Another Great Moment In Republican Analogies – and it has Shatner, so it’s even more awesome:

SHATNER: Here’s my premise and you agree with it or not. If you have money, you are going to get health care. If you don’t have money, it’s more difficult.

LIMBAUGH: If you have money you’re gonna get a house on the beach. If you don’t have money you’re gonna live in a bungalow somewhere.

SHATNER: Right, but we’re talking about health care.

LIMBAUGH: What’s the difference?

SHATNER: The difference is we’re talking about health care, not a house or a bungalow.

LIMBAUGH: No! no! You’re assuming there’s some morally superior aspect to health care than there is for a house.

I can accept the real estate analogy up to a point – after all, both houses and health care provide some measure of protection from man-made and natural harm.  But beyond that, it’s of a piece with Dubya’s out-of-touch claim that the emergency room constitutes some kind of universal health care – a convenient conservative fantasy that everyone’s covered and there’s no crisis at all.

A bungalow?  Really?  What about the 45 million Americans who have the health care equivalent of a cardboard box on the sidewalk?  Maybe they can get some band-aid care in an emergency room, but if they have a condition needing more elaborate or ongoing care, they’re fucked.

Or what about the people who can’t buy a bungalow because some red flag in their history, no matter how trivial?  (This analogy only works after the housing bubble, of course.)

Or the ones who discover their cozy little bungalow is made of swiss cheese when the first storm hits?

The low end of the health care continuum is not “adequate” – the low end of the health care continuum is a wintry mix of “nonexistent,” “off-limits,” and “illusory.”

As for health care not having “some morally superior aspect,” perhaps Rush can explain that to the 45,000 people who suffer and die each year because they can’t get any, or to the people whose insurers yanked their coverage when they needed it most.