Video: The YouTube fisking of socialized medicine strawman arguments

posted at 4:53 pm on August 31, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

If you think you’ve seen the dumbest strawman arguments in favor of socialized medicine and haven’t seen this video from How The World Works, then partake of a truly educational experience — as HTWW presents a YouTube fisking of “Engio.” It’s an intellectual drubbing, mainly because “Engio” hasn’t got an economic clue, or for that matter, a political clue, either. He starts out by equating local police and fire departments with nationalized health care, and ends up arguing from complete ignorance about fire insurance. It’s a tour de force of stupidity, which HTWW skewers with glee:

Like Barack Obama, “Engio” likes the Post Office as an analogy for government control — blithely missing the point that it’s running $7 billion in the red this year alone, thanks to government inefficiency. “Engio” must have missed the reports that have the USPS closing a number of its facilities and pushing to reduce delivery services. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to ask whether a Post Office-like national health-care system would do the same when faced with red ink. The Medicare experience should provide the answer, but “Engio” likes Medicare, too.

As for the fire-insurance analogy, HTWW dismantles it effectively, but let me add another point. Fire insurance already exists, and it doesn’t get provided by the government. Homeowner’s and renter’s insurance (which have the fire component for residential customers) doesn’t cover painting the house, mowing the lawn, trimming the trees, or hauling the garbage as part of the services provided. It covers loss after the policy has been bought.

The Coast Guard reference made me laugh out loud. Why does “Engio” suppose the federal government runs the Coast Guard? It has a constitutional duty to protect the borders of the nation, including the shores, which requires the use of force that only has legitimacy from the government. Furthermore, the only reason we put up with the inefficiency of a government-run military (and anyone who’s been in military procurement knows that first hand) is precisely because we want to limit the authority to use international force to the legitimate government in Washington, as opposed to individuals or states. It’s an absurd argument for socialized health care.

It’s lengthy, but well worth the time. (via Iain Murray at The Corner)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Watched this earlier today. Well worth the 8 minutes.

BadgerHawk on August 31, 2009 at 4:56 PM

It has a constitutional duty to protect the borders of the nation, including the shores,

Could someone please tell Congress that.

rbj on August 31, 2009 at 4:57 PM

It’s almost not fair, beating up on a helpless argument like that.

Tonus on August 31, 2009 at 4:59 PM

This is great! Bryan Preston posted it a little while ago on Facebook, and I re-posted it – just to piss off my liberal high school classmates before they go to the 40th reunion in just over a week. I’ve already sent one nearly into orbit with the videos of Cheney on Fox yesterday AM.

sondiehl on August 31, 2009 at 5:00 PM

Great video and the comment on the border needs to be repeated.

fourdeucer on August 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Is the original a real video that someone made with a straight face?

lorien1973 on August 31, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Worth every minute.

Torch on August 31, 2009 at 5:08 PM

sondiehl on August 31, 2009 at 5:00 PM

Yup, I saw Bryan’s post there, too. I need to go back & repost it like you did.

jgapinoy on August 31, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Fisking?

Don’t you mean “fisting?”

Ouch.

Ryan Gandy on August 31, 2009 at 5:10 PM

“Engio” must have missed the reports that have the USPS closing a number of its facilities and pushing to reduce delivery services.

So our postal services will now be…rationed? You don’t say!

Kid from Brooklyn on August 31, 2009 at 5:11 PM

You know “Engio” is Kenyan for Barry right?

portlandon on August 31, 2009 at 5:14 PM

Well done…..

…. now maybe they can make a video explaining the global warming/climate change hoax, or why spending trillions of dollars when you don’t have any money isn’t such a good idea.

Seven Percent Solution on August 31, 2009 at 5:18 PM

It’s not even how insurance companies operate. Your money isn’t really thrown into a pool for everyone to use. He really needs to learn how it works before spouting off on it. The guy who fisked it really doesn’t understand it, either, apparently.

lorien1973 on August 31, 2009 at 5:20 PM

*shoots fish in a barrel*

Huh. More fun than it sounds! =)

Orange Doorhinge on August 31, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Simply brilliant.

Red Cloud on August 31, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Sell your house to pay medical bills…….

Try not paying your taxes. Then the benevolent government swoops in, takes it from you and auctions it for the past due taxes….

SouthernRoots on August 31, 2009 at 5:30 PM

I love the way this tool doesn’t even know the difference between Local and Federal government. Excellent dismantling of this moronic video.

Rollie on August 31, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Well done.

I would have added to the ellipsis regarding the current health insurance system. Not all costs are paid by the health insurance companies. Apprx 40% of all health care costs are already paid by the government. If the current system is ‘broke’ what makes anyone think that having the government pay 100% will make it a better system?

Furthermore those agencies that pay this 40% are not in good health themselves. From fraud to mismanagement to outright incompetence, government regulated health care has only distinguished itself from private care by its inferiority.

If the initial author holds profit to be a bad motivation, I wonder what he would think about government corruption? It is axiomatic that the more of our economy the government controls the more corruption there will be. This is indisputable.

Lastly, this idea that insurance companies cut care to make money. This point ignores that if an insurance company becomes known for cutting care, in a freer marketplace, a customer could opt for the competitor that doesn’t cut care. This choice isn’t allowed currently because of government interference. The government in collusion with the States prevents insurance companies from selling insurance interstate and thereby providing coverage for who again? Yep, a bigger pool of customers! This hero government of ours that is supposed to create a miraculous health care system is the one currently preventing people from getting better coverage.

This proposed system is not about the general welfare of citizens; it’s about power.

chimney sweep on August 31, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Furthermore, the only reason we put up with the inefficiency of a government-run military

You’re entitled to your own opinion, but I for one believe our military has worked pretty well for us so far.

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:35 PM

I love it! One of my Facebook friends posted the original,, I’m really looking forward to sending him this rebuttal.

RedRedRice on August 31, 2009 at 5:37 PM

“Take profits off the top.”

Classic.

It doesn’t get much better than that.

John the Libertarian on August 31, 2009 at 5:39 PM

OW.

It seems that someone just poured 5 gallons of “Spanking-in-a Drum” all over Engio.

OW.

How about a warning next time, so I can at least move a couple of feet back from my monitir?

OW. OW.

Arbalest on August 31, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Also, since you guys are allowed to use individual examples of government inefficiency (The post office is in debt!) to invalidate any government-led attempts to solve serious social problems, are we allowed to do the same with private businesses? Welcome to the Manichean worldview of conservatives, where private business are always run perfectly efficiently and government-run ventures inevitably fail because well…some have before. Sort of.

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Dang, those arguments were horrible.

aikidoka on August 31, 2009 at 5:45 PM

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:35 PM

He said it was inefficient not ineffective

brtex on August 31, 2009 at 5:48 PM

This proposed system is not about the general welfare of citizens; it’s about power.

Exactly… and that’s why I no longer talk about the Health Care debate, but rather the Health Control issue. Because it has nothing to do with “care.”

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:43 PM

I think the guy in the vid may have new competition for “Worst Strawman Argument EVER.”

hindmost on August 31, 2009 at 5:48 PM

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Reduced to strawmen, I see.

lorien1973 on August 31, 2009 at 5:49 PM

He said it was inefficient not ineffective

brtex on August 31, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Why do you think our military is inefficient?

This is an interesting new talking point from you guys. Seems like a real winner.

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Hey guys, did you hear that Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy last year? I guess private businesses are hopelessly inefficient and we should never use them to solve problems.

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Why do you think our military is inefficient?

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Too many civilians involved in the operation.

thomasaur on August 31, 2009 at 5:54 PM

LOL

Theworldisnotenough on August 31, 2009 at 5:56 PM

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Lehman Brothers never collected taxes from me.

What large scale government run or backed company runs under budget and provides service comparable to that of the private sector?

Theworldisnotenough on August 31, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Yeah, some businesses are run poorly and go belly up. It happens everyday. Fortunately, other businesses are able to step in and meet consumer demands. You can’t do that with an NHS-like system.

RedRedRice on August 31, 2009 at 6:03 PM

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:52 PM

The sad sad strawman :(

Improved analogy:

Lehman brothers went bankrupt, so you shouldn’t do dumping more money into them. Wait…government did.

And then. Government can’t run SS, Medicare, etc without having them turn into huge inefficient debt holes, so it makes no sense to give them more responsibility.

Other than that, you make a point.

lorien1973 on August 31, 2009 at 6:04 PM

Excellent rebuttal although he missed a good opportunity to explain the essential qualitative difference between health care and government run services like the coastguard, the military and the fire department.

Liberals on forums and blogs have been circulating the argument that critics of socialized health care are hypocrites because “the military and the fire service are socialized and yet nobody’s complaining about that.” It’s as if they’re too stupid to understand the difference.

That is: health care, like it or not, is a market. That market consists of hundreds of millions of individuals – all of whom have different bodies and health requirements and all of whom have their own priorities, aspirations and therefore the inalienable right to decide what kind of health care they do need, don’t need or might need. There are millions of different treatments and drugs, millions of consumer choices to be made each with their own pros and cons, all of which have to be evaluated by the individual with a view to making a private decision based on hundreds of factors. The amount of information involved is staggering and compounded by the fact that it is never stable but changes over time as people’s circumstances change and innovation brings new treatments to the marketplace.

Because of this, health care is wholly unsuited to central planning, that’s if you want it to be exceptional health care of course. This is why socialism is a failure in general. Supply and demand is the result of trillions of pieces of information interacting dynamically with each other. The only way to handle such information is to allow each individual – each trader – to manage his or her own little part of it.

Services like the military, in contrast, do not have a market dynamic. They’re simply a matter of logistics and brute force. We all have the same national defense requirement – to be protected from outside threats. Likewise, there is no need for a fire service to respond and react to the combined sum of hundreds of millions of different tastes, choices, opinions and priorities. Their task is linear in nature: to put out fires when and where they happen.

When I hear liberals compare health care to the military and the fire service I’m reminded of spectacularly incapable they are at making the most basic of judgments.

Sharke on August 31, 2009 at 6:05 PM

HTWW misses the most obvious distinction between fire services/police/military and healthcare. The former are public goods: citizens cannot be excluded from their consumption and one person’s “use” of the good does not limit others’ “use” of the good. In contrast, healthcare is a scare commodity that must be allocated between competing interests. Regardless of its “local” or “constitutional” status, governments are terrible at performing this allocative role.

Ponz on August 31, 2009 at 6:06 PM

What large scale government run or backed company runs under budget and provides service comparable to that of the private sector?

Theworldisnotenough on August 31, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Government “backed” is a pretty vague term, and could actually apply to just about any company. But to be more specific, there are many state universities that are provide a better education at a cheaper price than their private counterparts.

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Obviously produced by two guys in their twenties who think they will never get sick. We do need some type of program for people who develop, through no fault of their own, conditions which make them ineligible to buy coverage should they lose theirs. Unless we develop arguments for things that the country does want and stop just saying ‘no” we are going to lose. I have an eye disease and require shots costing $2200 every six weeks. In England, they recently decided to only treat one eye for people like me, requirng the patient to go blind in the other eye. How many companies are going to want to cover me? No one should go bankrupt because they get sick IF they are willing to buy coverage.

flyoverland on August 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM

Under universal government health care, we in Oklahoma get to pay for Hollywood gerbil accidents.

gooddad on August 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM

Olympia snowe
this is off topic but it has to be posted here. She is going to cave and side with the libs on healthcare. Burn her phones at her offices. Pick a zip code or a town in Maine, call her office saying you represent a group of seniors and let her know she’s out if she votes with the libs. Better yet, take a page out of alinskys rules for radicals and say your moderate democrats against the bill. Stop her now before she caves! Call now!!

texaninfidel on August 31, 2009 at 6:09 PM

Also, since you guys are allowed to use individual examples of government inefficiency (The post office is in debt!) to invalidate any government-led attempts to solve serious social problems, are we allowed to do the same with private businesses? Welcome to the Manichean worldview of conservatives, where private business are always run perfectly efficiently and government-run ventures inevitably fail because well…some have before. Sort of.

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Hey dipshite–most of us are getting REALLY tired of your “logic” from the dead half of your brain. One important little detail that your tiny little mind missed–WHEN A PRIVATE BUSINESS FAILS–IT DOESN’T TAKE MY MONEY WITH IT!
“…since you guys are allowed to use individual examples of government inefficiency “–
Fanny Mae and Freddy Mack
US Post Office
Medicare
Social Security
VA hospitals
–just to name a few…we should have allowed the car companies to fail–there’s your example of private companies. Now they are using public monies and they will still FAIL. How is Ford working out–without federal money? The Obama administration isn’t even capable of estimating the deficit that it is creating–and THIS is why you think the Government is capable of runing a healthcare system?
Where is your proof that a government-run business has suceeded, and made a profit, using public money, instead of LOSING public money?

lovingmyUSA on August 31, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Hey guys, did you hear that Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy last year? I guess private businesses are hopelessly inefficient and we should never use them to solve problems.

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:52 PM

The recent economic crash, and the state’s massive part in it (Fanny/Freddie/Federal Reserve etc) served as another reminder of why the government should keep its big clumsy, oafish paws out of private business. Of course liberals are too stupid to understand this lesson and are prone to the belief that government screw ups require more government intervention to put it right. Subsequent “corrective” intervention just makes the problem worse and one-trick liberals think the answer is even more government intervention – and so on.

Did you ever hear the phrase “haven’t you done enough?

Sharke on August 31, 2009 at 6:11 PM

HTWW misses the most obvious distinction between fire services/police/military and healthcare. The former are public goods: citizens cannot be excluded from their consumption and one person’s “use” of the good does not limit others’ “use” of the good. In contrast, healthcare is a scare commodity that must be allocated between competing interests. Regardless of its “local” or “constitutional” status, governments are terrible at performing this allocative role.

Ponz on August 31, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Damn, I could have said it in four sentences instead of writing a mini novel. Oh well.

Sharke on August 31, 2009 at 6:12 PM

Government “backed” is a pretty vague term, and could actually apply to just about any company. But to be more specific, there are many state universities that are provide a better education at a cheaper price than their private counterparts.

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Given that you’re a liberal I take it that by “better education” you mean “more thorough left wing indoctrination.”

Sharke on August 31, 2009 at 6:14 PM

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:43 PM

When private sector businesses are run poorly, absent government intervention, they fail.

When government sector businesses are run poorly, the government will continue to pour good money after bad because it’s very rare that politicians will risk reelection in order to get rid of an inefficient department or program.

Conservatives do not hold that the free market can do no wrong. What we believe is that the free market is the best system available for finding the companies that are running things correctly and rewarding them with success.

Consider this, before they started allowing private insurance, if the NHS in Britain was not giving you what you felt was good service, what were your options? Other than planning an expensive medical holiday to a place that will allow you to spend money on medical care (assuming you were wealthy enough to be able to afford this) you didn’t have many options. Lobby your local government to improve care and hope that it changes quickly enough to help….Even now that they offer private insurance, you still have to pay full price for the program you think is not working (NHS) then add your private insurance costs on top of that.

If Blue Cross does not offer me the medical care that I want at a price I think is reasonable, what are my options? Farmer’s Insurance, Aetna, State Farm, paying cash for the procedure, etc. Get rid of the type of government mandates that require insurance to cover mental health and substance abuse and people like me that don’t have any history of mental illness and have never so much as puffed on a cigarette will have even more options.

JadeNYU on August 31, 2009 at 6:15 PM

government-run ventures inevitably fail

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:43 PM

That’s the whole point. Poorly run government ventures don’t “fail” in the way that badly run private enterprises do. They simply gobble up more and more of our tax dollars while delivering progessively less in return.

Ponz on August 31, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Government “backed” is a pretty vague term, and could actually apply to just about any company. But to be more specific, there are many state universities that are provide a better education at a cheaper price than their private counterparts.

At a cheaper tuition rate to the individual student, not at a cheaper price. The state gov’t subsidizes these universities, usually costing more than private institutions per student.

I love how liberals think that things that gov’t does is “free”.

Ohh – gov’t does military, therefore we should socialize medicine. Is that really your argument?

The point is that everything the gov’t does is less efficient than the private sector. there are some things that are properly the province of the gov’t however, such as military and police, and we accept the inefficiencies b/c it is better than having a bunch of private armies or police forces running around.

However, that does not translate to things that are not the proper province of gov’t, such as health care.

the best care for the greatest number of people is about where we are now. there are some things that could be done to allow the private sector to be more efficient and insure the less than 1% of people that are not currently insured.

However, none of those things are currently being proposed by the dems. And, the things they are proposing would give everyone insurance, but at a much lower standard of care.

Monkeytoe on August 31, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Damn, I could have said it in four sentences instead of writing a mini novel. Oh well.

Sharke on August 31, 2009 at 6:12 PM

I liked your thorough explanation better. ;)

Ponz on August 31, 2009 at 6:19 PM

WHEN A PRIVATE BUSINESS FAILS–IT DOESN’T TAKE MY MONEY WITH IT!

lovingmyUSA on August 31, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Ummm…Enron??? Maybe not yours..but more to the point, when a private sector business fails (unless it’s infested with a serious case of UAW), it FAILS…iaw YER DOING IT WRONG!!!

And in most cases, clearing the way for those that are DOING IT RIGHT to sally forth.

BigWyo on August 31, 2009 at 6:31 PM

BigWyo on August 31, 2009 at 6:31 PM

It’s true that the failure of a private business will take the money of the investors (and, often, remaining customers) with it. People are then left to get what they can in bankruptcy court.

Still, I’d rather have the freedom to choose where to spend my money, at the risk of making a bad choice, than have someone force me to spend my money in certain ways on certain things whether I want to or not. I’m addicted to a little drug called freedom.

And, of course, as you pointed out in your post, the more important thing is that those that are doing things wrong fail (when not deemed ‘too big to fail’) which both serves as an object lesson to other businesses as well as clearing the way for more efficient businesses to take a greater market share.

JadeNYU on August 31, 2009 at 6:43 PM

I lova lova lova HTWW!! I’ve been watching him for some time… And I gotta tell you Ed, he makes a compelling case for the death penalty! Just sayin’… :)

Califemme on August 31, 2009 at 6:46 PM

As each day passes I am increasingly embarrassed that I used to be a Liberal.

visions on August 31, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Still, I’d rather have the freedom to choose where to spend my money, at the risk of making a bad choice, than have someone force me to spend my money in certain ways on certain things whether I want to or not. I’m addicted to a little drug called freedom.
JadeNYU on August 31, 2009 at 6:43 PM

Hey, I’m totally behind that. My Enron example was just an obvious come back to ‘when a private company fails, it doesn’t take my money with it’…of course you had to choose to put your money into it in the first place.

Competition is absolutely necessary for business. No government enterprise has to worry about doing things right.

Take the DMV..always a good example. You go there, you wait in line, the employees are pricks, etc…What are you going to do?? Go across the street to the DMV Plan B?? Nope, yer gonna sit there and suck on it.

That’s why the USPS is sucking ass…UPS/FedEx kick their asses on everything the government hasn’t mandated as strictly for the USPS.

BigWyo on August 31, 2009 at 8:14 PM

That fire insurance bit is hysterical.

I bet the guy doesn’t even realize that he’s probably paying for some “fire insurance” under his homeowners policy (assuming he’s a responsible home owner). You know, it’s that money you get when your BBQ burns the house down so you don’t have to mortgage the pile of ashes to try to buy a new house.

Scrappy on August 31, 2009 at 8:16 PM

Under universal government health care, we in Oklahoma get to pay for Hollywood gerbil accidents.

gooddad on August 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM

Those were guinea pigs, a mole, and a fly.

PrettyD_Vicious on August 31, 2009 at 8:26 PM

Um, I’ve carried fire insurance as part of homeowners insurance on every house I’ve ever owned. I also carry a renter’s policy (including fire as well as theft, flood, etc) for the apartment I’m renting right now.

Obviously the first guy still lives in his mom’s basement.

YehuditTX on August 31, 2009 at 9:07 PM

There’s a nice touch at the 2:20 mark, where a stick figure with an amputated foot appears. Perhaps Obama personally requested that.

This is so stupid that it actually works best as an argument against what they are so desperately trying to sell. It should be called How the Liberal Brain Works.

PoodleSkirt on August 31, 2009 at 9:13 PM

Ohh – gov’t does military, therefore we should socialize medicine. Is that really your argument?

Monkeytoe on August 31, 2009 at 6:18 PM

He is a poor dumb troll.

As someone in the military I will vouch that it is inefficient. Many of the inefficientcies come from government regulations.

Example:

Back in the 1980′s the USAF had the oppotunity to replace all of the avionics in the KC-135 as well as upgrading the bathroom, gally and air conditioning on the ground, at the same time they were upgrading the engines to CFM-56s. This would have cost $1M per aircraft. Because of budgeting restrictions the AF could not afford this cost. (private coporation could have gotten a loan to gain the needed cash) Since then more than twice as much money has been spent, with more to come in the future, on a series of mashed-up contracts to due the same thing that Boeing would have done in the early 1980s. Don’t even get me started on the new tanker.

I love how the left has now latched onto the military as this super efficient budgetting machine now that they need examples that people can get behind. These are the same people that for years told the American people that it was OK to cut the military budget, because it was full of fraud and waste. The same people that talked about the $3000.00 toilet seat.

cobrakai99 on August 31, 2009 at 9:16 PM

As each day passes I am increasingly embarrassed that I used to be a Liberal.
visions on August 31, 2009 at 7:11 PM

This site/comment section is probably not the best place to alleviate that feeling. Just be glad that your brain is free and no longer being held prisoner.

PoodleSkirt on August 31, 2009 at 9:22 PM

Furthermore, the only reason we put up with the inefficiency of a government-run military
You’re entitled to your own opinion, but I for one believe our military has worked pretty well for us so far.

crr6 on August 31, 2009 at 5:35 PM

What? I say…Put the troops on a salary and commish structure comparable to the (trial) lawyers and as much of the world as we want would have baseball, hot dogs and apple pie.

Wanna see the opposite? Watch The One shrink, demoralize and reduce our military.

IlikedAUH2O on August 31, 2009 at 9:32 PM

BTW, I mentioned that it would be interesting to increase pay for risk and amply reward achievement in the services. I tossed out the idea of six figure pay for even medium Es with some time in grade for unit achievement and combat operations. The brass (in an admittedly informal venue) really did not like it. Oh, well.

IlikedAUH2O on August 31, 2009 at 9:40 PM

Using adverbs many, many, many times over makes my very, very, very strong argument really, really, really stronger!

ya2daup on September 1, 2009 at 1:03 AM

Brilliant

The Notorious G.O.P on September 1, 2009 at 3:17 AM

Lastly, this idea that insurance companies cut care to make money. This point ignores that if an insurance company becomes known for cutting care, in a freer marketplace, a customer could opt for the competitor that doesn’t cut care.

And that’s what’s so illogical about these attacks on the insurance companies. If health insurance companies were ripping people off left and right, never covering anything, and just treating their customers downright horribly like these clowns like to argue….they wouldn’t HAVE very many customers. You don’t get to be and remain a profitable company by screwing over your customers.

Now compare that to government. No matter how much it screws you over, you’re not getting out…not even after you’re dead. No matter how terrible the service, the government is getting their cut, whether you like it or not.

xblade on September 1, 2009 at 7:45 AM

Question: can you even BUY homeowner’s insurance that doesn’t include some sort of fire provision?

Techie on September 1, 2009 at 8:38 AM

*shoots fish in a barrel*

Huh. More fun than it sounds! =)

Orange Doorhinge on August 31, 2009 at 5:24 PM

This man shot fish in a barrel with a bazooka.

You should see this guy’s other vids. He’s Awesome with a capital A.

Chaz706 on September 1, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Just watched the rest of this guys videos… he’s good. Want to hear more from him.

Jewels on September 1, 2009 at 1:05 PM