September
9, 2009 
(12) Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your
job or lose your job" -- as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.
This is obviously a matter of great importance
to all Americans, because, with Obama's economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year's end. THIS IS A STUPID
ARGUMENT IN WHICH MS. COULTER IS FOLLOWING A SLIPPERY SLOPE AND PLAYING TO THE FEARS OF A DELUDED AUDIENCE.
The only reason you can't keep -- or often obtain -- health insurance if you move or lose your
job now is because of ... government intrusion into the free market. NO, THAT'S PATENTLY UNTRUE! IF
I LEAVE MY JOB, I WILL LOSE IT'S HEALTH CARE TO WHICH THE COMPANY SUBSCRIBES AS A GROUP TO A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you can obtain car and home insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog
walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government.
(Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.) VERY FUNNY, BUT A RED HERRING. HEALTH CARE IS
NOT CAR INSURANCE. IF YOU HAVE A CAR, YOU BUY IT YOURSELF AND ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING INSURANCE FOR IT.
IF YOUR COMPANY OFFERS HEALTH INSURANCE, THEY SUBSCRIBE TO ONE OF THE "BIG 6" AND YOU GET A CHEAPER DEAL THAN IF
YOU WERE INDEPENDENTLY TRYING TO GET HEALTH CARE. ANN, YOU'RE MISREPRESENTING THE TRUTH.
Federal
tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then
to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through
an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get. WHAT IS THE EXACT
TAX DEDUCTION THAT I, OR ANYONE, RECEIVES FROM THE BI-WEEKLY DEDUCTION FROM MY PAYCHECK?! DOES ANN REALLY BELIEVE THAT
I GET SOME OF THAT MONEY BACK?!
Meanwhile, state governments must approve the insurers allowed to
operate in their states, while mandating a list of services -- i.e. every "medical" service with a powerful lobby
-- which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs
a boob job. FUNNY ANN. I DON'T THINK 88 YEAR OLDS ARE AS WORRIED ABOUT BOOB JOBS AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT.
PERHAPS YOU MIGHT BE LOOKING TOWARDS BOOB JOBS OR ADAMS' APPLE REMOVAL SURGERY, BUT EVEN THOSE PROCEDURES WOULD PROBABLY
BE COVERED BY WHATEVER RIGHT WINGNUT AGENCY HAS THE BAD FORTUNE OF HAVING YOU ON ITS PAYROLL AND THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE.
If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move
or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers),
they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance.
This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."
VERY FUNNY, BUT A RED HERRING AGAIN.
ANN, DO YOU GET PAID BY THE REPEATED WORD?! HEALTH CARE IS NOT CAR INSURANCE. IF A PERSON HAS A CAR, S/HE BUYS
IT HIMSELF AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING INSURANCE FOR IT. IF A COMPANY OFFERS HEALTH INSURANCE, THEY SUBSCRIBE TO
ONE OF THE "BIG 6" AND YOU, THEIR EMPLOYEE, GET A CHEAPER DEAL BECAUSE THEY BUY IT IN BULK AND REDUCE COSTS THAT
WAY THAN IF YOU WERE INDEPENDENTLY TRYING TO GET HEALTH CARE. ANN, YOU'RE MISREPRESENTING THE TRUTH AGAIN.
Plus, think of all the paper a one-page bill would save! Don't Democrats care about saving the planet anymore?
Go green! SHUT UP, YOU STUPID IGNORAMUS. THAT'S NOT EVEN FUNNY BECAUSE YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I, THAT THOSE 3-PAGE
DOCS THAT FORMER PRES GEORGE W. BUSH CLAIMED TO READ (e.g. August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing), WERE NOT EVEN READ.
THERE'S A LOT OF DETAILS THAT NEED TO BE IN THE BILL, AND A LOT OF IGNORANT REPUBLICANS LIKE YOU AND REP JOE WILSON WHO
ARE UNWILLING TO READ EVEN 1 PAGE OF A DOCUMENT THAT GOES AGAINST YOUR BIGGEST FUNDERS.
(13) The "public
option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.
Why
does the government get to decide when the "trigger" has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either
the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is -- and I believe the historical record is clear
on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking "triggers"? HMMM, THE GOVERNMENT
IS NOT BETTER AT PROVIDING GOODS AND SERVICES TO THE ELDERLY THAN THE FREE MARKET? ACCORDING TO ANN, THE 47 MILLION
(OR 30 MILLION) WHO ARE UNCOVERED BY THE SO-CALLED FREE MARKET ARE BETTER SERVED BY THE FREE MARKET THAT DOESN'T SERVE
THEM THAN BY A PROPOSE PUBLIC OPTION WHICH MIGHT SERVE THEM?
Why not have a "trigger"
allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health
insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers -- but only
when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks? GOOD
IDEAS ANN. BUT I DON'T THINK MARRIAGE COUNSELING IS CONSIDERED A MEDICAL EXPENSE. IF YOU HAVE OTHER INFO,
I'D BE INTERESTED TO READ IT. . . . BUT SOME PEOPLE 'S MEDICAL NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER PEOPLE'S -- AND
SHOULDN'T THERE BE SOME ARBITER (JUDGE) TO EVALUATE THEM AND SAY (FOR INSTANCE), "YOU'RE 88, YOU DON'T NEED
A BOOB JOB" or "YOU'RE 48 AND SEVERELY DEPRESSED, YOU SHOULD SEE A SHRINK BEFORE YOU KILL YOURSELF."
Thinking more broadly, how about triggers for paying taxes? Under my "public option" plan, citizens would
not have to pay taxes until a trigger kicks in. For example, 95 percent of the Department of Education's output is useful,
or -- in the spirit of compromise -- at least not actively pernicious.
WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT IS CONSIDERED
USEFUL. ACCORDING TO YOU AND GEORGE W. BUSH, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND-- CHRONICALLY UNDERFUNDED AS IT WAS-- REQUIRED GRADE-LEVEL
ASSESSMENT AS EVIDENCED BY TESTS. TEACHING TO THE TEST HAS UNDERMINED THE IDEA OF A FULL EDUCATION. SOMETHING
THAT MANY OF US, UNLIKE YOU ANN, ARE UNABLE TO AFFORD AT A PRIVATE IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL.
Also, I think we need triggers for taking over our neighbors' houses. If they don't keep up 95 percent of their lawn
-- on the basis of our lawn commission's calculations -- we get to move in. As with Obama's public option trigger,
we (in the role of "government") pay nothing. All expenses with the house would continue to be paid by the neighbor
(playing "taxpayer"). I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS ARGUMENT.
To make our housing "public
option" even more analogous to Obama's health care "public option," we'll have surly government employees
bossing around the neighbors after we evict them and a Web site for people to report any negative comments the neighbors make
about us. I ASSUME YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT WORKERS AT THE DMV OR THE POST OFFICE ARE SURLY, RIGHT?!
WELL, WHAT ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY. ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT EVIDENCE OF HOW WELL THE GOVERNMENT
CAN MANAGE ITS RESOURCES?
Another great trigger idea: We get to pull Keith Olbermann's hair to see if
it's a toupee -- but only when triggered by his laughably claiming to have gone to an Ivy League university, rather than
the bovine management school he actually attended. HMM, I KNOW THAT TECHNICALLY YOU'RE CORRECT BECAUSE CORNELL'S AG
SCHOOL IS STATE-FUNDED -- WHICH SIMPLY MEANS IT'S CHEAPER-- WHEREAS YOU WENT TO THE PRIVATE IVY-LEAGUE SCHOOL AT CORNELL.
EITHER WAY YOU SLICE IT, CORNELL IS NOT AS HIGHLY-RANKED AS OTHER IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS LIKE YALE OR HARVARD. . . THIS
IS A PETTY DISAGREEMENT YOU CONTINUE TO REPLAY TO DISTINGUISH YOURSELF FROM THE MUCH MORE TALENTED AND SMARTER KEITH OLBERMANN.
MANY OF US WOULD LIKE TO PULL YOUR ADAM'S APPLE TO SEE IF YOU REALLY ARE THE ONLY WOMAN IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD WHO
HAS AN ADAM'S APPLE. SHOULD WE ASK FOR A SEX TEST?
(14) National health care will not cover abortions or
illegal immigrants.
This appeared in an earlier installment of "Liberal Lies About Health Care," but
I keep seeing Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies --
which, in itself, constitutes proof that it's all true. HOWARD DEAN IS NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL! IN FACT, HE'S
NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT . HE IS FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. HOWEVER, HE WAS AT ONE TIME
A DOCTOR, SO PERHAPS HE HAS INSIGHT AND EXPERIENCE IN THIS SITUATION THAT EVEN YOU,
Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned
Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan -- where they think they have no reason to be sneaky -- in support
of national health care?) I HAVEN'T SEEN PLANNED PARENTHOOD COLLECTING PETITION SIGNATURES AND THINK THAT YOU'RE DELUSIONAL!
TO WHOM WILL THEY ADDRESS THESE PETITIONS, AND WHAT IMPACT WILL THEY ULTIMATLY HAVE? WHY DO YOU INSIST ON DEMONIZING
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE UNABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST YOUR BULLYING?
On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that
would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent
illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats
voted against it, killing the amendment. ACCORDING TO FACTCHECK.ORG, SECTION 246 TITLED "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR
UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS," which states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits
on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
On the same day, the committee
voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not
cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman -- a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one
-- THIS IS SLANDEROUS RHETORIC OF A RESPECTED ELECTED OFFICIAL, SO BACK OFF, ANN! originally
voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up
for reconsideration later. Which he did -- as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it. THE
REALITY IS, THAT SOME ABORTIONS MUST REMAIN AVAILABLE E.G. IN THE CASE OF INCEST, RAPE OR THREAT TO MOTHER'S LIFE.
SADLY, SOME (PERHAPS MANY) REPUBLICANS AND RIGHT-WING ZEALOTS ARGUE THAT EVEN THOSE CASES OF ABORTIONS SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL.
OF COURSE, SOME OF THEM ALSO BELIEVE THAT DINOSAURS NEVER WALKED ON THE EARTH AND THAT THE CHURCH WAS ALWAYS RIGHT-- EVEN
WHEN THEY CLAIMED THE SUN REVOLVED AROUND THE EARTH.
If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they
explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit? AS NOTED ABOVE, THE BILL CONTAINS
EXPLICIT LANGUAGE ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS NOT BEING ELEIGIBE FOR BENEFITS, AND AS NOTED ABOVE, SOME ABORTIONS MUST REMAIN
LEGAL.
COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO
64106
