’t think she cares much that her “victory” is Pyrrhic either – as long as she gets to carve another gotcha-notch in her Humorless Dildo O’ Truthiness, that’s all that matters.
I think it kinda helps wingnuts when the limbo-bar they have to wiggle under is set 15 feet up.
Ian said,
October 26, 2009 at 0:47
Malkin has the math exactly backwards. She’s making a good argument (one the authors of the study clearly understand) that not having insurance may be quite a bit WORSE than the study suggested.
http://thingmadeofstuff.blogspot.com/2009/10/math-is-hard-lets-go-right-wing.html
The Goddamn Batman Knows The Incredible Hulk, He Has Fought Both With And Against The Incredible Hulk, And You, Michelle Malkin... Ahh, You Know The Drill said,
October 26, 2009 at 20:40
She does a great impression of a rabid chipmunk, but that doesn’t make her Squirrel Girl, either.
(Squirrel Girl is pretty badass.)
Substance McGravitas said,
October 26, 2009 at 20:51
It took me decades to get that “The Wasp” was kind of a joke.