“Libertarian blogs are much more civil. I can’t think of a single one, and I have visited dozens, that have any vitriolic disagreements. Discussions become heated at times, but they never descend into name calling and wishes for the death of one’s opponent. Why is this? I don’t really know, but I have noted one significant difference between such blogs and most others, including Megan’s old blog- you see people commenting under their real names far more often on serious libertarian blogs. I think commenting under your real name helps control one’s baser impulses, but why libertarian blogs have more such commenters, I could not even begin to guess.”

Do all winger sites have at least one resident ersatz William F. Buckley prancing around in the comments? What kills me is that the other moron posters invariably look up to them as some kind of intellectual giant.

Why, oh why is this? Deary me, I could not even begin to guess…

Having written close to a dozen comments on her health-care blogging, I’ve come to the following conclusions:

B. Because of shame or embarrassment or pride, she refuses to read any comment beyond the first 10 words, so she has no idea what are the substance of the challenges to her posts.

Choice C: Megan thinks all doctors are rich and should treat the poor for free.
or
Choice D: All of the above.

I wonder what it’s like to be so care-free, no icky human relationships to trouble your beautiful mind?

I think it’s time the crew here at S,N! take a holiday from reading America’s oldest brat (how else to describe someone who didn’t outgrow her crush on Rearden/Galt et al?) before their heads explode.

Sweet! I got deleted too for “ad hominem attacks and profanity!” (Near as I can tell it was use of the word “slag” although it could of been for the phrase “sex acts”. She’s quite the pearl clutcher.) My comment was in response to her Teen Cosmo musing on how we are all less hot than we think. How come the libertarians are always the thinnest skinned? Liberty for me and not for thee, I suppose.

I think it was when I pointed out how people can die from chronic asthma, and then called her a greedy overprivileged moron.

Oh well.

It was worth a shot.

Having written close to a dozen comments on her health-care blogging, I’ve come to the following conclusions:

Either:

A. She’s literally a sociopath, in that she is fundamentally incapable of feeling the emotion called empathy; or

B. Because of shame or embarrassment or pride, she refuses to read any comment beyond the first 10 words, so she has no idea what are the substance of the challenges to her posts.

I come to this conclusion reluctantly, because she is clearly intelligent and well educated. But her utter inability to understand why people disagree with her leads me to this conclusion.

Either they’re sick and they ‘need’ help, or they don’t ‘need’ help and so we don’t intervene.

If they don’t need help, they don’t get any.

If you walk into a hospital and say ‘my leg is broken’ do you automatically get $20 for a cab and a cast if you don’t have a broken leg?

“Finally, if they deserve money just for being sick, why don’t we peg the money to the suffering the disease causes, rather than the cost of treating the disease? Inquiring minds want to know.”

Inquiring minds? Where? Where!

Could it be that some people suffer more pain from arthritis than others do from cancer–until the latter is too late to treat? (Which is why many women wind up dead from what might have been treatable forms of breast cancer.

Maybe it’s because diabetes causes more suffering than atheriosclerosis or hbp.

And I know the prospect of this just warms the hearts of republitards and Libertarians; but if money were given out in proportion to pain and suffering, lawyers might feel obligated to parade suffering patients before a jury in hopes of squeezing more money out of traditional insurers.

And Megan, dear, it’s “Enquiring minds want to know.”

“Sometimes things just suck.”

Ergo, things suck, so don’t bother changing them, because things will always suck somehow, y’know?

Because making the government pay for health care is the same as…(wait for it)…having the government make someone date you who doesn’t like you.

What’s the current over-under on years ’til she’s drunk live blogging American Idol?

Data improve with age. They mature. Using them before they’re 8 years old (at the earliest) is a waste.
Of course the cask-strength data are best, if you can get them.

I see the point of her “bonus payments” phraseology. Introducing a system of wealth redistribution to keep more people healthy and functioning is JUST AS BAD as revising the rules of Monopoly.
Subsidised health care?! Why not add a new Community Chest card while you’re at it?!… “All other players give you $50 as compensation for your halitosis.”

Yes bdub, they really are. It’s hard to believe that someone with internet access hasn’t heard of libertarians or Ayn Rand or as they are known to everyone else, “trolls”.

BTW, nice blog paul and a good post too.