Joy Behar: Obamacare Like Fire Engines, They Used To Cost Money But Now They're FREE

Police and fire protection is not free. Taxes pay for it. Neither is ObamaCare, and the taxes it will take to pay for it in addition to the massive bureaucracy makes unsustainable an understatement. But to liberals like Behar, using other people's money makes it free:

Want to see where ObamaCare will take this country? Across the pond, they already installed it years ago, with predictable results: Cataracts, hips, knees and tonsils: NHS begins rationing operations

Hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsil removal are among operations now being rationed in a bid to save the NHS money.

Two-thirds of health trusts in England are rationing treatments for "non-urgent" conditions as part of the drive to reduce costs in the NHS by £20bn over the next four years. One in three primary-care trusts (PCTs) has expanded the list of procedures it will restrict funding to in the past 12 months.

Examples of the rationing now being used include:

* Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.

* Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work.

* Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering "chronic continuous pain", ulceration or bleeding.

* Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.

* Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in "exceptional circumstances" and after monitoring for six months.

Etc, etc. But no worries, old chap - IT'S FREE! HT: memeorandum. More from Maggie's Notebook, Betsy's Page and Power Line

Good grief: Soccer star David Beckham, wife Victoria, derided in British press for having 4 kids

Liberals are no longer just anti-capitalist. They are anti-human. What is it with these people and their war on population and particularly on children? Not a new phenomenon mind you. The logical question to the alarmists' claims of overpopulation is how to reduce it. Well, the moral busy bodies have a solution for that as well - abortion. How about these prior posts to boot:

• Irony: Father of 4 Al Gore wants to limit how many kids YOU have to fight non-existent global warming
• Mad Men: Eco-Extremist Actor Advocates No Cars, No Meat, No Kids to Stay Green
• Audio of Rosie O'Donnell: Bearing American Children Is Destroying The Planet
• Video: Bill Gates wants to kill 1 billion people by vaccination to save planet from non-existent global warming
• Eco-fascists: Believe in global warming or we'll hang your child from a noose
• Eco-fascists apologize for vile video ad showing children being murdered to save environment from... GLOBAL WARMING!
• Global warming crusade: one-child policy must be imposed on the entire planet!
• Moonbattery in the U.K: "The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children"
• UK "green" advisor: we must get rid of half the population!

And now soccer star David Beckham and wife Victory are being derided in the British press for having 4 kids. Tim Carney writes a pretty good rebuttal to the lunacy: The expected value of each human being is positive

You first!

Soccer player David Beckham and his wife Victoria (formerly a performer) are being derided in the British press as "bad role models." No, they're not publicly carrying on affairs, fighting in public, or abandoning their children. Their sin: having four children.

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby sees this latest finger-wagging -- including, ominously, scorn from a Member of Parliament -- as just the latest in a string of baseless warnings about overpopulation. Here's Jacoby's rebuttal:

Yes, more babies mean more mouths and therefore more consumption. But more babies also mean more minds and arms and spines - and therefore more new ideas, more effort, more creativity, more initiative, more enterprise. “Human beings do not just consume, they also produce,’’ writes George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan. “The world economy is not like a party where everyone splits a birthday cake; it is more like a potluck where everyone brings a dish.’’

The evidence is obvious. Are we better off today than we were 100 years ago, and 100 years before that? And than we were 2,000 years ago? Obviously.

The things is, the overpopulation 'problem' and its impact is pure mythos:

And fact is, our environment is cleaner today than it was in say the 1950s even though we have a much larger population and use a ton more energy. Why? Technology, baby. Technology.