Not since Sarah Palin gave an interview at a turkey processing farm has the left-wing blogosphere been so excited.
The reason for the excitement?
Sue Lowden, a Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, mentioned that bartering is a legitimate means of obtaining health care services. She even used the example of how “in the olden days” farmers would barter chickens.
Yoweee! What a bunch of know-nothing hicks clinging to their outdated barter system! Chickens for checkups!
Josh Marshall is so proud, because he has stoked this fauxtroversy into many, many links. Of course, the links mostly are from the usual suspects, like Steve Benen (“Sometimes, candidates just aren’t ready for prime time”), Matthew Yglesias (“Checkups for chickens might work if we were all farmers, but what’s a blogger supposed to do?”), and John Amato (“Sue Lowden’s ‘Chicken For Checkups’ health care plan is Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs”).
But the reality is that in much of flyover country bartering — including for health care services — is well established and legitimate. Here are just some of the headlines in the mainstream media over the past year:
- Barter Fits the Bill for Strapped Firms (Wall Street Journal, 2/17/2009)
- Barter system reborn (Bloomberg, 4/1/2009)
- A health-care exchange of sorts already exists: barter (McClatchy 6/17/2009)
- Can’t afford health care? Barter for it (CNNMoney 6/19/2009)
None of this, of course, will stop the “chickens for checkups” meme from being pushed, since Lowden’s reference to “chickens” (even though she was talking about in the “olden days”) is the linguistic gift which may keep giving to people who only worry about context when it is Barack Obama talking.
Bartering is not the answer to the health care cost issue on a large scale, although it may help individual cases.
But neither is Obamacare, which is far more financially dishonest and politically corrupt than anything Sue Lowden has mentioned.
——————————————–
Related Posts:
CBO Credibility The First Victim Of Obamacare
Inconvenient Words In CBO Report
I’ll Have Some Palin Derangement Syndrome with my Turkey, Please
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Everybody barters.
I think the Dems call it the normal way of doing business in Washington, or making sausage…..you vote for my bill and I'll support your bill……
"Bartering is not the answer to the health care cost issue on a large scale, although it may help individual cases."
I think this is the crux of the issue. There are no large-scale answers to health care cost. All health care is individual, and there are only individual answers. A systemic change that allows for individuals to find their own honest 'right' answers is what is needed.
I own a company and we barter with other companies and customers often. It's a win-win for both parties.
Too funny! Years ago my husband needed to go to the doctor on the weekend before Christmas. His PCP was closed weekends and not open Monday because of the holiday. We went to a local clinic whose doctors were in his plan. We explained that this was not his PCP and the clinic said it wouldn't be a problem. Well, they ended up filling out the paperwork wrong and it was a problem. I fought them for a year on it (out of principle as it was only $75) When their collection agency got me irate one day, I actually told the woman on the phone that I wish we could just go back to the days where we could pay doctors with chickens.
Oh the sweet, Leftist dears. "Ha, ha, ha! Bartering for services? Why, all that would do is avoid the paperwork of insurance companies and taxes from the government, who'd want to do that?!"
I guess bringing up Mexico would just make their minds a'slode.
I thought they called it "pork" in Congress or how about "back-door double-dealing, complete with party bosses and their fat stogies wearing their $2000 suits trade offs" instead of barter, that went on during the Healthcare fiasco?
Statists HATE bartering–they cannot easily tax it.
Also, much of the "benefits" of this government takeover are imaginary. Lowering costs to society? Individuals do not care–they care about individual value. But all of us are being forced to pay for things that supposedly "benefit" all of society–though there is precious little proof.
On a related note: I was recently at a conference where there was a panel on people getting their personal genome sequenced. One of the points brought up was "who will pay for this $3,000 sequencing?" Apparently no on in this crowd could imagine that the value of a personal genome to determine genetic risk for disease was enough for individuals to actually pay for this diagnostic. But presumably there was some sort of societal value! No one brought up that people WOULD pay for wide-screen televisions that cost even more (I would have, but I already felt like a Christian whistling past the Coliseum by this point).
As the phrase goes…they walk among us.