I didn’t quite believe this stupidity when you told me about it earlier. Even now my mind is still disconnecting and refusing to quite process it. And she still calls herself a feminist? FFS

(I can see the police cheifs argument for recovering costs from the rapist, but the victim? Ye gods)

No one ever argued that Palin was a feminist, indeed some of us were at pains to make it clear that while the debate arose from her claims we were completely unsure of her actual credentials in the area.

But yeah, quite right and a good find by the original author…I think this issue goes far beyond feminism and in to, as the feministing author says, purely obscene application of governance in the traditional sense of what it is there to provide.

No one ever argued that Palin was a feminist ~ Lee Griffin

Err, yes they have. Multiple GOPers have held her up as a feminist icon.

Indeed our own Jon Gaunt did exactly that ::

She’s a real gutsy, good-looking woman who is truly the epitome of the feminist dream.

More to follow…

Lee, what have I told you before about confusing what YOU did or didn’t do/see with what EVERYONE did or didn’t do/see?

Lee @ 2,

What a load of crap. Someone was wanking with their left hand and saluting the flag with their right. Hopefully, it wasn’t you?

I seem to remember lots of folk on here arguing that the blessed Palin was a feminist.

When she was clearly not.

Heh, Jon Gaunt is of course the paragon of feminism and equality.

Being gender-blind for a second allows us to see how this highlights her corporatist and conservative credentials by placing the needs of the state above the needs or abilities of individuals (whatever their gender, be it female, male, trans- or ambi-).

I think what we have done here is to explode the ideological myth surrounding feminism by dividing it into ‘good feminism’ and ‘bad feminism’ – which can only help us understand the political debate more fully.

I also think it is important that we don’t forget children and adolescents in this context, because the conservative mind obviously denies their existence as separate entities with separate legal rights by expecting their parents to pay such costs – which completely fails to account for circumstances surrounding a child abused by parents or the lack of responsible parental figures for children in care.

I mean, conservative ‘bad feminism’, as exemplified by Sarah Palin, is just plain wrong because it falls into incoherence when the full spectrum of reality is considered. It is not that it is just uncomfortable or impractical, it is not fully rational.

If anyone’s looking for the original link on this (it’s about three pages through), it’s here:
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt

Key section:
“While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.”

She was Wasilla Mayor between 1996 and 2002, and this report comes from 2000, so it looks credible to me.

Jennie,

Is this info out on any of the big blogs in the US? If not, I think they should be told. Daily Kos seems unaware of it, for instance. This is dynamite.

That is very poor. Of course, from the story, it is not clear to me she instituted the measure, but the fact she didn’t deal with it is quite damning.

Hang on, the original article doesn’t seem to say whether they charged victims if they were uninsured. If they waived it in those cases, that would mean the town had the same policy as Illinois. It doesn’t seem especially terrible to bill an insurance company… I think some bits of this story might need confirming.

I don’t think you need a qualification like “I know it happens to men” to justify rape being a feminist issue. Sex should never be used as a weapon, and sexual violence should never be glorified or blamed on the victim, no matter who it’s happening to.

Rape, whether men raping women, women raping men or other women, or even men raping men, is covered by my understanding of feminism, because the act of rape and the blaming of victims is so very integral to the patriarchal society and the power it tries to exert over individuals. The central tenant of feminism being autonomy over one’s own body, means that anything which implies someone else has a right to it is anti-feminist.

But then, I’m a filthy intersectionist.

“Whatever your definition of feminism, surely it can’t be argued that THIS fits it?”

Yeah agree Jennie.

Palin once again playing an anti-woman blinder with this latest attack on rape victims and gathering evidence. Again, Palin is nothing more than a defender of her own class interests and even if she wants people to believe she is a feminist it’s just one very very big cynical manoeuvre.

Nick – my understanding of insurance is that it’s there to cover things the policy holder would be expected to take responsibility for, if not expected to be able to afford. The principle as I understand it is ‘these things happen’ – usually accidents. Health insurance, for example, is an admission that sometimes bodies get sick. Motor insurance is an admission that you the policy holder might make a mistake and cause an accident – that’s why motor accidents involve assessment of fault, to protect the insurance of the person not at fault.

Having to take out rape insurance – or to have your insurance pay for your rape – is at best an admission that sometimes rape happens – an unacceptable position – and at worst an admission of blame for the crime – even more unacceptable.

I’ve never evcen heard of theft insurance having to pay the costs of criminal investigation. Does life insurance have to cover the costs of a murder investigation? This is a genuine question, because as it happens I have no idea.

This looks like an ugly story, but some details could do with a little clarification: did Pain institute this practice or inherit it, and did any women (as opposed to their insurance companies) ever get billed?

If it isn’t doing much on US blogs it may be that it would embarrass the Governor of Illionois to have this sort of thing bruited about too much.

You mean to say that it’s possible to get insurance against rape?!!

“Again, Palin is nothing more than a defender of her own class interests 2

Which are what?

“No one ever argued that Palin was a feminist”

I’m giggling so hard right now.

“I’ve never evcen heard of theft insurance having to pay the costs of criminal investigation. Does life insurance have to cover the costs of a murder investigation? This is a genuine question, because as it happens I have no idea.”

Well, as it happens, I think insurance companies might do well to contract for their own criminal investigations (after all, they do so to investigate suspected fraud, why not when someone else is responsible for a claim). They have a financial interest that the police do not: they might be able to recover assets, and every criminal behind bars lowers the likely crime rate, thus making it less likely that their customers will make a claim in the future. Right now, property crimes often go uninvestigated by the police because the comparative cost of investigation for them is higher than other sorts of crimes.

But, of course, this is not how it works at the moment and so there is no doubt an inconsistency in the way rape is dealt with. The question is, does that inconsistency ever fall on the victim or only ever the victim’s insurance company. If it is only the insurance company that gets billed (or has ever in these probably small number of cases) then that changes the issue from one of disgusting callousness, to a more economic question of how the costs of crime should be shared between agencies, and I am of the opinion that private agencies should bare the costs of crime when possible. After all, the point of markets in private agencies is that they bare risks in specific instances in return for the ability to make profits.

Sorry, let me rephrase as obviously people are unable to link the context…

“Loath as I am to bring up Sarah Palin’s feminist credentials again so soon after the last episode”

…with a statement of “no one” being those debating on this site.

I forgot people tend not to think in anything other than absolute terms on here.

Nick

I think that’s a difference in outlook, there. Because a person’s insurance basically belongs to them, then claiming from that policy is to me, essentially extracting from the person and their company, an admission that the person bears responsibility at best, blame at worst. It is, in fact, the principle of the thing. (And the no-claims bonus)

Even if you think private agencies should bear the costs of crime, the question becomes – which private agencies? If insurance companies are given the brunt of paying everytime their policy holders are raped, doesn’t that then have a roundabout effect on those policy holders, in terms of raised premiums. Insurance companies are profitable organisations, after all. If you make them pay for something, the money has to come from somewhere. The cost is covered by policy holders.

I’m all for some way of making criminals pay for the costs of criminal investigations – particularly of violent crimes. But whether you’re taking the money from the individual or their insurance, making the victim or anyone representing the victim pay up is still victim blaming.

I must apologise for having a very simplistic view of economics. Numbers instantly mean nothing to me when you stick a pound sign in front of them.

“I’m all for some way of making criminals pay for the costs of criminal investigations – particularly of violent crimes. But whether you’re taking the money from the individual or their insurance, making the victim or anyone representing the victim pay up is still victim blaming.”

Quite, the incentive is still with the police and the state to actually solve crimes if they are the ones that bare the cost of not solving it. Like you I am all for perpetrators of crime paying some of the cost, as long as that penalty doesn’t in turn solidify that person in to crime, and we have to really accept that while the state and police have to bare some of the cost (and therefore also the tax payer) it is in everyone’s interest to cut crime as it saves everyone money.

If you leave it purely to victims to pay out through insurance companies, and the issues all that brings with premiums as you say Debi, then the incentive is no longer with the state or the police to solve the crime other than from the point of view of making the statistics look better.

I know I’d rather have a police force that wanted to solve the crime AND were spurred to do so because it would mean a saving in their budget, than a police force that solely wanted to solve the crime. I’d love to believe the police force as a body is all about the altruistic sense of making countries safer, but unless we can rely on that 100% it’s best for everyone to also have that secondary objective in there.

Well, from my perspective, someone owning an insurance policy means that they have consensually passed on a liability to someone else (the insurance company). In other words, they have transferred responsibility and it is not theirs anymore to pay. In this particular case, it would appear that health insurance companies have voluntarily taken on this liability (presumably because it is a rare claim that isn’t even that expensive), so why not hold these private companies to it? It would strike me as quite strange for a police department NOT to outsource liabilities when they have been willingly taken on by a private agency.

I am not suggesting in the current context, that it would be in anyway fair for a state to assume the victim bears some responsibility for their investigation by default. I am just saying that if a company has already taken on the responsibility voluntarily, there is no reason not to charge them.

Would you have a problem with someone being injured in a mugging, or another type of assault, and claiming on their health insurance to be treated for that, rather than being reimbursed by the state? I am sure that is a common enough occurrence in the US (perhaps in the UK too), and I don’t think that implies some sort of responsibility or blame. This principle of “blame” you are suggesting in the case of rape doesn’t transfer to these other criminal cases. The only special case about this is the fact that the investigation (rather than just treatment) is also covered by health insurance (perhaps because it is a clinical test). So charging the insurance company in this case does not necessarily have that implication.

Lee – where exactly is the state’s incentive to solve crime efficiently at the moment? Insurance agencies would have obvious ones: it lowers their payout costs and solving individual crimes makes their customers more likely to stay with them. But you can’t opt out of paying taxes for the police force!

Well, from my perspective, someone owning an insurance policy means that they have consensually passed on a liability to someone else (the insurance company).

While I can see the perspective, I think it’s more a case of passing on the financial liability while retaining (and actually accepting) moral/personal liability. If you cause a car accident, your insurance might have to pay, but you still bear the points on your licence and any legal action would be against you, not your insurance company.

And either way, insurance companies take on liability that should fall on their policy holder, not outside agencies. Again, it’s the principle of the thing. Passing liability to the company implies that the victim has any liability to pass. Which we’re agreed she doesn’t.

Would you have a problem with someone being injured in a mugging, or another type of assault, and claiming on their health insurance to be treated for that, rather than being reimbursed by the state?

That’s a whole different kettle of fish, given that I’m also for a universal healthcare, so my automatic answer is ‘yes’ for completely different reasons >_>

But – treating for a personal injury is slightly different than paying someone to do their job. In a situation like in the US, where there is an expectation where healthcare is covered by the person/their insurance, then doctors and hospitals are private operatives funded by their patients – who are essentially customers. In that situation, I’d even expect a rape victim’s insurance to cover health related costs, from abortion services to psychological counseling (Wouldn’t like it, but I’d accept it).

However, the police aren’t a private agency hired by customers. They (*cough* ideally) answer not to victims but to the law and the creators of the law. And so the money to fund their actions should come not from the victim /an agency representing the victim, but from the Government that entrusts them to enforce the law the Government creates. I do not support the idea that mugging victims (or their insurance) should pay for the police investigation, any more than victims of sexual assault. Because then the police become privately funded and that leaves all sorts of nasty tastes in my mouth.

This principle of “blame” you are suggesting in the case of rape doesn’t transfer to these other criminal cases.

Because it doesn’t exist in most other cases – with the possible and much milder exception of theft, where something’s been left unlocked. You very rarely hear people mugging victims were asking for it because of how they were dressed. You never hear mugging victims being grilled on how generous they are with their money among their friends. It’s not common to see headlines such as “Drinking gets you mugged!” When victim-blaming does work its way into other crimes, it’s because there may be a sexual element to the crime, or because the victim is anything other than a straight cisman.

Having victims pay for investigation through their own insurance is a symptom of this wider culture, but it’s still problemmatic in its own right and not something I can support in any circumstances.

Nick: in the budgets. Less crime, and incidental recover of funds through things such as seized assets leads to more money to be spent on the act of policing. It also moves benefits to the rest of society if it leads to reduction in crime due to less money needing to be spent on incarceration in the long term which frees up more state money. Take this away, especially with insurance companies dealing with the costs, and all you’ve got is a police force acting supposedly as they should.

I guess it comes down to the argument of if you believe budget restrictions impede the police in doing their job and if you believe the police force is an altruistic body through and through.

That is not really an individual incentive though, Lee, increasing a police department’s budget. An incentive would have to correlate lower crime rates with higher police pay. But if you already have the money (from taxpayers), then the incentive would be to manufacture lower crime rates on paper and keep the money that you would have otherwise spent on investigations. The fundamental problem with the police as an investigatory agency is that it already has our money and we are their captive customers. The point of a private agency is that individuals can choose which one to use, and agencies have to compete on effectiveness. Now they would HAVE to actually solve some crime AND start recovering assets because otherwise they would be losing money and customers. Manufacturing such an incentive within the police just doesn’t seem possible. Without giving customers a right to exit, you are missing out a fundamental part of any incentive structure.

Just imagine, for example, that car owners had to buy car insurance and there was only one insurer by law that we could use? Do you imagine they would be any good?

“The fundamental problem with the police as an investigatory agency is that it already has our money and we are their captive customers.”

They do indeed, but they also have a finite amount of that money. If they aren’t solving the crimes, if they aren’t stemming the flow of money then they cannot operate efficiently. When that starts to happen then questions are asked and things have to change. Even if this ultimately means that more money is put in to the budget for them it is done with direction and concern for reducing this situation. They are accountable to us and they are also on a leash in that respect.

Insurance companies don’t operate on this same level, they for a start are a company not a service and will be looking to profit. They will ultimately remove the situation of the police being there for all, an equal service for all people and free at the point of delivery, and instead have this bizarre situation where the most likely to be victims of crime are paying the most for their own protection….and worse still would see incremental rises of that cost when they actually become a victim. Unless you’re proposing a completely back to front scheme of insurance practice to what operates now I am not sure how this could be any other way, nor could I see how that is fair or justified.

You could legislate, I guess, that everyone must be able to pay the same premium regardless of likelihood of being a victim, and that being a victim must not be allowed to increase individual premiums…but the two outcomes of this is either that a) all premiums go up and it essentially becomes a tax if you want policing through private companies, or b) insurance companies become less enthused to actually deal with crimes unless they can be solved, making hard to solve crimes the equivalent of trying to get cover for “acts of god” in the housing market.

Could the police service be improved? I’m not denying that it couldn’t, I just don’t feel that this insurance route you talk about would be the way to do it.

You have noted problems that are present in all insurance markets but I am not convinced they are insurmountable nor that some variation in such insurance costs are unjust. For example, do you think it is discriminatory to charge more for car insurance for a young man, than a young woman? It means that careful young drivers are disadvantaged but that is just one unfortunate consequence of the market, which overall serves us somewhat better than an entirely state-based system. In a crime insurance market, statistically young men would likely have a higher premium but I don’t regard this as an intrinsic problem.

If these variations in premiums were especially problematic (and they certainly would be at least to begin with), then you could introduce a system similar to the Dutch healthcare system, where insurance is compulsory (it replaces a tax), but people who are too poor to pay their premium or whose risk makes their premium too expensive, are subsidised by the state. A similar method could work in this case by giving everyone control over some of the funds currently invested on their behalf in their local police force. That way, people living in high crime areas could be given more public funds with which to insure themselves and their property. This would give the police force the opportunity to reform their “in-house” investigatory service, or face it being outsourced by the general public.

“Don’t be afraid of information,” Sarah Palin said. “Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching evolution side-by-side with the Babylonian account of creation, ‘Marduk Creates the World from the Spoils of Battle.’”

“It means that careful young drivers are disadvantaged but that is just one unfortunate consequence of the market, which overall serves us somewhat better than an entirely state-based system. In a crime insurance market, statistically young men would likely have a higher premium but I don’t regard this as an intrinsic problem.”

These are two diametrically opposite situations though, the first is adding a premium on people more likely to be involved in accidents…the likelihood of that surrounding their competency behind the wheel. But if you’re talking about crime then aside from a few instances, talking about gang culture in particular, you have no control over your involvement in it. Where you may have control, for instance in where you live, that is usually outside of your means to control. People don’t choose to live in shit areas, after all, unless they can’t afford to do otherwise.

I do see this as a problem as then we are saying that not only are you in a rut which means you can’t escape a higher likelihood of crime, but far from help you with that we’re also going to make you foot the bill of your mostly inescapable circumstances as well.

Let’s not forget, driving a car is a privilege and the responsibility is there to ensure that if you’re involved in an accident for which you’re the cause that you should pay for that. Crime is just one of those areas where I personally believe that it is justified for those that are fortunate enough to not feel the detriment of crime directly to subsidise those that do. To me this is the only way you can ensure that justice is paramount, something I can’t help but feel would be marginalised as it becomes less affordable or profitable to deal with crime in sections of society, either from the insurance companies refusing to insure or from people unable to pay.

“Don’t be afraid of information,” Sarah Palin said.

Ha! Then maybe she should appear on the “Sundays” and tell the electorate what she’s all about (BTW. appearing for a softball sofa session on Fox, isn’t really what I mean).

Debi asked about insurance:

Motor insurance is an admission that you the policy holder might make a mistake and cause an accident

Actually, I’ve always taken out 3rd party, fire and theft insurance, the cheapest sane option. If my car gets stolen, then the insurance company replaces it with a similar car to the value I insured it at—never had to use it but still good to have. Theoretically they can then try to reclaim the value from the theif if caught I believe, but I don’t think it happens often.

As it happens, there is an extreme libertarian position that believes all Govt functions should be subcontracted to private insurance style organisations, similar to the way health already is in the US. The police would become like the ambulance service, they help out those that have their insurance and those that don’t are left to their own devices.

It’s a popular theme within a lot of cyberpunk dystopias, for example, and is an extreme reading of Rand and Nozick. But most sane libertarians wouldn’t go that far, and to implement it in one specific type of crime and not all is simply wrong, that the Alaskan state legislature and governor saw fit to specifically pass a law stopping her and her police chief doing this shows how little was thought of her policy, even in Alaska.

Lee – I understand what you are saying, but there are mechanisms, both theoretical and tried and tested, that can be used to adjust for people’s different circumstances. Just because people might need financial assistance to gain access to some essential services is not a reason for those services to be publicly run, especially if you want more effective services. One way or another, the rich WILL (as with all other goods) have security. They will move to the right areas, and if the place they want to live in lacks enough protection, they will beef it up with private security guards and/or other countermeasures. All I am suggesting is introducing some of that choice to the less well off too by allowing competition for the funds that is already being spent on their behalf.

“As it happens, there is an extreme libertarian position that believes all Govt functions should be subcontracted to private insurance style organisations, similar to the way health already is in the US. The police would become like the ambulance service, they help out those that have their insurance and those that don’t are left to their own devices.”

Just a note that in the US, everyone is given instant access to emergency care regardless of circumstance. Afterwards, they will be presented with a large bill but ability to pay it is not taken into account by emergency services.

“One way or another, the rich WILL (as with all other goods) have security. They will move to the right areas, and if the place they want to live in lacks enough protection, they will beef it up with private security guards and/or other countermeasures. All I am suggesting is introducing some of that choice to the less well off too by allowing competition for the funds that is already being spent on their behalf.”

I too see what you’re saying, and I’m sure that ultimately we will just end up agreeing to disagree. I don’t see that “choice” is necessarily going to bring any benefits to the less well off. Certainly I don’t see how separate policing bodies operating in the same area can operate as efficiently as one funded force and would never be able to subscribe to the idea of choice on the level of “which police shall I choose” if that’s what you’re suggesting. what do you feel you mean by “choice” here? In provision of service or level of service?

I can’t ever envisage a situation where a poor person or likely victim will be able to go above basic security in the first place under any such “choice”, and when it then comes to them requiring insurance to even have an adequate level of justice served I still can’t see how that is anything other than counter-productive to the aims of fighting crime, especially when the most severe crime is likely to be the most costly to investigate.

My main argument for the police being public run is that they are, in theory, accountable through that process. You can say that competition provides a service level that alleviates accountability to some degree, I’m sure, but we already have real world examples in various sectors of where monopolies occur without anyone being able to do anything about it, and this combined with lack of accountability in a policing service is more than slightly worrying to my mind. After all, this isn’t like a normal market you could actually regulate, is it?

“After all, this isn’t like a normal market you could actually regulate, is it?”

I don’t see why not. Also remember these “costs” are not set in stone. Ideally, these costs are set by market prices but we have no way of measuring what the “market” price of a criminal investigation because there is no competition. We don’t know how much more effectively a private company might be able to serve ordinary people because we are not allowed to find out (their money is hoovered by the state monopoly). I understand that things like public order may constitute a local monopoly, but I don’t see why criminal investigations need be. You could easily have multiple investigatory agencies competing across London and other big cities. I imagine that with the same funding in the sector, private agencies would be able to launch more investigations, bring about more prosecutions and still make a profit. After all, I don’t know if you have seen how the police conduct an ordinary (but serious) criminal investigation these days but in my own experience it is very well-meaning but of a practically geological pace. They really are very inefficient!

It is my opinion that it is generally impossible for someone to end up worse off simply by being offered more choice. If I am wrong, I think the very basis of liberalism itself is likely to be wrong.

I’d be interested to know how the structure of private security markets enables effective competition which raises service standards.

Whenever I’ve seen some officious thug patrolling their patch in private colours I’ve only ever got the impression that their business model was to provide a contractually-obliged basic service protecting property for the lowest price and sod any other considerations. Private security operates a micro-monopoly of enforcement and avoids combination with such methods as intelligence or collation of statistics to aid prevention and detection.

If the private sphere can be assumed to be more efficient then it is alos glaringly obvious that it is less effective due to its fragmentation.

My feeling is that the private and public provide a natural complement to each other which isn’t worth fighting over. Rather I’d suggest we ask what additional structural forms would provide benefits to society (such as voluntary neighbourhood watches) and how they would be structured.

there’s a difference between a victim of a crime and someone alleging they are a victim.

“You could easily have multiple investigatory agencies competing across London and other big cities.”

But as I said, and as Thomas just has, the beauty of one force is the ability to collate intelligence and to not be bogged down by the processes of interacting with other agencies in the most fundamental areas of crime solving.

As for regulation, my worries come from the idea that in the UK regulation is a slow process and barely even reactive. That’s not the sort of situation compatible with keeping corruption and bad practice out of the security services.

“It is my opinion that it is generally impossible for someone to end up worse off simply by being offered more choice. If I am wrong, I think the very basis of liberalism itself is likely to be wrong.”

I think my real issue with the argument you’re putting forward is that I don’t see where choice comes in to it for the poor. The rich will indeed have choice as multiple services look to earn a fat paycheck for doing no work, the poor will get what they’re given and the standard is not guaranteed to be any better, indeed as with any private business situation the poor could argue they’d be worse off as business tends to look after the best sources of their income at the detriment of the rest.

I’ve got not problem with additional security services being used, where people wish to hire them, but if there are issues with how the police run then let’s first take a stab at reforming how that’s done. If any part can be outsourced to the private sector, using your choice argument, to generate a better and better value service for the taxpayer then great.

I’m sure that ultimately we will just end up agreeing to disagree.

You’re sure of that after only 36 comments, Lee? Bloody hell!

“But as I said, and as Thomas just has, the beauty of one force is the ability to collate intelligence and to not be bogged down by the processes of interacting with other agencies in the most fundamental areas of crime solving.”

As I have said, the situation you are describing pertains now more than ever (even in an allegedly unitary force) and doesn’t necessarily have to between private agencies (they are more efficient at co-operating as they are with everything else). The poor could gain access to these agencies by being given control over the large funds that are already being spent on their behalf (in other words, they choose, the state pays). They could even decide to invest their money in local non-profit agencies if they turned out to be more efficient.

But, yes, for now we will just disagree on this point.

I don’t think that there is actually all that much difference between what Nick and Lee are saying.

I also don’t think that it is fair to say that private agency is necessarily more efficient, just as I don’t think it is fair to say public agency is necessarily more effective. Really it depends on how their services are structured and instituted in practise.

Voluntary/non-profit agency is the means by which the two sides are glued together as both sides depend on widespread public interaction as it is.

I believe the person originally stating that Palin was a feminist was the moose-murdering barracuda herself, in joining Feminists For Life. Doubly ironic since she supports the death penalty, but hey ho, war is peace and all that.

As for this latest revelation, it would be nice to be proved right about the scary misogynist freak if the news itself weren’t so vile. I haven’t been able to find much information about whether she introduced or inherited the policy, but can anyone confirm whether – as I read on one of the links Jennie posted – it was Joe Biden that introduced a law banning the practice of charging for these kits?

“You’re sure of that after only 36 comments, Lee? Bloody hell!”

Nick has this ability to actually discuss his point without needing to resort to hypocritical insults, so it all works itself out a lot quicker in that environment.

“The poor could gain access to these agencies by being given control over the large funds that are already being spent on their behalf (in other words, they choose, the state pays). They could even decide to invest their money in local non-profit agencies”

Cheers for the clarification, yes, I definitely don’t disagree with this, I just find it hard to stomach the idea of that money on their behalf being removed in favour of insurance, if that’s what was ever being suggested (which maybe it wasn’t).

Great post Jennie!

I read that Harriet Harman had said she admired Palin in an interview the other day. Are we now supposed to admire politicians just because they are women, whatever they believe / say / do?

Personally, I cannot bring myself to admire a reactionary, ignorant creationist whether they are a woman, a man or an alien