Health-profiteers

If you missed the candidates for governor debating last night, you can get a pretty good read on the highlights from Laura Leslie. She has a way of cutting to the chase, which I find more and more appealing as the campaigns slog on. Health care was front and center in this UNC-TV debate.

Health care is one of Perdue's core issues and she did a good job on the details. Richard did as well. On the Republican side, the only person with a lick of sense is Bob Orr, who undoubtedly ran afoul of the Puppetmaster with his comments, summarized below by Radiogirl.

Orr: Won this round (among Republicans), in my opinion. He’s obviously put a great deal of thought into this issue, and the details took center-stage in his response to just about every question. Some of his positions were a long way from boilerplate conservatism, like his support for restoring the mental health trust fund, or his stand against rules saying school lunches should be a profit-making venture. Others were closer to home, like his advocacy for market solutions to the problem of the uninsured. Still, he went well past platitudes, and I’d bet he appealed strongly to voters who care about this topic.

I assume Bob Orr is against the destructive practice of "lunch-profiteering" because it leads to unacceptable outcomes, so why on earth would he tolerate "health-profiteering" in a market system that has proven again and again that those most in need of help are those who are most likely to suffer?

Mr. Orr, care to explain this apparent contradiction?

There is no end to the convolutions free-market extremists engage in to make a case that the invisible hand will do its magic. They continue to believe, in the face of no evidence, that everyone will eventually get a fair shake if we just let "the market" do its thing.

Eventually.