I just spoke at an event organized by the UQ Greens to discuss emissions trading. There was lively debate over the relative merits, and prospects for success of emissions trading, carbon taxes, and direct regulation (my views here).
Things were made even livelier by the attendance of some LaRouche supporters who explained, as usual, that emissions trading was a genocidal plot by the British Royal Family. On an issue like climate change, LaRouchites represent the extreme fringe of rightwing opinion, taking the usual conspiracy theories about grantgrubbing scientists and environmentalist plans for world government into utterly paranoid territory.
But the traffic isn’t all one-way. On the issue of DDT, a lot of people buy a watered-down version of the LaRouche theory presented in LaRouche’s 21st Century Science by Gordon Edwards back in the early 1990s, according to which the US ban on agricultural use of DDT in 1972 produced a global ban on the use of DDT to fight malaria, costing millions of lives as part of a genocidal eco-imperialist plot.
Tobacco lobbyist Steven Milloy, looking for a stick with which to beat the environmental movement, used his junkscience site (then affiliated with the Cato Institute) to push Edwards’ LaRouchite fantasies, including the claims of genocide, but (doubtless in deference to conservative sensibilities) without the usual LaRouche link to the Royal Family (Milloy’s genocide clock is here). Roger Bate of AEI later took up the same line with great success, though he has backed away from it more recently.
But who would be stupid enough to fall for the second-hand propaganda of a nut group, recycled by the tobacco industry ?
(Answer over the fold)
1. An incomplete list of prominent rightwing commentators and institutions buying the LaRouche line on DDT (I’ll update this and add links as I get time)
Australia: Andrew Bolt, Centre for Independent Studies, Miranda Devine Institute of Public Affairs, Jennifer Marohasy, Christopher Pearson, Ian Plimer, Quadrant
US:
AEI[1], CEI, Cato, Fox News, the Republican Party, the Wall Street Journal etc etc
UK:
Monckton, the Spectator, Spiked/RCP[2]
2. A complete (AFAIK) list of rightwing commentators and institutions who explicitly reject the LaRouche line on DDT and criticise its advocates
(This line intentionally left blank)
I’d welcome any additions to Group 2. Also, rightwingers should feel free to write in explaining why LaRouche is right on DDT, or why your version of the DDT ban myth isn’t really the LaRouche/Milloy/Bate version (which will qualify you for an asterisk). But special rules apply for this post. Real names and country of origin required so your name can be added to the list. Anonymous/pseudonymous comments in support of the DDT ban myth or apologising for its advocates will be deleted.
[1] It’s interesting to compare the 2004 piece linked above, blaming the 1972 US ban on agricultural use for millions of deaths, with this from 2007 which, while still pro-DDT, is more or less factually accurate, noting “Although many believe that DDT was banned after 1972, it actually was not”. Unlike Milloy, Bate has responded to criticism by backing away from some of the more extreme claims.
[2] What is it with the right and crazy ex-Comms/Trots? The Revolutionary Communist Party (now Spiked) showed a parallel evolution to LaRouche from far left to far right, but treated with much more respect for reasons I can’t fathom.
John Quiggin 
I think the infection of the Right with the La Rouche created DDT myth goes further than you may realise John. A couple of years ago I had a conversation with someone who is now a Liberal Senator where he was trotting out these lines. Not so surprising, except that the individual in question is certainly one of the most intelligent, honourable and honest MPs the Liberals have (which is why I’m not mentioning his name), although admittedly that bar is pretty low at the moment.
He didn’t buy the genocide stuff, but was seriously telling me that millions had died because environmentalists had got African governments to give up DDT. I hadn’t read your and Tim’s demolition at that stage, but I pointed out that resistance might be a more likely explanation. Another individual noted how improbable it was, given the lack of sympathy these governments had shown to more substantial Green concerns, such as deforestation. Nevertheless, he was adamant: environmental opposition to DDT had persuaded governments to drop it for no good reason and the consequences were disastrous. He didn’t think it was a conspiracy, just people not seeing the bigger picture.
If that’s one of the Libs’ best and brightest, I hate to think what most of the others think.
Stephen L, DDT is one bad chemical which should not be on the market. But having said that, recently Bangladesh researchers discovered a new antibiotic, Tigecycline, which has shown promise in fighting malaria and may eventually supplement traditional antimalarials drugs such as artemisinin in combating multidrug-resistant malaria. Tigecycline belongs to a new class of antibiotics which seems to be effective against bacteria that develops resistance to the common antibiotic tetracycline. If true, then it is a step in the wright direction.
Michael, malaria is not caused by bacteria but by a protozoan parasite.
Wow, I’m just amazed that the LaRouchies are active so far away and at this late date. I thought they were US-only crazies.
No dispute there Tim Lambert, maybe I was thinking about Guido Favia work.
I’m floored that myths, and average ones at that, can have a life of their own more so than the actual facts – but thanks JQ for posting this, and to others here for their sensible comments. (Good reasoning StephenL)
(I got little to add, but just on another thing, one of Tim Lambert’s scienceblog colleagues has created a very blunt yet hopefully unambiguous demonstration of those property rights mentioned to a JF poster above – http://getyourownmotherfuckingblogasshole.wordpress.com/ – (funny stuff, but if this is dealt with already feel free to scrub this comment)
Tim Lambert, if I am correct the fight against malaria is moving down the path of symbiotic bacteria whereby the internal bacteria living within the blood-sucking mosquitoes is genetically altered. Earlier this year Johns Hopkins researchers treated mosquitoes with antibiotics to kill the gut bacteria and the results looks promising for treated mosquitoes were more susceptible to infection by Plasmodium when feeding on infected blood compared to mosquitoes that were not treated with antibiotics.
MoSH,
Tigecycline is proving to work against malaria, even though it was developed as a replacement to tetracycline to combat MRSA. I am not sure why this is the case, but it is not through action in the mosquito – it acts directly on the patient.
Looks like a possible triumph for big pharma – Wyeth (the developers) are one of the biggest and are about to merge with Pfizer.
If this works the last allowable use of DDT may not be necessary.
Andrew Reynolds, where scientists previously thought they could eradicate malaria by killing off the vector mosquito using insecticides (which have since become resistant), the current thinking is to genetically modify them in such a way that they can still live but cannot sustain the cycle of the parasite within them. As for Tigecycline, my understanding is that the drug will be used as a supplement to artemisinin in combating multidrug-resistant malaria.
When dealing with this sort of thing generally the only way (short of a magic bullet) is to attack on all front at the same time. The malaria parasite has proved to be a very tricky beast.
Andrew Reynolds, that is precisely the reason for changing course 180 degrees.
jquiggin@#48 October 14th, 2009 at 19:40
Once again I apologise for derailing and hi-jacking a thread. And for the occasional impatience that creeps into my tone. But the question of the ideological distribution of science delusionism is an important one to settle, both for its own sake and for its effect on weightier matters of state.
The parties contending in the so-called “Culture War” are stale-mated over the question of whether race and gender differences are real. And, if so, is it fair and reasonable to take account of such differences in public policy.
I am happy to concede that I have unfairly characterised Pr Q’s position on nature-nurture, wrongly caricaturing him as a naive “Blank Slater”. Although I still find this revision hard to reconcile with his support for Steven Rose’s race-denialism. Pr Q alleges that Rose is “right to say that “race” is not a biologically meaningful construct”. There are some heavy-hitter molecular biologists who beg to differ.
I grant that Pr Q is a member of the class of Left-liberals who are prepared to publicly own a sophisticated nature-nurture (“hybrid”) position. This exclusive club is a very small one indeed, offering membership to only a very select few. It is pretty much identified with the authorship and readership of Slate and Crooked Timber. Left-liberals outside this rarefied atmosphere who are prepared to acknowledge the significance of “nature” in human culture are vanishingly rare.
Its true that the Leftists have lifted their scientific game on culture over the past decade, under the onslaught of genomic science, failed social experiments and relentless mockery from the satirists, such as Wolfe, Sokal, Lander etc. It could have hardly gotten much worse from its catastrophic state in the mid-nineties.
Rightists, by unfavorable comparison, have come down with a more virulent case of post-modernism, allowing them to cultivate pet delusions on ecology, “stratergy” and plutology. Which is baffling in some ways. Why would smart, successful people such as Murdoch and the Republican Party deliberately opt for such self-destructive policies in relation to AGW, Iraq, derivatives trading? Melted ice caps will not irrigate green and pleasant lands, brute force does not recruit client states in Arab countries and orgies of speculation and conspicuous consumption do not accumulate wealth.
But nothing much of substance in my claim about Left-liberal delusionism on “anthropology” hangs on these concessions. This is because the vast and decisive bulk of (Left-liberal) “cultural workers”, who lack Crooked Timber’s intellectual sophistication, are effectively “Blank Slaters” in both word and deed.
This is not a hostile “set-up” for some Left-liberal to act as fall guy. Again, I repeat my challenge to Pr Q: name one prominent Left-liberal who had publicly identified “natural” differences in race and gender as a significant factor in both private behaviour and public policy. And gotten away with it unscathed, either professionally or politically.
Even this offer is being charitable to a fault. Most Left-liberal “hybridists” will resist drawing obvious conclusions by making repeated tactical withdrawals, hedging with reservations and calling for “more research” and a “campaign of public education”. Occasionally, in Maoist-style episodes of self-criticism and re-education, they will offer their own heads up on a platter to appease the mob baying for their blood. Accompanying the whole exercise with ostentatious bouts of hand-wringing, brow-furrowing and nose-holding at the unsavoury company they are forced to keep.
This die-hard anthropological skeptic strategy is perfectly encapsulated by Pr Q: he suggests that “for most outcomes of political/social/cultural interest, we still don’t know very much about which [nature-or-nurture] is more important or how they interact”. This is CYA as far as professional practice is concerned but effectively identifies with race and gender reality-deniers in matters of public policy.
My point about the bi-partisan nature of science delusionism is that anthropological skeptics act in very much the same spirit as ecological skeptics. Both often pose as sophisticated nature-culture “hybridists” to hedge their intellectual bets.
They usually accompany their outright delusionism about science with substantial lashings of delay-ism and dolittle-ism on policy. ie “we don’t know enough about complex interactions”, “natural factors may be of greater importance”, “lets not make hasty recommendations” etc.
Perhaps there is a difference between the two schools but it takes a sharp man to spot it.
Jack you are indeed derailing the thread, and your link is not to a “heavy hitting molecular biologist” but to an absurd blog review of a contrarian book by a “prominent author, journalist and corporate consultant ” affiliiated with a notoriously anti-science rightwing thinktank (AEI, home of John Lott and Roger Bate). It took me all of 15 seconds to spot a ludicrous error of reasoning in the review (not sure if it’s in the book, or the reviewer’s own). If that’s the best you can do, or even a representative sample, I think you need to engage in some self-criticism yourself. However, I don’t intend to carry on further debate.
That’s enough on this topic. No more please, until further notice.
Andrew Reynolds, MoSH,
Tetracycline use against malaria isn’t new. Tetracyclines have been known for a long time to be effective antimalarials, and doxycycline is a standard prophylactic for areas with chloroquine-resistant malaria. According to http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/9/3124, tetracyclines act on the an organelle called the apicoplast. Like the mitochondrion, this probably evolved from a symbiotic bacterium, and is susceptible to the antibacterial treatment. Tigecycline may be more effective than doxycycline, or it may just be an attempt to get another market for the drug.
Thomas, thanks for the above but Tetracycline is not Tigecycline.
Thomas, I should have added Glycylcyclines are a new class of antibiotics derived from tetracycline.
@gerard
I remember The New Australian. It was run by Gerard Jackson, who is now here:
http://www.brookesnews.com/
bad enough sharing a first name with Hendo
JQ
says who subscribes to Lalarouche land (or is that LaLarouche follies?)
“Australia: Andrew Bolt, Centre for Independent Studies, Miranda Devine Institute of Public Affairs, Jennifer Marohasy, Christopher Pearson, Ian Plimer, Quadrant”
Usual bunch of fringe suspects.
I am sure most of those names are well paid to lie through their back teeth (Maro, Miranda, Plimer, Bolt, etc) and we know IPA and CIS pay piece raters for politicalkly slanted articles from the junior ranks of the liberal party (barracuda training policy – learn to lie before they walk).
jquiggin@#13 October 15th, 2009 at 14:17
Understood and, as a some-time Right-winger, I respect the blog owners proprietorial authority on the matter of managing threads.
I request permission to raise the subject of the “ideological implications of anthropological dissertations” on more general posts (“weekend reflections” etc) in this blog. Or, to clarify, is the ban on this topic a blog-blanket one UFN?
I may only be so bold only because of late developments. Over the week-end two high-profile organs, one in elite science the other in popular culture, have signaled an intention to address this issue. This seems germane to two subjects oft-touched on by this blog, namely “the future of the Left” and “the politicization of science”.
I make no further comment beyond drawing the public’s attention to this and seeking permission to discuss it on other posts.
Jack Strocchi@#21
Link fixed:
Jack we get the point that you are a big “Bell Curve” fan. here you are obviously hoping that the respectability of the Nature article (about human genetic diversity) will rub off on the trash tabloid article, which is about how one particular Professor of Psychology (with whom you obviously sympathize) is being interviewed on television regarding his views that race determines IQ. nice try.
it’s quite strange the way you are carrying on as if there is some sort of equivalence between the Right’s denial of climate science and your pet issue of race/gender-determines-intelligence “science”.
For one thing, the former subject has reached a stage of almost complete academic consensus based on hard physics and chemistry. the latter is not remotely near that stage, our understanding of the human development, intelligence and genetic diversity are all in comparative infancy.
Secondly, the size of the stakes could hardly be more different. with climate science, the stakes are the future of civilization, whereas when it comes to your favorite hobbyhorse, the highest stakes are the comfort of people like yourself in assuming the general inferiority of blacks and women.
so it might make you feel better as a Right-winger to pretend that there’s some sort of equivalent level of “denial” going on, but in fact the comparison is a pretty pathetic stretch.
I broadly agree with Gerard, and think his response was justified by Jack’s reopening the topic after I had called for closure on it. Sorry, Jack, but I don’t really feel like having this bunfight again for a while in any of my threads. If you have something genuinely new to say on the topic, email me and I’ll take a look.
The head of the malaria department at WHO in 2006 took the view that the campaign against DDT by environmentalists had led to lower use of DDT in malaria control than was appropriate,
Click to access KochiIRSSpeech15Sep06.pdf
‘Press Statement by Dr Arata Kochi
Director of the World Health Organization’s Malaria Department
September 15th, 2006….
I asked my staff; I asked malaria experts around the world: “Are we using every possible weapon to fight this disease?” It became apparent that we were not. One powerful weapon against malaria was not being deployed. In a battle to save the lives of nearly one million children ever year – most of them in Africa – the world was reluctant to spray the inside of houses and huts with insecticides;
especially with a highly effective insecticide known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or “DDT.”’
Even though indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides had been remarkably effective preventing malaria sickness and death where used, this strategy seemed to have been abandoned by most countries nearly 30 years ago. By the early 1980s, WHO was no longer actively promoting it……WHO is now recommending the use of indoor spraying not only in epidemic areas but also in areas
with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa’.
I think it is fair to say the reluctance to use DDT did lead to more malaria deaths than would have occurred had DDT been more appropriately used ,but of course nowhere near the many millions the extremists claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Famous_stories
Kochi is a political headkicker who (unlike the scientists who had previously headed the malaria department) saw the need to placate the right by presenting a marginal change in policy as a major realignment. Hence this statement.
As soon as the right forgot about DDT, the long-standing trend towards alternative measures was resumed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE54542W20090506
Johncanb: you are wrong. See here.
John Q and Tim. I don’t know why you two are so absolutist on this issue.
Kochi’s statement does have some inaccuracies in it, he is a headkicker but he is also a physician and therefore qualified to make judgements in this area about the science. I have read many of the documents and understand that there is significant debate among scientists in the area as to when it is appropriate and cost-effective to use insecticides on housing, and when DDT is best, and when other modalities are better etc. And, although the experts differ, my understanding is there are probably not many situations now where DDT is the most appropriate choice. But I still think the unscientific hysteria on DDT from some (not all) environmentalists in the past 4 decades did inappropriately reduce the use of insecticides and DDT in malaria control. The use of DDT in malaria control should have been a scientific decision based on the costs and benefits to human health and the environment, but in some cases the decision was affected by unscientific DDT hysteria, and that is a problem. You, Tim and John Q quite rightly condemn the right wing unscientific hysteria that has reared its head on this issue and climate change etc. Can’t you concede that left wing unscientific hysteria on this issue was also wrong and caused damage. Only a small amount of damage it turns out, but a more scientific policy would have saved some lives.
Johncanb, there is good reason for Tim and JQ to rightly condemn the right wing unscientific hysteria for DDT is one of a “Dirty Dozen” chemicals banned by a U.N. 2001 Convention and the only reason DDT is currently being used is because exemptions have been granted in many developing nations.
If you read what I said, I was agreeing with Tim and JQ that we should condemn the right wing unscientific hysteria for DDT (and other things), because that unscientific hysteria has led to wrong thinking and practice. But that means we should also condemn leftwing unscientific hysteria because that also causes damage. DDT was totally demonised , so it became difficult to have a rational debate about the circumstances in which DDT might be beneficial in net terms.
@johncanb I agree that DDT became the symbol of a whole lot of debates about pesticides and environmentalism in general, with the result that strong positions were taken both for and against. Undoubtedly this had some effect in discouraging the use of DDT in circumstances when it might have been a good option. As events since the Kochi statement have shown, those circumstances were not very common, and the use of DDT was never abandoned, so the net effect was probably small.
But nothing here changes the fact that the entire political right swallowed a lunatic genocide theory cooked up by LaRouchites and the tobacco lobby, and managed to sell it with some success. It’s unsurprising that they are so desperate not to abandon it.
I have my own concerns about the Citizens Electoral Council and have, on quite a few occasions, engaged in long heated arguments with one CEC member on Online Opinion against the CEC’s bizarre beliefs in favour of higher population and immigration (which, actually, are not that different to the beliefs of the Murdoch Press to whose tune the Federal and state governments have been dancing to for years). An example is to be found here.
Although I am far from uncritical of the British Royal Family I also have trouble with CEC’s view that they are at the centre of most of what is wrong with the world today and their labelling of Prince Phillip and Prince Charles as genocidal and racist for their sensible advocacy of population stability.
Nevertheless, I think the CEC also has a lot of worthwhile ideas, particularly in regard to our banking system, which is a ridiculous and needless scam that is the essential cause of nearly every economic crisis for at least the last 300 years.
If we abolished the whole stupid private banking system tomorrow and simply allowed Governments, instead of privat banks, to create the money we need to exchange goods and services, our society would be immeasurably better off (although we we would still have a lot of serious environmental problems to deal with).
I also take exception to condemning a group such as the CEC for holding “the usual conspiracy theories”.
Surely, it is obvious that the whole process by which all our governments consistently act against the public interest has to be the result a vast and ongoing conspiracy against the public, that is, unless people seriously believe that the Queensland Government’s decisions, as examples, to flog of $15 billion worth of publicly owned assests against the wishes of over 84% of the Queensland public or to forcibly amalgamate local governments just dropped out of the sky.
There are a good deal of views about critical issues that the mainstream media and the supposedly alternative media avoid discussing simply by labelling those views ‘conspiracy theories’, the most obvious being the false flag terrorist attacks of 11 September, which remain, to this day, the principle justification for the wars in which we have been engaged since then, and the removal of many of our guarnatees of human rights and democratic freedoms.
How anyone can seriously believe that 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan when, after 8 years of military occupation, not one person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured, is beyond me.
RE: the above list. The label “right-wing”/conservative applies only to the CIS and IPA, but not to Cato – an anti-war pro-drug legalization libertarian think-tank, and therefore outside the traditional spectrum.
In any case, what’s really “stupid” is to believe in the capacity of a parasitical organisation (i.e. government) to make a positive contribution to society. That is by definition impossible. JQ your intense religious faith in politicians and bureaucrats is as naive as you claim your opponents are. But that’s OK, I’d be pro-government too if my means of making a living consisted of looting the taxpayers through academic grants and employment.
The last sentence is a straightforward violation of the comments policy (read it if you haven’t already). I’ll forgo the easy tu quoque, and offer you the chance to make an unqualified retraction and apology. Otherwise, you can take your business elsewhere.
No Sukrit, JQ is only telling the ‘truth’ which Libertarians don’t want to hear that Governments take up the slack when markets fail. That is called making a positive contribution.
Like 6000-odd years of civilization?
Which is not to say that the hunter-gathering society has nothing going for it.
@Sukrit
Sukrit – I dont see any intense religious faith in politicians and bureacrats in JQ at all (evidence??).
I do see, however, an intense religious hatred for politicians and bureacrats in you.
@Alice
You are mistaken Alice. Sukrit shows no personal hatred of politicians and bureaucrats here. What he hates is the idea of politicians and bureaucrats, because these are, for him, connected with the concept of the res publica of public policy. The very idea of collaboration is for him offensive. Thus what he really hates are not humans per se but the usages of collective humanity in general. This misanthropic anomie is both a reflection of his politics and a reinforcing element.
I often wonder what drives people to have such fear of others. One day I feel sure I will find out, but what is salient is to see it when it appears in arguments over public policy.
Sukrit
Fran Barlow, Sukrit & his Libertarian mates has been brainwashed for they don’t believe in universal health care.
Johncanb, I am puzzled why you claim that I am absolutist on this issue. Let me post the letter from Schapira that I have posted on my blog before. Schapira knows more about the issue than Kochi.
And let me state again that the reason why DDT is still useful at all against malaria is because of the restrictions on its use.
Tim. In saying you were absolutist, I was specifically referring to your statement
‘You are wrong’ in post 28, which was a response to my post, and I took to be you saying my concluding statement (below) was wrong.
‘I think it is fair to say the reluctance to use DDT did lead to more malaria deaths than would have occurred had DDT been more appropriately used ,but of course nowhere near the many millions the extremists claim’.
Your statement from Schapira supports my statement.
I think there is a tendency in debate to say the right wing nongs are wrong in every way, whereas I think it is more productive to concede that they get the occasional thing right. And with Kochi, his media release contains errors which is bad, and he was trying to curry favour with the Republicans in the US, but I think
his blunderbuss approach did succeed in changing somewhat the paradigmns in malaria control thinking so that people were more prepared to consider all the options. It had the unfortunate side-effect of initially giving succour to the loony right, but I actually think that impact has finished now.
And I should apologise for not making clear in the first post (which I did in the second) that I consider some of Kochi’s statements in the media release to be factually incorrect.
MoSH,
So – if I do not believe in the use of the force of government to imprison others to pay for the costs of my own health care then I have been brainwashed?
What a wonderfully morally absolute world you live in.
Andrew Reynolds, in Australia we are lucky in having a universal health care system when you compare it to the failed US system. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 47 million Americans, or 20 percent of the population under the age of 65 do not have health insurance and miss out on much needed medical attention. If that is the system you prefer God help us all.
Why should Andrew’s opinion, flawed as it is, demand divine intervention? If his opinion demands divine intervention we’re in a lot of trouble Mosh, because there is no god …
@Michael of Summer Hill
Not only that Mosh but the “failed” privatised version of US healthcare is grossly inefficient and costs more per head than a lot of countries which have a national public health system. It might have been fine in the days when people had real jobs that the employer covered health insurance but what has happened in the US is that many more people have part time and casual jobs (underemployment) hence their health insurance provided by the employer is grossly inadequate. US healthcare has developed into a system for “insiders” and outsiders whereby “insiders” receive everything money can buy but outsiders receive very little. The more advanced medical systems get – the greater the number of people become outsiders as dictated by inurance companies. In other words as Krugman observes, the greater the number of medicaln advances made, the worse the system becomes for many American’s health.
Its a lopsided inequitable system. In 2001 65% of Americans had full medical coverage but by 2006 it is down to 59%. What about the almost half the population who doesnt have it?
No one in their right mind could claim the US health system as efficient. McKinsey report noted the additional costs of US health administration in excess of other advanced nations govt insurance costs amounted to 84 billion dollars. The US States health administrative spending amounts to 31% of total health spending compared to less than 17% in Canada which has a government system.
The US health system is a disaster but the free marketers (funded by insurance companies and drug companies) have run successful denialist campaigns brainwashing people of not so great intyelligence that it would cost them more to have a government system of healthcare. In fact it would cost the whole country less in taxes.
Liars poker being played by Andy yet again. Ill call your bluff Andy. You dont know what you are talking about (and it should be in your interests to pay less tax when talking about the US health system but no…as usual we get the “why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare patter”).
Andy if you were an ordinary American taxpayer now – you are actually paying more for insiders healthcare than you would be for all under a public system. Make up your mind. Your ideologies are blatantly clashing. What do you want Andy? User pays healthcare OR lower taxes. You cant have both as the US health system clearly demonstrates.
Personally Id be wanting the best value for money (Canada’s system, if I was an American). Why do you think people cross the border for it Andy??
@Fran Barlow
There has not been a Godly intervention in Andy’s viewpoint Fran…..but there has been an intervention…
@Michael of Summer Hill
And how many of those 47 million are young, healthy and/or rich and don’t need to purchase health insurance? Also, I thought Obama recently revised that number downwards so as to not give people the impression that illegal immigrants would be the beneficiaries of free heatlhcare/socialised medicine.
As for people missing out on healthcare, that’s false. Hospitals are legally obliged to treat people that walk through the doors in need of care – which of course is not the same as them having the means to pay for it. Then again, a lot of people just skip out on their bills.
I would like a free market health care system, but calling the US system “free market” is a strawman argument.
@Alice
I would not describe US healthcare system as “failed”. Given how tightly regulated it is, I’m surprised it does as good a job as it does – but no doubt the recent legislation will further raise premiums and costs. It’s definitely not “free market health care”, since government spending per capita is higher than most developed countries – in fact 60% of costs are paid by the government, which is not much lower than Australia. Their system is 60% socialism, and yet you complain about how free market it is? Unbelievable.
Given that, I don’t how having completely socialised medicine would make it any cheaper, given the massive price tag attached to Obama’s recent plan. Unless they did what all other countries currently do, which is ration health care.
Canada’s system is woeful. And I’ve heard plenty of stories of Canadian’s crossing the border to the USA to get far superior care. If I had to have universal coverage, I’d opt for Singapore’s system, where people are forced to save for their own healthcare. At least then they appreciate the costs and don’t go around clogging up the system everytime they get a cold or an upset stomach. Besides, they have probably the most market orientated system, and total costs come in at 4.3% of GDP
Besides, Andy is thoroughly correct. Why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare? Why should I be responsible for their lifestyle choices? We should stop coddling people who can’t take care of themselves. In fact, we should make THEM pay. We should scrap the Medicare Levy and implement a 20% “fat tax”. That is, if your BMI is above a certain number, you should pay a premium everytime you receive care and further burden society for your selfish lack of self-discipline. Not the most libertarian solution, but if we’re going to have health care as a “right” then we need some responsibilities as well.
But no, that would never do, because all the liberal lefties would say “oh, but obesity is a social problem – we need to understand each other better” or some garbage.
Sea-bass, do some reading.
It is often the case that unforseen consequence of our actions could turn promising ideas into disastrous events. The 1972 campaign to ban DDT is an example were plans with good intent have gone badly. The campaign warned against the potential for causing cancer, egg shell thining, and other horrific environmental effects……If you recall it was a William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who made the ultimate decision to ban DDT in 1972,using his demagogue style.DDT was banned by W.R the EPA administrator who ignored the decision of his own administrative law judge. To quote, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man… The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”
Another more recent example of this law of unintended consequences is “that government support for ethanol in gasoline have led to “unintended consequences”: a cruel tradeoff of food for fuel that has contributed to a global increase in food prices”.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_law_of_intended_consequenc.html
Now Alice, Fran and Michael before you start beating up on the Libertarians, consider the effect of the unintended consequences, when a huge entity, with huge corecive influence starts on its well intended path only to lead to disastrous unintended consequences on a massive scale way beyond a single ecosytem or community. No wonder us libertarians are nervous about big government. I might add this dosen’t even take into consideration the huge element of corruption that the state can potentially engage in with other private corporations.
Perhaps this might give you a little peek into why us libertarians are opposed to massive stimulus packages that have been introduced to counter the GFC. The good intent behind the stimulus package is marred by the desire of our state to cover up the true farce they have made of managing our banking systems on a large scale for fear of the people realising there poor mismanagement and desire for quick political gain.
and then you’ve got the looney right and the looney left confusing matters even further…
have you ever seen one in action? I mean, a place where Emergency Rooms were not legally obliged to treat people? I was in an emergency room in China with people lying, groaning and bleeding were being ignored while they desperately waited for some friend or relative to turn up with the cash to pay for admission, one woman with doubled over in pain screaming at her husband for turning up without enough money. It was pretty much the most nauseating scene I ever witnessed. Perhaps if you saw the same thing it might cure you, assuming you are not a complete sociopath.