Suck it, hippies and nationalized healthcare nerds.
I’m about to make Whole Foods my exclusive grocery store even though I can’t stand organic foods.
Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America
Hells yeah, John. Whole greatness (see how I did that?) here.
Also:
…the only reliable technique humanity has ever discovered for lowering the costs of products or services over time is market competition. That will be true for health care too.
UPDATE: Best comment of the day is from Lakewooder:
This guy’s got a lot of nerve expressing his opinion. What does he know about providing health care benefits to large numbers of people? [oh, I need a do-over]
UPDATE 2: Other best comment of the day from PeterK
but they key is that the politicians and the press are pushing for reforming what 80% of the public is satisfied with to provide coverage for less than 15% of the country. sorry we don’t need to be rushing headlong into overturning an entire industry
I hope you and your kids never need medical care.
Trey,
There are different kinds of rights. Some rights are natural such as the right to reproduce. Other rights you might call fundamental such as the right to privacy. Still some rights exist only because we create laws that guarantee them. The right to health care is a statutory right because we have written our social contract to include it.
In the United States hospitals MUST provide medical care to those persons who are in need or it. Furthermore, we have an equally longstanding policy that prohibits debtor’s prisons, so if a health care provider gives service to an insolvent person, they have not choice but fill their loss by billing other insured or solvent persons.
In other words, the United States of America as a de facto system of universal health care.
If libertarians and conservatives want a true market approach to health care, then they should stop arguing with liberals and progressives about insurance and start pushing for the repeal of laws which mandate medical service to anybody who needs it.
My two cents.
Its good to see his oped getting some traction. These ideas have been floating around for a while but have not gotten much attention as an alternative to the massive health care overhaul in Congress right now.
As for the “right” to health care. There is a big difference between a right that I have and an obligation you have to provide me with something out of your pocket. Hospitals requirements to serve people in critical need is not based on a right but based on a generally agreed upon civility and standards of decency within the community.
Bob,everyone eventually needs medical care. We pay for ours. It’s called responsibility.
I’m glad you can afford it, Trey. Let’s hope your family doesn’t have to join the ranks of all the willfully irresponsible next year.
Not going to happen. It’s called priorities.
Trey, you and I our pals so you saying because I can’t afford health insurance means I’m shit out of luck, I don’t take personally. But I can’t for the longest time I was employed by a company too small to afford insurance so I’ve basically been walking on pins and needles for the last ten years. Sure if I got into a car accident or was shot and taken to the emergency room I would have been treated and made stable but I would then have a large bill I wouldn’t have any way of paying off that would be a monkey on my back. Imagine if I got cancer or something? Sure I’m no where near getting cancer but it’s a real problem for people without insurance, people without insurance can’t afford cancer treatment (unless Steve Jobs is uninsured, I’m sure he handled his recent medical bills fine) and then when they try to get insurance to help pay for their treatments they can’t because they have a preexisting condition. I’m not saying we should all chip in a little bit each to help out our fellow citizens, that’s way to much to ask of people that don’t have problems especially when it so obviously leads us to Communist Russia where cars drive you or what ever. But there should be some rules where at least I get a tax deduction for getting my own insurance and perhaps a rule making insurance companies less of pricks when it comes to saying people can’t have treatments because “We don’t feel it necessary” (I think that’s called a death panel?) I’m sure there is something that can be done that won’t lead to the government placing cameras in my home to make sure I’m eating healthily (Like they just started doing in England…).
Love
Joshua
our should be are, don’t know what I was thinking with that.
Josh,
100 percent deduction for individually bought plans is one of the specific reforms John McKay lists in this op-ed, as is reform on pre-existing condition rules, portability, etc.
I’m all for reform but ObamaCare isn’t reform — it’s a hostile takeover of 15 percent of the economy and 100 percent of my right to get the health insurance I want.
My real hope is Obamacare will freak the insurance companies out enough to get competitive with pricing, stop being dicks and actually help people. Really what it comes down to is health insurance shouldn’t just be for the rich or those that work for large companies that can afford to give their employees insurance. I don’t mean to sound marxist with that, I’m not saying give people insurance but, shit, make it so anyone can afford it. You would think the free market would have spawned more insurance companies to come in and undercut some other insurance companies but pharmaceuticals, doctors, labs, all of ‘em want their cut so the price for health care keeps going up. I guess I should just stop complaining because soon I’ll have government run insurance, I’ll let you know how that goes…
And again my argument when we went and saw Star Trek…. They had nationalized health care (among other things), seemed to work out well. So you don’t want us to be like Star Trek???? You love Star Trek!
“it’s a hostile takeover of 15 percent of the economy and 100 percent of my right to get the health insurance I want.”
Horseshit, and you know it. Even under your most paranoid”obamacare fantasy you could still buy buy whatever health care you can afford. If you just don’t give a damn about poor folks, that’s your priority. Some of us don’t want to see major segments of US population walking around uninsured with no access to health care.
Bullshit, Bob. The plan says on page seventeen that after a five year grace period my health care plan will have to meet new guidelines set forth by Obamacare.
Considering that my health care plan is an HSA, it probably won’t make the new cut.
So no, I won’t have the right to get whatever health insurance I want.
I read the article the other day and, although I agree with what he said, I knew it would set off a firestorm of controversy. Healthcare is not a right. Societies may, if they chose, offer a great many things to their citizens that are not basic rights. As pointed out earlier, these are civilities, not rights.
Under the current suggested legislation, the deck is stacked in favor of a public option. The federal government will set the rules for ALL insurance companies to follow. Those companies which do not, will not be able to play. Those which do comply will have to raise premiums to cover the costs of what the government will dictate they must cover. The public option can be priced at whatever the government wishes to price it at because it will be funded by taxes. This will drive out private insurance.
Further, HR3320 also states that if you lose your insurance you will not be able to sign on to a new insurance policy once the legislation becomes effective. At that point you must opt for the public option. So, yes, you will get to keep the insurance you have, as long as you don’t have to change it for any reason.
I encourage you to download the bill and read through it, as most of Congress has not.
“Some of us don’t want to see major segments of US population walking around uninsured with no access to health care.”
And that’s right nice of you.
If it means so much to all of you, why not reach in your own pockets, pool your resources, and buy them all insurance?
Why does your concern for your fellow man entitle you to reach into other people’s pocket?
I have a lot of things I’d like to see get done in the world. I can either pay for it myself, get together with like-minded people and cooperate, or I can do without.
I don’t see how my ends — no matter how noble or whatnot — entitle me to someone else’s means.
“Why does your concern for your fellow man entitle you to reach into other people’s pocket?”
It wasn’t entitlement when we reached into each other’s pockets to build public schools, interstate highways, military forces, libraries, and regulatory agencies, for a few examples. Basic, universal health care benefits all citizens in the same way.
“It wasn’t entitlement when we reached into each other’s pockets to build public schools, interstate highways, military forces, libraries, and regulatory agencies, for a few examples.”
Actually, most listed are. Of those listed, only one is explicitly authorized in the Constitution, and one is — arguably and within limits — sort of authorized.
“Basic, universal health care benefits all citizens in the same way.”
Creating equal shares of mediocrity and monopoly affects all the same, but it does not benefit all, or any.
Or do you wonder why federal employees and politicians would keep their plan and not go to the public option.
Equality (except equality before the law) and central control are anathema to liberty.
And protecting individual liberty? That’s the only reason government should exist at all.
Trey
Priorities. Feed your children or pay overpriced health insurance?
There are really good people out there NOW that simply can’t find a job. Or they have a job that doesn’t have insurance but that job doesn’t pay enough
to pay for outside health care.
One can only assume that what we have here are that group of millionaires that are going to be required to pick up some of the slack.
I assume none of you are on Medicare……or are willing to give it up.
But to think you are somehow above it all just seems odd.
So when are the hard-core Libertarians going to go off the grid and stop using our public schools, highways, military forces, regulatory agencies, utilities, etc?
I’m sure there’s plenty of room in West Texas to spread out and fortify yourselves.
Or were you for all that before you were against it?
“There are really good people out there NOW that simply can’t find a job. Or they have a job that doesn’t have insurance but that job doesn’t pay enough to pay for outside health care.”
That’s why real reform would be fixing laws on portability, laws that tie insurance to employers, making HSAs more available, providing vouchers, freeing insurance companies from state mandates to provide services that customers don’t want, and allowing interstate insurance purchases.
For whatever is wrong with the health care industry now, to get this bad took government interference and mandate at every turn. More of the same won’t fix it, nor will a socialized medical system. What will fix it up is a return to patient accountability, actual market competition (instead of the overregulated, faux market system we have now built on the anachronistic employer-provider model), and real choice.
Health care is a service like any other. Treating like it’s something more than that — especially a right — is the surest way to ensure the worst service at the worst price.
A government-run, centrally planned, nondiscriminatory socialist plan is no way to improve services or reduce costs.
As noted above:
“…the only reliable technique humanity has ever discovered for lowering the costs of products or services over time is market competition. That will be true for health care too.”
To Obama’s supporters, I’m asking the same question CNBC has been asking: How in the heck will Obama keep his promise to his constituents that if they like their current health insurance, they can keep it? The idea that businesses would continue to offer private insurance as a benefit to their employees once the government creates its own plan is ridiculous. Why would they do that? It’s not sustainable to their profit margin to provide insurance (on which the businesses are taxed) when the government is going to mandate that everyone have health insurance anyway and offer a state-run option?
I’m all for Mackey’s ideas and just may frequent Whole (Paycheck) Foods a little more often from now on!
It seems like the point is that while one may argue whether healthcare is an universal right, it certainly is not a right for employees to automatically assume that employers must provide a subsidized healthcare plan.
Its in this assumption that so many– including most who comment on this blog it seems– become entitled.
I own my own small business that employees 60. We pay 80% of employees healthcare premium (plan include family coverage, medica, dental, vision, etc.) . We also pay compeitive salaries, bonuses, profit sharing, vacation time, and other benefits.
We are facing a 20% increase in premium costs in 2010. The company simply cannot afford to absorb the entire increase… so the % subsidy we pay will decrease. Yet, the rank and file are already complaining. That’s entitlement.
[TG NOTE: I believe Roger got "employers" and "employees" mixed up in his first paragraph. Normally I email commenters if it looks like a typo needs to be fixed, but I don't require email registry to post, and Roger didn't provide an email. ROGER -- If my edit is mistaken, I will correct my correction. Drop me a note and I will fix.]
“the insurance companies out enough to get competitive with pricing, stop being dicks and actually help people.”
@Josh unfortunately the insurance companies are not allowed to sell policies across state lines like they can house, fire, life and other forms of insurance. States also force the companies to provide coverage for things I don’ t want eg acupuncture, herbalists etc. new Jersey is the worst.
@JackEJett “Feed your children or pay overpriced health insurance? ”
better yet how about buy iphone or pay health insurance. many folks make choices in life. your example of food is a red herring. an individual having to make that decision is probably eligible for Medicaid and food stamps.
health insurance needs to be sold like other forms of insurance on the open market where the individual decides the level of coverage that they want. Sell it like we sell life, house, fire, liability, auto on the open market across state lines.
as for denial of coverage they’ll cover you if you increase the deduction and premium. look at auto insurance for males under 25. they can get coverage but it is expensive. why? because of the greater risk they represent.
Insurance companies are nothing more than legalized bookies. Actuaries set the odds, you come to them and ask to make a bet, they look at the odds based upon the factors you give them. they either like the odds (accept the bet) or they don’t (decline coverage). now you want them to take the bet, so you increase the odds in their favor buy offering to change the odds (premium and deduction)
I’ll give you a real life example. I took out an insurance policy 10 years ago at the time the company said we’ll cover you, but your premium will be twice that of a non-smoker (risk). I said okay, but what happens if I quit smoking. they said quit for a year and we’ll reduce your premium to that of non-smoker. a 50% reduction. I quit smoking. and am smoke free 10 years later.
Trey, you have made it clear that your particular strain of ‘libertarianism’ is essentially the Law of the Jungle told by Trey Garrison, hired gun. Every man for himself – I’ve got mine, you get yours. Let’s forgo interstate highways, libraries, public schools, drop all pretense of organized civility and and just let everyone roam the urban jungle armed to the teeth. Would that make you happier?
Aside from the “health care is not a right” part, I really have trouble seeing how there can be such an outcry against Mr. McKay’s article, but I guess I am an idiot.
Tort reform – doctor’s don’t pay for malpractice insurance, patients do. Same way that employers don’t pay high corporate taxes, employees do. These expenses are passed along.
High Deductible insurance plans with Health Savings Accounts – this gives you the power to make your healthcare decisions. You are not going to agree to unnecessary tests when it is your money at stake, and you are more likely to actually ask questions about your bill, which will help bring down expenses. Your HSA can grow over time, and give you a great deal of flexibility in your older years – you’ll live to 100 if you only shop at Whole Foods, so you’ll have that going for you.
Tax deductibility of individual plans – what is the argument here? Same tax benefits are only fair for those who have to buy insurance on their own. Lowers the cost for those who don’t get the benefit through work.
Make cost transparent. nuff said.
Medicare Reform. Not educated enough on the subject, but on the surface it does look like Medicare could be in big trouble if all the baby boomers are eating whole foods, or if just a fair amount of them live to 80+.
Making it easier to make voluntary contributions. Good idea.
Repealing govermnment mandates on what should be covered. This might be better left alone… not sure. Again, not educated enough on this subject.
Overall, more transperency, making the doctor explain the costs to the patient, and getting the patients approval for treatment plans (patient control), tort reform (sorry lawyers), HSAs, easier contributions to the poor via tax forms.
“So no, I won’t have the right to get whatever health insurance I want.”
You can still BUY whatever health care you can afford. You can’t even get “whatever health insurance you want” right now, unless of course what you really want is a high premium, high deductible, and all sorts of pre-existing conditions and restrictions placed by the private insurance companies. What we have now is more akin to Vegas-style crap-shoot insurance than health care.
You gamble with discretionary funds. I don’t want to gamble with health.
And yet, we spend more per capita — and as a percentage of our GDP — than anyone else on healthcare and are behind every other wealthy democracy on virtually every single metric. In short, we are getting the worst service at the worst price.
We spend more because we have more money.
The metrics commonly cited are meaningless and usually owe to demographic factors rather than medical care provided.
Where would you go if you had an acute medical need? The UK? Sweden? Cuba? Or an American hospital?
Problems? Yes. But you don’t fix them with more of what caused the problem in the first place.
Several Americans are going to Germany for cancer and aids research/treatment. Not to mention the ones that cross over to Canada for cheaper pharmaceuticals and medical treatments. (Not saying I would do that, going to the trouble of getting to those countries negates the whole idea of cheaper/better medical care to me.. but it does happen) The German thing being mostly because our glorious government thinks American citizens can’t handle certain treatments no matter how much they seem to work.
What on earth does it even mean to say you can’t stand organic foods?!
You know what I really hate? Pollution-free water!
Nearly twice as much than the next wealthy democracy as a percentage of our GDP, though. Twenty-six whopping percent.
I’m intrigued to hear an elucidation ofd your second paragraph. I’m sure you’re right on at least some of the metrics.
For such a polarizing issue (is there any other kind anymore?), I find myself oddly lacking partizan zeal. But it does seem to me we can ensure our citizens have access to the medical care they need without killing the profit motive that drives innovation. In fact, it seems to me we must. The looming crisis isn’t merely humanitarian — uninsured people wind up costing the taxpayer plenty, rest assured. And their ranks are growing.
P.S. My comment is directed to our host.
“What on earth does it even mean to say you can’t stand organic foods?! ”
Organic farming is bad for the environment (requires more land for less yield), uses antiquated, more dangerous fertilizers and pesticides, and the final product has less taste and fridge life than the commercial alternatives.
Also, organic foods have been linked to eight of the last 10 salmonella outbreaks, and organic foods have been proven to have no nutritional advantage over commercial farms.
Daniel — time to go to Whole Foods. Promise to get back to you later.
Hey Bob, you never said if I could keep my HSA or not.
Still reading the bill?
Some of you need to go back and read The Declaration of Independence…
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….”
Nearly Imposable to maintain “LIFE” without healthcare insurance…
I’m a retired Hospital Administrator, and I support “Medicare for All” single payer…but, I am opposed to “ObamaCare”
I don’t have the patience with most of you to educate you how far off the mark most are on Private vs. Medicare Health Insurance….but let me give you a few facts.
(1) Medicare pays 70cents on the dollar on average, Private Insurers on average pay 53cents….because the Private Insurers “STIFF” healthcare providers and Medicare,on average, doesn’t. (This figure does not include Co-Pays paid by the Patient) The difference between 53cents and the 75 to 80 cents that the Private Insurers won’t pay….is billed back to the patient,along with a threat to take them to court and/or “Destroy their Credit”
(2)You would say that expanding Medicare would “Create a huge, new Bureaucracy .” Who manages Medicare in the state of Texas? It’s contracted out to Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas…..So much for that. Also what does it cost to administer Medicare? Between 3 to 4% ….Private Insurers….between 18 and 24%
Health Insurance should be viewed like you would a public service….like the Fire department….no one, in their right mind, would advocate multiple private fire departments….that would be a duplication of resources (Woops, forgot that the “audience” is made up primarily of Libertarians)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….”
Nearly Imposable to maintain “LIFE” without healthcare insurance…
The right to life means you have a right to your own life, and that government cannot take it away (baring due process), and that government’s job is to further protect you from having your life taken by other individuals (i.e. crimes like murder.)
The right to life does not mean that others have to provide what is necessary to maintain your life — be it food, shelter or medical care.
In fact, based on your logic, government should provide food and shelter since the maintenance of life is far more dependent on having food and shelter from the elements. Food and shelter are far more immediate requirements for maintaining life. And yet no one thinks it’s the role of government to provide food or shelter.
Rights are negative in obligation. You have a right not to have your life taken or your rightful liberty interfered with government or your neighbors. You don’t have a right to have people provide you with the necessities of life.
You have a right to pursue happiness. No one — individual or government — is required to provide your happiness or ensure it.
You have a right to free speech — that is, no one in government from stopping you from speaking your piece. You don’t have a right to a government-provided microphone, audience or television program.
You have a right to own a gun. That right doesn’t mean your government or your neighbors have to give you one.
In fact, if you believe that you have a right to a good or service outside the proper aegis of government — i.e. the common defense, criminal and civil courts, and other agencies that protect — not provide for — your rights — then what you believe is that you have a right to make other people work for you against your will.
Forcing others to work for you regardless of their wishes? There’s a word for that.
Forcing others to give you goods and services against their will? There’s a word for that, too.
Both are ugly, neither are American, and none of that line of thinking can exist without destroying life, liberty and people’s right to pursue happiness.
So please don’t double talk me, don’t pretend health care is anything more than a service like any other business, and don’t pretend that government has ever delivered anything with more efficiency, cost effectiveness, or under the moral reality of mutual consent that you get with unfettered capitalism.
Any mess we have now is because of government meddling in health care, not because of the lack it.
Also, as PeterK so eloquently put it:
…but they key is that the politicians and the press are pushing for reforming what 80% of the public is satisfied with to provide coverage for less than 15% of the country.
@ Josh”
perhaps a rule making insurance companies less of pricks when it comes to saying people can’t have treatments because “We don’t feel it necessary”
-beautiful.
The problem with the health care “argument” is that there are deep problems on both sides of the issue .I mean, that if in some health care vacuum, no insurance claims were filed or trial lawyers just dropped off the planet for say, a year, health insurance would then be affordable. Not true. If there were no insurance claims ever filed or no lawsuits ever brought up by “Trial Lawyers,” do you really think insurance companies would lower their premiums? And overall costs would go down? no, they would keep hording money and keep paying their CEO’s higher bonuses and healthcare would still keep getting more expensive. They are not “Non-profit” organizations. I’m not saying Gov’t healthcare is the answer by any means, but the “Rush Limbaugh” line of thinking should be taken with a grain of salt. Trial lawyers often provide a check and balance to big Pharma and insurance co.’s that skirt or outright ignore rules and laws set up by the states. Another theory for the right side of this argument is something to the effect of, “stop using your money to buy crack, booze, and PlayStation games, and budget a little bit of money to pay a health-insurance premium every month”
However, if you are one of those poor saps that do believe government care is the answer, one only has to take a look at the mess of Medicare and Medicaid to see what government health-care can and cannot do and if you are happy with those programs, then ask any doctor why he/she does not take Medicare or Medicaid.
But there really is legitimacy in both sides of the argument and if our government and media had the ability to reason at the minute level and strategically strike the hundreds of problems on both sides of this argument, the health-care system/issue could be solved.
My point is this: What is despicable, is that this administration is wrapping up of all the legitimate arguments of both sides into one ball, and calling it a HUGE problem, and wanting to take over the whole thing. Instead of divide and conquer, they are using the approach to combine and conquer because they don’t believe in the public to withstand a rational, perhaps long-term approach to fixing what is indeed a mess. This administration is preying on America’s short term attention span and calling for society to allow them to “hit a reset button” putting government in total control so you, Joe/Jane A. Citizen,” just won’t have to worry anymore.” What a snowball job.
Oh and Depressing Truth,
I can certainly appreciate that you don’t have the patience to educate on Private vs. Medicare Health Insurance. As a doctor, I do not like that I get paid 53 cents, 70 cents, or even 80 cents to the dollar for 100 percent of my services. For a doctor its as if you went to Best Buy, went to the counter to purchase a TV then whipped out a credit card. If the TV was, say a thousand bucks, you, the consumer, gets to say “since you accept my credit card I only have to pay 50, 73, 80 cents on the dollar.” You agree to do this as a doctor because supposedly the insurance co. is supposed to send you patients who are on their plan. Yea right, does that happen? Doctors and Hospitals have to keep charging higher prices to make up for this “discount.” and thus the cycle for expensive healthcare is born. I mean why do you pay 40$ for a pair of socks in a hospital that costs 5$ at Wal-Mart? The real answer to the healthcare problem may be to go by a “cash only” system. At least all parties involved would then appreciate the REAL COST of healthcare. It works for many plastic surgeons, dentists, and chiropractors who who are not accepted on plans. But Trey is certainly correct that healthcare is not a “right” even though it seems like a moral obligation.
@ John
You are partly right about “Cash Only”…i would just fear a society where only the rich could afford Healthcare.
Most of the increase in the cost of Healthcare….can be laid at the feet of the private insurers…..because of their payment practices
My wife and I have been shopping regularly at Whole Foods in Las Vegas for over 10 years. We sincerely thank the business CEO for providing his view of the health care issues facing the US. Since Mr. Mackey’s views appear to be a direct contradiction to the healthy living ideals that we have until now believed that their stores promote, my wife and I will be taking our business to another store.
We do not intend to continue to support a hypocritical business that believes more in lining their own pockets and shortchanging their employees health plans than in promoting the health and welfare of their customers and employees.
redrockraven,
With all due respect — and I mean with all due respect — you’re a goddamn moron.
I know pasty, fey, beta males like you get pissy at the slightest dissent, and I’m sure that it was difficult for you to type all that while holding your wife’s purse while she shops for strap-ons, but try for one minute to use your atrophied critical thinking skills.
You wrote:
We do not intend to continue to support a hypocritical business that believes more in lining their own pockets and shortchanging their employees health plans than in promoting the health and welfare of their customers and employees.
Again, with all due respect, you’re a fucking idiot.
As my friend and fellow liberty lover, Radley Balko, points out on his blog:
See, redrockraven — so brave to boycott, too scared to use your name — this is why you’re an effete little tool.
Not that a blouse-wearing poodle walker like yourself will have any effect — liberals are as lousy at follow through as they are at everything else — but who do you think a successful boycott would punish?
That’s right, Star Child. The workers.
redrockraven, I’m not given to insulting commenters, but nothing makes me angrier than the smell of an anonymous, cowardly little beta male like you whose next original thought will be his first.
Stop wasting time yapping on my blog and go do your housework, you smarmy little cuckold. You’re worthless and weak.
In short, die in a fire.
We all know the “death panels” are a figment of a right wing imagination.
This would just never happen. We all know what this hatred is based in.
The right knows it. The left knows it.
The sad part is that we all. at some point must care for our elderly parents, why do we want to scare them, confuse them and worry them needlessly?
I am really surprised Trey has taken a stand with the birthers and deathers. I am also shocked he would result to calling someone a goddammed moron for not agreeing with him.
Don’t worry…be happy.
The government is not going to kill youir Grandma, your sick child, nor are they going to take your guns, bows and arrows, or kitchen knives. Nor are your neighbors going to turn you in for suggesting such thoughts.
We love you. We love Woodstock. We love the elderly.
We love the sinner. We hate the sin.
Who knew Trey was so macho? I can smell the testosterone from here!
Macho? Nah
Now everyone knows that you don’t want to make the BITCH mad
Must be that time of the month
I can only assume that redrockraven will not be a major contributer to the
Trey Garrison Fan Club.
If this is an example of the winning ways of Libertarians, I can see why they are stuck with Bob Barr and Ross Perot.
I am laughing at the Lou Dobbishness of it all.
Rumor has it that Ron Paul dumped the libertarians because of Trey’s potty mouth.
Naw,
Ron Paul dumped the libertarians because they are nothing but a bunch of losers suffering from antisocial personality disorder.
And Trey is their poster boy…
Wait, so you’re saying if I wear a blouse and walk a poodle, I’m somehow less manly? Would I be more manly if I walked a poodle in a blouse with a.38 in my waistband or if I wore a manly shirt (not to mention manly footwear, still in style in Muskogee, thanks) and walked a Rottweiller, but was egregiously, beta-maleishly unarmed?
What if I was fey but sported a .44 pistol on my belt? Hard look to pull off, sure, but what if? I didn’t say strap-on, I said pistol; totally different.