A Paul Mulshine Mess

Paul Mulshine takes me to task for a typo, and in the process creates and even dumber typo, only to be superseded by an error of fact, and a very grammatical tortured sentence . He writes (My bold):

I found this video posted on one of those "conservative" websites where they poth misspelled the city where the University of California's main campus is located and also offered a rather dubious analysis of the statements made therein.

First, this is the first sentence of the first paragraph, so it is unclear how he jumps from something he found on "one" web site to the plural "they", unless he is considering a video a person (as in, the video misspelled the city).  It makes no sense. Then, he misspells the word "both". He then identifies EPJ (You'll see in a minute why we know it is EPJ he is referring to) as "conservative", EPJ is many things, but it is not conservative in any shape or form.


And as far as what was written at EPJ, his rebuttal is that it was "dubious". And attacks my reasoning this way (and this is where he links to EPJ):

I agree wholeheartedly with the commenters on the site and on the accompanying YouTube link who oppose [the young paying insurance for the old].

But if you don't think young people should pay to support the old, then how can you take umbrage when Reich says the government can't afford to employ endless expensive technology on end-of-life care? 

Where's the money going to come from? Certainly not from those oldsters themselves. If they could afford their own care, this wouldn't be an issue. 

Yet note how the commenters assume the government should pick up what could be an almost infinite bill for keeping the elderly alive. Meanwhile here's an  article from the same site on how the young are being screwed by being forced to pay more for health insurance. 

These people are confused. They think they support a free-market system. But in a free-market system there would be no government subsidy whatsoever for end-of-life care.

What the hell is Mulshine talking about? It is totally incoherent. He is arguing with some passerby commenters at EPJ and mixing it with my post as if the two have the same point of  view. Nowhere will Mulshine find my ever writing that the government should ever subsidize healthcare for anybody. And the problem with government central planning of healthcare is that it will ultimately become a situation with government rationing healthcare for everyone, which means " when Reich says the government can't afford to employ endless expensive technology on end-of-life care," it is going to be a problem for anyone who is willing to pay for expensive medical care out of his/her own pocket. That's why it's a BIG problem, not because of whatever confused and naked strawman view that Mulshine has built.

Bottom Line, Mulshine's post is such a mess, I think the only thing that can be done with it is to pass emergency care treatment for it and pull the plug. I'll pick up the tab.