Monday, October 29, 2007

Daily Doses of Dumb

First, we get a post titled, wonderfully, Huh?. Ahh, if only all her work were so intellectually honest. Here Megan is confused by the fact that many Britons travel to the US for health care. You see, either we think our health care system is irredeemably flawed in every possible way and want a socialist revolution, or we like it how it is. Yes, Megan, if you can afford it you can still get the best health care in the world here. If.... you.... can..... afford..... it. Britons have a much healthier economy than ours, and a very helpful, to them, exchange rate. The relative cost is lower for them, and they're more capable of bearing that cost to boot. It's not terribly confusing, unless you're the world's tallest econoblogger.
Then, in a follow-up post, Megan conflates Britain with all of Europe.
If this were actually true, the number of Europeans seeking health care abroad, other than cosmetic procedures, should be zero. If the health care is really every bit as good as what's available on the private market, they shouldn't turn to the private market. Americans seeking lower-cost health care abroad does not invalidate the market model; seeking lower cost alternatives through trade is a venerable free-market tradition. On the other hand, Europeans paying their own hard-earned cash in order to exit a system which allegedly provides exactly the same thing, for free, poses a problem for national health care advocates.
So, you see, if a European has surgery here, Megan wins, and Hillary can't take her money. Except, of course, that none of Europe's medical systems guarantee you equal access to the top doctors in any particular field. France, for example, has a system where you can pay in to get better care. Everyone is guaranteed treatment, but the rich still get better care because they can afford it. When you're rich, the fact is you don't think about the cost, but the quality, and sometimes the best doctors in a particular field are based in a different country. I realize all this is probably elementary to anyone reading this besides Megan, but there's reasonable circumstantial evidence she reads FMM (and c'mon, isn't she too obviously self-absorbed not to read a blog all about her?).

Also, Megan followed up her monstrously stupid post on vouchers with further idiocy.
How many educated people who:

a) Oppose vouchers
b) Have children who do not attend inner city public schools

would still oppose vouchers if they were the only way to get their child out of an inner city public school? How many of them would accept that their child had to be left in that school because the systemic effects of allowing their child to exit that repulsive school would be dreadful?
Yeah! If school vouchers were the only way to prevent their child from being boiled alive in a pool of acid, I bet these straw people Megan invented to seize the moral high ground from would stop opposing vouchers. Meanwhile, in reality, some inner city school systems are actually successful. As an NYC native Megan might have heard about, say, them magnet schools the city has in places like the Bronx that seem to prepare their students pretty damn well. That's not to gloss over the major flaws too many other schools in the city have, but.... well, how many times can Megan say inner city schools before she mistypes and writes "black kids"? That broken for 50 years crack in her last post really lingers in my mind here. If there isn't a racial component to Megan's views on vouchers then she's sure not afraid of letting the racial biases of others help her out.
But hey, blacks are lazy, right Megan? Vouchers wouldn't also be a way around desegregation of schools, would they?


M. Bouffant said...

Not sure if it's still going on, w/ the Medicare drug thingie & all, but what about all the Americans buying prescription meds in Canada? Doesn't that indicate that our "free-market" is all screwed up?
According to McArdle's reasoning, anyway.

Anonymous said...

Reasoning? What reasoning?

"Tossing out random pseudo-justifications for positions," sure, but "reasoning"?