Liberal Lies About National Health Care: First in a Series

by ANN COULTER


(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.

As Adam Smith observed, whenever two businessmen meet, "the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That's why we need a third, fourth and 45th competing insurance company that will undercut them by offering better service at a lower price.

Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do, and you can buy health insurance across regional lines -- unlike in the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they're a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That's what single-payer health care is: "Single payer" means "single provider."

It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of "reform."

You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden -- another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly "conservative" Democrats.

(2) National health care will "increase competition and keep insurance companies honest" -- as President Barack Obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn't a competitor; it's a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to "choose" whether they take the service -- at least at first -- but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It's like a new cable plan with a "yes" box, but no "no" box.

Obama himself compared national health care to the post office -- immediately conjuring images of a highly efficient and consumer-friendly work force -- which, like so many consumer-friendly shops, is closed by 2 p.m. on Saturdays, all Sundays and every conceivable holiday.

But what most people don't know -- including the president, apparently -- with certain narrow exceptions, competing with the post office is prohibited by law.

Expect the same with national health care. Liberals won't stop until they have total control. How else will they get you to pay for their sex-change operations?

(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are "villains."

Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday's New York Times, saying: "A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn't known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died."

Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

Assuming this is true -- which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care -- in a free market, such an insurance company couldn't stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor's shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

If only customers had a choice! But we don't because of government regulation of health insurance.

Speaking of which, maybe if Mr. Gallstone's insurance company weren't required by law to cover early childhood development programs and sex-change operations, it wouldn't be forced to cut corners in the few areas not regulated by the government, such as cancer treatments for patients with gallstones.

(4) National health care will give Americans "basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable" -- as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in the Times.

You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, "I'm taking my business elsewhere."

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most "pre-existing" conditions aren't already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have "reinsurance" policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.

If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for "pre-existing" conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn -- unconceived -- children and health insurance even when you don't have a job. The vast majority of "pre-existing" conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be "covered" conditions under a free market in health insurance.

I've hit my word limit on liberal lies about national health care without breaking a sweat. See this space next week for more lies in our continuing series.

>> ^blankfist:
Most socialized health care supporters focus on the "treatment argument" instead of the real debate of corporate collusion and government regulations stifling a free market approach. In a free market there will still be costs associated with "treatment", but it would be significantly less than what we have.

I think you're confusing health insurance, and health providers. Not even single payer would change the picture for providers directly. Providers have to compete with one another today.

The exchanges allow for the creation of a national market for individual insurance, with direct competition between insurers. The public option is also in the exchange.

The weak part of the plan? You're not allowed to use it if your employer offers insurance. You are however allowed to use it instead of COBRA if you lose your job.

Currently, I believe it costs somewhere between $10,000 to $15,000 a month for Chemotherapy (probably more, maybe less). Chemotherapy is a very common outpatient procedure. There is no reason for it to cost as much, and if the market was opened without government disallowing competition via regulation so much more health options would become available, and I'm sure this procedure would be fairly inexpensive.

Who's the monopoly provider for chemotherapy?

Have you ever wondered why the Pharmaceutical companies export the same medication they sell us for much, much less? That's because they have to compete in foreign markets. Did you know no Pharmaceuticals can be allowed into the US for treatment except if accepted by the FDA? What does that translate to mean? It means, the same medication you are currently buying at restrictive prices could be sold be imported into this country for much, much less... and I mean, the exact same medication.

It's also because other countries are having the government negotiate prices.

But hooray, you actually found one of the things I think is weak in the bill. The ban on imported drugs stays in place, but price negotiation would be allowed for Medicare Part D.

That's kinda weak.

Most socialized health care supporters focus on the "treatment argument" instead of the real debate of corporate collusion and government regulations stifling a free market approach. In a free market there will still be costs associated with "treatment", but it would be significantly less than what we have.

Currently, I believe it costs somewhere between $10,000 to $15,000 a month for Chemotherapy (probably more, maybe less). Chemotherapy is a very common outpatient procedure. There is no reason for it to cost as much, and if the market was opened without government disallowing competition via regulation so much more health options would become available, and I'm sure this procedure would be fairly inexpensive.

Have you ever wondered why the Pharmaceutical companies export the same medication they sell us for much, much less? That's because they have to compete in foreign markets. Did you know no Pharmaceuticals can be allowed into the US for treatment except if accepted by the FDA? What does that translate to mean? It means, the same medication you are currently buying at restrictive prices could be sold be imported into this country for much, much less... and I mean, the exact same medication.

>> ^dag:
^You're the one talking semantics. What's a "natural" death - when one group of people gets to live to 130 and the other has to die at 60 because they did not inherit their daddy's Haliburton stock?


Dick Cheney is going to live to be 130? Fuck.

You're correct that obviously modern medicine has enabled us to live longer. Most of which is experienced without an exorbitant, impractical price nearly all should be capable of affording. Antibiotics and vaccines are quite inexpensive, and these or the sorts of medicines that have allowed us to extend our lives.

We all have as much access to them as does the Haliburton exec, so I'm not sure what your issue can be.

...or inexpensive. There's no way anyone would go through that process for 'personal consumption; as he says at the start.

Full on.

sounds similar to

http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/23009/

....

and then, there is this advancement from yet another company
http://www.zymetis.com/
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22307/
...

and, to put it all in perspective, there is this from barely two years ago!
http://www.onethread.org/arise/?p=73

"In a recent article, “The Price of Biofuels“, David Rotman predicts that “significant technological breakthroughs” will be necessary to reach a goal in the United States of producing 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuel by 2030. A professor of chemical engineering and biochemistry at Caltech, Fraces Arnold, says there are formidable barriers to the development of new biofuels:

“The bottom line is that you’re going to have to make fuel cheap. We can all make a little bit of something. But you have to make a lot of it, and you have got to make it cheaply. The problem is so huge that your technology has got to scale up.”

Three major challenges cited in converting biomass to biofuel include:
a.Optimizing yield, quality, and transportation of biomass
b.Improving the process of developing sugars from biomass
c.Creating highly efficient biological pathways to convert sugars into biofuel


Professor Gregory Stephanopoulos of MIT believes that a systems approach will likely be required to solve the multidimensional issues associated with creating an inexpensive biofuel generation process; an anticipated solution is a hybrid procedure that incorporates advances in both chemistry and biology.
-------

Well, I guess they solved those problems pretty quick.

stupid education and science, making our health better by helping us be more compatible with our environment.

understanding how to identify a problem, seeing that there is a solution and then implementing the solution.... what is this country becoming? Comm-rape-ulist ChiRussia? BURY YER GUNS AND YER COMBUSTION ENGINES!! THEY TOOK YER FUEL!!! TUK ER!!! DEMOCRATS ARE RUINING EVERYTHING RABBLE RABBLE

Lyrics:

EG: where all the shawties on the court?

JS: It's ridiculous, one woman on the Supreme Court, uh, doesn't seem right to me.

EG: Ain't nobody have a breakfast with all sausage and no eggs.

MG: We need a shawty with a hot body and sexy legs.

EG: When the court convenes it's an ancient sausage festival.

MG: Only two ovaries, sixteen testicles..

BB: There are so many qualified women out there.

MG: Qualified to get low in they apple-bottomed robe.

MB: I completely agree with you.

EG: And I complete agree, too.

MG: How does Ginsburg stand being the only woman who ain't a man?

BB: Judge Ginsburg said, she's really very lonely without another woman.

MG, EG, BB: Without another woman, lonely without another woman!

EG: I know what it's like with a woman gone, cryin in the nude with the curtains drawn.

MB: Breaking news!

EG, MG: Oh snap! News is broken! Breaking news, in ya face!

MB: Obama has picked Sonia Sotomayor.

EG, MG: She's a shawty, She's a Boricua!

EG: Jurisprudent!

JS: With soft thighs!

MG: And other soft features, that Ginsburg can appreciate, stayin up late, makin sure to thank
heaven above.

EG: because she ain't

All: lonely without another woman, lonely without another woman!

EG: Listen up, y'all, Joe Biden's got a shout out!
This one goes out to all the serbians
And also the ladies
But mostly the Serbians

JB: And until the Serbian people
Look themselves in the face
Understand what their leaders have done
And convinced them of
Until that moment arrives
Serbian people will not
Be able to shed this notion of victimization
That all of their leaders prey upon
And manipulate them with
Until that moment arrives
Until the Serbian people look themselves in the face
Until that moment arrives
Until that moment arriiiiiiiiives

KC: April showers bring May flowers
But what do May flowers bring?
AG: Romance for a shawty
KC: Possibly lead poisoning
AG: ::Barf::
KC: Lead poisoning
AG: ::Barf, barf:: I'm gettin sick like
::Barf, barf, barf, barf, barf::
KC: Before you dig in and start to enjoy all the
Fruits and vegetables of your labor
AG: Shawty
KC: You'd better get your soil tested first
AG: Oh
KC: Your soil tested first
AG: Oh, I live in the ghetto
So I'll expect the worst
KC: Paint chippings and old pesticides
May be buried insiiiiide
AG: Me, oh my
KC: Raising the level of lead in the soil
The tests are inexpensive
And some local health departments
Do them for freeeeeeee
AG: Even for a talking head thug like me?
KC: Once you're in the clear
Mary, Mary quite contrary
Plant away
AG: Okay
And when asked how does your garden grow
Tell them it's healthy, green and lead-free
AG: I'll say it's healthy, green and lead-free, shawty
KC: Healtheeeeeee
AG: Healtheeeeeee, believe me
I ain't tryna munch on a poison zucchini

NG: This bill actually has the secretary of energy
Regulating jacuzzis
Now, the ideastrikes me
As close to being nuts

AG: I agree--I'm an angry gorilla and that makes me angry

JI: The only jacuzzis this will regulate
Will have to produce 2,500 mega watts of energy

AG: You made me angry with lies
Hurt my angry gorilla pride; I'm angry

NG: On page 233, uh
Line 5: portable electric spas

All: Portable electric spas!

MG: No spa is above the law!

NG: Now, I don't know what a portable electric spa is
I was told it was a jacuzzi
But that's in this bill

AG: So it's true!
I'm no longer angry at you
My original anger's renewed

JI: We will give you a hot spa
That is energy efficient
I hope that doesn't offend you

AG: He might have a point
My anger's makin a switch
Cuz you're being a little b*$&
But maybe not
Maybe you're just defending freedom and justice for jacuzzis
ohhhhhh
What's this? a single tear that is wet that i shed

When an angry gorilla cries
Who's gonna be there to dry his eyes?
And when an angry gorilla's depressed
Who's gonna heal him with a soft caress?
Ooh ooh ah ah, the tears are rolling down my cheeks
Ooh ooh ah ah, liquid sorrow that my eyes excrete

And I'm a soulja, but a soulja's got feelings,
Don't know whom to lend my anger to,
And that's why I'm crestfallen and confused

XBOX gets most of my attention, but they are all good systems.

XBOX and its XBL interface has pretty much defined modern console gaming. It has the most titles (both full games and downloadable), the most players and the quickest and easiest interface.

The thing I like best about the PS3 is that they are not afraid to take risks creating interesting and artsy downloadable games like Everyday Shooter and Flower. It also has a Blu ray player and a handful of good exclusives. Playstation Home (a virtual 2nd life style neighborhood) is a good idea, but they need to come up with a more interesting environment than a shopping mall. The worst thing about the PS3 is the system updates, which can take forever. They could also use more high quality exclusives.

Wii waggle is good clean, inexpensive, fun, and the system has a respectable amount of exclusives, not to mention a legendary back catalog. It's got some nice paripherals - guns, balance board, steeling wheel. It's online/multiplayer/friend interface is horrible.

Advantage Xbox

Well the good news is that you're still young and beautiful. The bad news is that you won't be for long. The path you are on ends you as an old-timer with the boys down at the local, the ladies long gone home. Please understand that I regard this a distinguished path for a certain kind of gentleman. I, for one, have planned it that way. I have cultivated a broad palette for acceptable intoxicants, I live within walking distance of my favorite establishment, and have a collection of fine hats.

I also have a really fine woman and a penchant for inexpensive, time-consuming, yet rewarding pursuits. Do keep your eye open for these.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^Sniper007:
Furthermore, these 'advancements' only last ONE GENERATION. They are NOT recursive: The children of bio genetically enhanced parents are going to have to pay for the same procedures.

Cell phones were very expensive at first but now they're relatively inexpensive (and work much better). This happens with pretty much any technology.
Also, "one generation" takes on a whole new meaning as life expectancies continue to increase. Remember when 60 was old?


The most important part of your reply is highlighted.
That we can even sit here today, and think back 10-15 years ago, that we believed 60 to be old...its the new 40.

How fast has modern medicine progressed in the past 20 years alone, to already greatly expand life expectancy to a point where it changes a moral paradigm on what we think as old...within our own lifetime.

Just think about that for a second..

That alone...isn't that a bit compelling ?

Given that technology is progressing exponentially, the next 20 years is gonna be a doozy.

>> ^Sniper007:
Furthermore, these 'advancements' only last ONE GENERATION. They are NOT recursive: The children of bio genetically enhanced parents are going to have to pay for the same procedures.


Cell phones were very expensive at first but now they're relatively inexpensive (and work much better). This happens with pretty much any technology.

Also, "one generation" takes on a whole new meaning as life expectancies continue to increase. Remember when 60 was old?

Great catch, blankfist.

I've owned a Toyota, a Ford and a Honda in my lifetime. Guess which of the 3 needed repair on a monthly basis. The Toyota truck lasted me 10 years, was stolen twice and ran great until the day it was gutted by thieves. The big 3 need to take a lesson from Japan, and begin to produce reliable, inexpensive, easy to repair, fuel efficient vehicles.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying. I agree that we need to make welfare (and other social programs) more like the hardhat than Vicodin. Better still, I want it to be like a cheap-but-effective hardhat, plus good training that makes sure people understand how to safely handle nail guns. People who want nicer hardhats are free to buy 'em, too.

As for Obama's qualifications, I agree about his resume being thin, but we've had a lot of great Presidents with thin resumes. To be truthful, I think his argument that a President needs more judgment than experience is accurate as well. The President will always be availed with the best experts he can find on any subject matter -- his job is to listen to the advice and call the shot. In a sense, as long as the President is passably familiar with the issues at work (and Obama has shown that he's more than passably familiar with the issues we face), and has a record of good judgment (which I contend Obama has had), he can be effective.

I'm glad you're more moderate than most around here -- seems like we have a lot of market fundamentalists hanging out here. I also agree with what you're saying about needing to make government more efficient in how it uses the money. I think Bush has shown that the modern Republican party is trying to make government as inefficient and broken as they can, so more people lose faith in government and fall for the siren call of the "small government" Republican party. Democrats on the other hand want desperately to fix it, make it efficient and effective, in order to restore people's faith in government. They're not the Socialist party -- increasing the size of government is a means to an end, not an end in an of itself. If reducing the scope of government proves more effective, Democrats will go for it (think Clinton with capital gains tax cuts, and NAFTA). We just don't see reducing the scope of government as some sort of absolute necessity that shouldn't ever be questioned.

As far as taxes go, Obama's plan is primarily aimed at shifting the burden, but it does both increase the amount of expected tax revenue, while cutting some spending (Iraq war), and introducing new spending (healthcare). It includes a deficit, but a smaller one than McCain's (since he doesn't even come close to offsetting his tax cut with spending cuts).

I agree with you that corporate benefits can help regular people, I just think we've gotten to a point where we're doing too much corporate welfare, and not enough of the regular kind. I share your concern about cracking down too hard on oil companies, since the price of gas will likely increase, but I don't think there's anything wrong with giving them a big push towards helping find alternatives to oil, rather than new places to drill for oil. They're supposedly "energy" companies, after all.

I also think corporations have too much influence over government policy generally, and that the government shouldn't be run by people who equate corporate interest with common interest. There's certainly overlap, but common interest should be the priority when they diverge.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I don't think that anyone makes a conscious decision to be homeless. It's a consequence of their actions. The result of the sum of their decisions over a period of time landed them where they are today. Only 3% of homeless people in this country have mental disabilities, so it's not like they just one day woke up homeless. It's not that I don't feel compassion for somebody who has made mistakes and found themselves in a really bad spot. I do. But that's why I choose to give back in my donations. I believe we should be focusing more energy on prevention and education. If you've got a nail in your head, Vicodin will make it feel a little better -Or I could have provided you with a hardhat so that you didn't get that nail in the first place. Welfare is meant to be the hardhat but, over the years, it has evolved into the Vicodin. Now we've got to surgically removed the nails and pass out hardhats. I'll stop before I get too carried away. My point is, the government doesn't do much with my money to help people rise above poverty. It helps them to stay alive while continuing to live their poor quality of life while not doing much do address the reason that they are there in the first place. Guess what happens to their children.


I agree with you that wealthy people have different concerns than do poor people, but my point is that they aren't as far removed from the rest of us as you make them out to be. Again, I didn't vote for John McCain, nor do I want him to be our next President. That doesn't make Barack Obama qualified. If you present me with a rotten peach and a rotten apple, I'll tell you that neither of them is appetizing.

I don't believe in fundamental capitalism. I'm happy to pay taxes to fund roads and education and defense, among other things. All of those things are good. I just feel that this country already collects more than enough money from it's citizens. We need to concentrate our energy on being more efficient and effective, not on collecting more money from the rich or from anybody. Not adding new programs, but streamlining the programs that we already have in place. Does all the money collecting from the gas tax go to maintain our transportation infrastructure? It was supposed to. Speaking of roads, is our long term expenditure on our roads efficient? No. We focus too much on getting them done quickly on not enough on building them to last. We work over and over on the same problems when we could have done it right the first time for a little more money up front.

I also feel that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good. I just don't believe that they should be forced to shoulder the cost of the common good more than anybody else does.

When corporations receive monetary benefits resulting from legislation, it's not always a bad thing. It's always a bad thing when lawmakers make it harder for large corporations (don't get me started on military contractors like Lockheed. You and I will probably agree a lot on that issue). Too many people in this county have a negative attitude toward Exxon and other oil companies. I think we've done a VERY good job keeping fuel inexpensive. Even with all the recent price increases, fuel is still cheaper here than in most other countries, including Japan and the UK. As soon as you increase taxes on corporations like Exxon, or increase restrictions that cause their profits to be reduced, their responsibilities to their shareholders dictate that they must increase their margins. In other words, picking on big oil only hurts the lower and middle classes in this country. ...or picking on any big business for that matter.

I don't think that anyone makes a conscious decision to be homeless. It's a consequence of their actions. The result of the sum of their decisions over a period of time landed them where they are today. Only 3% of homeless people in this country have mental disabilities, so it's not like they just one day woke up homeless. It's not that I don't feel compassion for somebody who has made mistakes and found themselves in a really bad spot. I do. But that's why I choose to give back in my donations. I believe we should be focusing more energy on prevention and education. If you've got a nail in your head, Vicodin will make it feel a little better -Or I could have provided you with a hardhat so that you didn't get that nail in the first place. Welfare is meant to be the hardhat but, over the years, it has evolved into the Vicodin. Now we've got to surgically removed the nails and pass out hardhats. I'll stop before I get too carried away. My point is, the government doesn't do much with my money to help people rise above poverty. It helps them to stay alive while continuing to live their poor quality of life while not doing much do address the reason that they are there in the first place. Guess what happens to their children.


I agree with you that wealthy people have different concerns than do poor people, but my point is that they aren't as far removed from the rest of us as you make them out to be. Again, I didn't vote for John McCain, nor do I want him to be our next President. That doesn't make Barack Obama qualified. If you present me with a rotten peach and a rotten apple, I'll tell you that neither of them is appetizing.

I don't believe in fundamental capitalism. I'm happy to pay taxes to fund roads and education and defense, among other things. All of those things are good. I just feel that this country already collects more than enough money from it's citizens. We need to concentrate our energy on being more efficient and effective, not on collecting more money from the rich or from anybody. Not adding new programs, but streamlining the programs that we already have in place. Does all the money collecting from the gas tax go to maintain our transportation infrastructure? It was supposed to. Speaking of roads, is our long term expenditure on our roads efficient? No. We focus too much on getting them done quickly on not enough on building them to last. We work over and over on the same problems when we could have done it right the first time for a little more money up front.

I also feel that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good. I just don't believe that they should be forced to shoulder the cost of the common good more than anybody else does.

When corporations receive monetary benefits resulting from legislation, it's not always a bad thing. It's always a bad thing when lawmakers make it harder for large corporations (don't get me started on military contractors like Lockheed. You and I will probably agree a lot on that issue). Too many people in this county have a negative attitude toward Exxon and other oil companies. I think we've done a VERY good job keeping fuel inexpensive. Even with all the recent price increases, fuel is still cheaper here than in most other countries, including Japan and the UK. As soon as you increase taxes on corporations like Exxon, or increase restrictions that cause their profits to be reduced, their responsibilities to their shareholders dictate that they must increase their margins. In other words, picking on big oil only hurts the lower and middle classes in this country. ...or picking on any big business for that matter.

I would say that failing at -20C for a inexpensive car is fair enough, in the continental US at least there are few places that get that cold.

They make models specifically for Canada or other places where it gets that cold anyways, right? Engine block heaters built into the car you plug in sometime before you start it?

A petrol engine might have been more fair for the starting test since it thickens at -60C (?)