Sorry, but you have no 'right' to health care.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "I would say RIDEMERON has as problem with "E Pluribus Unum."

"Out of many, one"""

I would say Lorax has a problem doing anything on her own, and suffers from lack of self confidence. Zero independence, zero self sufficiency and zero initiative unless it is accompanied with a hand held and a handout of some sort.

No wonder she is opting for communism. Perfect for people like that.

[Lorax]

Looks like someone else has a problem with "E Pluribus Unum" as well-

Perhaps hopping in a time machine and returning to Mussolini's Italy would be more to your liking. I hear the fashions were divine! Should be a little nicer than wearing cow-print mumu's or stretch caftans.

[ghettopalmetto]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

[EMG]

Ann Coulter has written a number of very good columns on this topic recently, including this one -

http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCo...&comments=true

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Less Health Care for More Money
by Ann Coulter

The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof recently wrote a column about John Brodniak of Oregon, who developed a cavernous hemangioma, causing him great pain as blood leaks into his brain.

According to Kristof, Brodniak can't get medical help because we don't have universal health care. Senators who vote against ObamaCare, Kristof said, are morally equivalent to someone who would walk past a man "writhing in pain on the sidewalk."

In another article in the Times, William Yardley wrote about Melvin Tsosies -- also of Oregon -- who ended up with $200,000 in medical bills after having a heart attack.

As of March 2008, Yardley reported, Tsosies was waiting to find out if he would win the Oregon lottery for health insurance. But with 600,000 uninsured state residents and a "universal" health care program with only enough money to pay for about 24,000 of them, Tsosies is more likely to win a Powerball lottery.

How can this be happening? Oregon already has "universal health care"! [[Probably just a coincidence, but isn't Oregon also the only state with physician-assisted suicide?)

Once again forgetting about the existence of the Internet, the Times neglects to mention its own erstwhile enthusiasm for Oregon's universal health care plan, introduced back in 1990.

Back then, the Times published an editorial titled "Oregon's Brave Medical Experiment," hailing this technocratic monstrosity as an example of "hardheaded compassion" designed to make "health coverage available to many more families."

Ron Wyden -- then a congressman from Oregon, now a U.S. senator at the forefront of pushing "universal health care" onto the nation -- said: "This is a strong dramatic step toward universal access of health care." He predicted, "[T]his is going to be copied everywhere."

No wonder Wyden is such an ardent proponent of national health care -- it will force states that didn't adopt these idiotic universal health care schemes to bail out the ones that did.

Liberals cite medical horror stories from the very states they once cheered for enacting universal health care in order to argue for a national health care plan that will wreck the entire nation's medical care the same way liberal states already wrecked their own medical care.

Only Democrats could propose fixing one Bernie Madoff-style scam with an even bigger Bernie Madoff-style scam.

Maybe when national universal health care fails, we'll be able to go international. Then interplanetary -- then interstellar! Why should I pay for my gall bladder surgery when some Venusian could?

Eighty-five percent of Americans are happy with their health care, but Democrats have a plan to make it worse for more money. As a bonus, national health care will add trillions of dollars to the national debt, and your insurance rates will skyrocket.

Democrats are being utterly disingenuous to say that you won't have to leave your current plan under national health care. Maybe, but it won't be your choice: Your employer will be making that decision for you.

Recall that one of the big selling points of national health care is that it is supposed to reduce costs for American businesses. The only way national health care will make American companies "more competitive" is if they dump their employees into the public health care system.

It's so weird! We expected X number of people to show up for health care and instead 75X showed up! Yeah, just like every other government program in the history of the world.

Ten years from now, we'll be talking about cost overruns of $6 trillion -- but by then, national health care will be an untouchable "third rail" of politics, just as Medicare is now. [[Ironically, injuries sustained from actually touching the third rail won't be covered under ObamaCare.)

As with Medicare, voters will be terrified to go back to even the wisp of a free market system we have now, afraid that they'll never be able to get health insurance without the government providing it. Having been dragged unwillingly into the government plan, how will a 58-year-old be able to leave the public system and get insurance on the free market?

Speaking of which, how many of you are planning to retire on your Social Security benefits? Just you there, with the shopping cart full of cans?

The only solution will be for the government to keep running up gigantic deficits and raising taxes on "the rich," which, in turn, will stifle job creation and economic growth in a phenomenon known to economists as "the Carter years."

In addition to forcing Americans into dealing with surly government workers in order to obtain medical care, sooner or later, there's no free lunch. [[And if government X-rays are anything like the photos the DMV takes for your license, count me out. I don't want my lungs looking like they had a bad hair day.)

Even if national health care puts the screws to doctors and pharmaceutical companies by reimbursing them below cost -- so all future doctors will soon resemble DMV employees and no new drugs will ever be invented -- the government is still going to have to cut services and pay for the system with massive tax hikes.

Which is exactly what happened with Oregon's "Brave Medical Experiment."

[EMG]

For more, check out her "Liberal Lies About National Healthcare" series which begins here:

http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCo...&comments=true

[EMG]

http://townhall.com/columnists/DickM...&comments=true

How Obamacare Will Hurt Young People
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

A detailed analysis of the Obama health care program now before the Senate indicates that it will force big premium increases for all families, especially for those under 30 years of age.


The study, by the consulting firm of Oliver Wyman, concludes that premiums for individuals will rise by $1,576 and $3,341 for families by under the bill. Young people will be hit the hardest. The study predicted that premiums for new health insurance policies purchased by the youngest third of the population would rise by 35 percent under the bill.

These increases will stem from the bill's provisions that bar insurance companies from raising rates on sick people and from excluding people based on pre-existing conditions. Both of these mandates will mean higher costs for the younger and healthier population. This bill is, in effect, a tax on the young.

Nor will subsidies do much to mitigate the impact. To get a subsidy under the bill, you have to earn less than about $80,000 a year [[combined household income) and have spent between 2 percent and 10 percent of your income on premiums.

So a couple making a combined income of $40,000 would have to pay about 5 percent of their income, $2,000, before they could get subsidies. Those making $60,000 would have to pay about 8 percent of their income -- $4,800 – before they could get a subsidy. And those making $80,000 would have to chip in 10 percent of their income -- $8,000 -- before they would get a subsidy.

These are hefty bills for young families to bear.

So most won't do it. The fine for failing to have health insurance is only $750. So most young people will just pay the fine and be done with it. When they get sick, they'll get covered and the insurance company can't charge them a higher premium than it would have charged when they were healthy. And it can't turn them away.

So this bill is not a measure for full national health insurance coverage. At best, it's a bill that will insure you when you are sick and make the rest of us pay the bill. And, in the meantime, you'll have to chip in $750 a year for the privilege.

Employers, too, will find it much cheaper to pay the $750 per employee than to buy insurance.

Ironically, there is a good chance that this bill will actually increase the number of uninsured. Its ban on letting insurers raise rates on sick people will force premiums so high that many people will drop their insurance. After all, when they get sick, they can and will easily get their insurance back.

[ccbatson]

What a wonderful thread...many thanks to EMG for putting it together.

[Stosh]

It's not a thread. It's a post. And it's a crock of BS. Objectivity? Laughable.

[ccbatson]

What exactly is not objective and BS in your opinion, and why?

Wouldn't it be nice if the libs didn't need to be told how to make THEIR OWN points?

[Stosh]

What exactly is not objective and BS in your opinion, and why?

Wouldn't it be nice if the libs didn't need to be told how to make THEIR OWN points?

Posting BS from a notorious conserative blog that has no factual standards to upjhold is hardly news. Wouldn't it be wonderful if cons didn't have to make stuff up to scare people?

[1KielsonDrive]

If you need health care, and you have health insurance, they pay for it because you bought a policy of insurance for health care expenses. You pay good money premiums for the plan of coverage that you bought.

If you run into a situation when your health insurer balks about whether or not they're going to pay for a particular treatment, the answer is simple! You just pay for it yourself.

Health care insurance is a good and/or service; and having health care insurance is not your 'right' in any way, shape or form.

In fact, getting health care itself is not a 'right' you are entitled to.

Where it breaks down is expecting that it IS a'right' and its the job of "Government" to make sure you get some semblence of 'health care'.

BUT!...; government does NOT 'give' you any of your 'rights'. You are born with them simply by virtue of being human. The U.S government does NOT produce and bestow upon you, ANY rights.

All people are born with equal rights, even people in North Korea.

The only difference is that people in North Korea are unfortunate enough to have been born under a governmental system that does not recognize their natural human rights.

But, health care is NOT a right, for anyone, anywhere. Food, clothing, and shelter are not 'rights' either. They are all simply goods or services.

If you wanna make 'health care' a right bestowed upon you by 'government', you may as well make food, clothing and shelter 'rights' too, because all three of those things are far more urgently important on a daily basis than needing your appendix out, or a mammogram.

So, quit beating around the bush and at least be honest about it.

Have a nice day.

Thanks for your edict. I guesss you think you have the corner on honesty. Not quite.You're full of s*@t. Have a nice day.

[Lorax]

Anyone posting anything from Ann Coultergeist is probably just as drug addled and socially backward.

I agree that the current health care bill is a fraud, and should be stopped, but not for the same reasons as Coultergeist.

The current plan does not socialize health care as is done in European socialized democracies, or even as they do in Canada. It's not socialistic enough!

Not to mention the mandate to buy care from the private sector will be a complete disaster, and unenforceable, unless they intend to jail those who don't pay their fines for not buying into it.

A complete waste of time and energy, and a give-away to the wealthy corporate insurance and pharmaceutical interest.

Thanks of nothing, our do-nothing congress, and shame on you!

[Pam]

The current plan does not socialize health care as is done in European socialized democracies, or even as they do in Canada. It's not socialistic enough!

How is it "socialist" at all anymore, if the public option has been killed? Shut up, Ann.

[johnsmith]

I'm pretty sure I am entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I am pretty sure these are all interconnected, and its kind of weird how Life is the worst one listed.

I would argue that Life and Health go hand in hand...

I agree we are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These are things that are not given to you by the gov't, nor do they require the services, sacrifice or any cost at all of others. [[aside from the miltary "protecting" these inherent rights)

Health care, on the other hand, does require the services of others in it's essence. It is dependent on others to actually provide this, healthcare comes from other people, where the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness do not. They are protected by the military, etc., but not "given" to you as health care must be at the expense, time and service of others.

If healthcare was truly a right, then it would not require anything from another person outside of yourself.

From what I see, the Federal gov't has no constitutional authority to impose any form of national healthcare. As the 10th Amendment says [[like oladub stated), the States [[individually) may have authority to enact a form of healthcare for it's citizens.

[Lorax]

There is nothing wrong with a federal attempt to provide coverage to all of our citizens. But with the current political situation, where the voting members of congress are beholden to the corporate lobbying interests is where the problem lies.

Does anyone think that a government awash in the money provided by the corporate elites could turn out a good bill? LOL!!!

Max Baucus, Joe Lieberman and a dozen others need to recuse themselves from voting due to a conflict of interest.

No government entity is capable of delivering meaningful, sweeping reform of the system unless you admit you're going to put private insurers out of business. They are now calling in their chips, and of course, they will win.

Until the day comes when we have taken 100% of the influence peddling out of our national body politic, we will never have real reform of any kind, much less health care.

The time to have done this was 60 years ago when Truman had the chance, shy one vote, to institute national health care coverage. Today monolithic corporate wealth interests control the nation's political landscape, and is too entrenched.

Revolution anyone?

[Johnlodge]

Johnlodge, Whom are you addressing? If you are asking me, My preference would be to get the government out of health care at may levels. Pharmaceutical prices would drop if they were all over the counter, operations could be provided in foreign countries for a fraction of the cost, etc.. My second option would be to have states adopt Ontario's health care system lock, stock, and barrel to get rid of lawyers, insurance companies, and many paper shufflers. Governments in the US already spend more per capita than governments in Canada per capita. Adopting a Canadian provincial like system would actually reduce the size of government. I'm surprised that fiscal conservatives haven't figured this out. The problem is that Democrats and Republicans would lose important donor bases if they were serious about reform.

Tariffs and the strict enforcement of immigration policy would go a long way to bolster the bargaining position of American workers. Again, most Democrats and Republicans stand in the way of such reforms. They answer to their paymasters rather than their constituents. Case in point: the Wall Street bailout.

Oladub, specifically I was referring to the OP. You are not typically the sort who just naysays because one of the politcal parties or radio personality tells you to, without providing any sort of alternate ideas. And I doubt you or I are "surprised" the fiscal conservatives haven't figured that out, they just have no interest in figuring it out.

[Lorax]

How is it "socialist" at all anymore, if the public option has been killed? Shut up, Ann.

Ann Coultergeist has to make it look good- like she's opposing any and all initiatives brought to the table by Democrats. Strictly a pander to the base.

Privately she's thrilled, as all Rethuglicans are with this win/win for the wealthiest among us.

[ccbatson]

Controlling the means of production is socialism...this monstrosity does just that. Does it matter if there is a "government option" when government controls the industries? [[liberal fascism, Obama style).

[1KielsonDrive]

Controlling the means of production is socialism...this monstrosity does just that. Does it matter if there is a "government option" when government controls the industries? [[liberal fascism, Obama style).

Oh Bats, you're still at it, spinning your cute little, non-sensical one liners. Did I see your name on the billboard at the Comedy Castle a few weeks ago? Were you refining your witty banter?

[elganned]

Controlling the means of production is socialism...this monstrosity does just that. Does it matter if there is a "government option" when government controls the industries? [[liberal fascism, Obama style).

Your argument is false prima facie. If government controls the industries there would never be a bill, because there would be no need for a bill. One doesn't regulate what one already owns and controls.

[Rideron]

You are all living in or next door to a city that went from being #1 of the top 50 list of highest per capita income of any major metopolitan area of the U.S.,to currently being 47th.

This happened in the space of 50 years.

In all of those last 50 years, Detroit has been run by a coalition of Democrats and Union interests.

Now, you want to apply that economic model to the rest of the country.

"Misery loves company" I reckon

[elganned]

You oversimplify. The decline of Detroit is directly attributable to the slow demise of the auto industry over the last 30 years or so. Whatever influence the "coalition of Democrats and Union interests" may have had, the fact remains that the executives of the Big 3 allowed the foreign automakers to eat their lunch, and the metro area has paid the price.

[Lorax]

In addition, it's the wealthy, white, Rethuglican run corporations that decided to cast their lot with the Chinese [[communists, BTW) and any number of other nations that could provide slave labor to produce their goods- just ask Kathy Lee Gifford and her sweatshop child laborers.

American corporations decided at a point not to play by the rules and blow up the system, and the people who used to work for them became the victims in a real life game of Monopoly.

Let's just point to the unregulated corporate fascism of the Bush Crime Family as the final nail in the coffin of America's middle class as evidence.

And of course, the declining state of our economy.

Socialism in it's best form has proven to work well in Europe, we could learn something from them for a change.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "the fact remains that the executives of the Big 3 allowed the foreign automakers to eat their lunch,"

Oh please. Trying to compete with labor 40 times cheaper? Seriously, I obviously know nothing about business according to some of these posts. Please briefly outline how you would have countered such a situation. What could you have produced of equal value, paying staggering labor costs? Not to mention adherence to environmental laws, which is also a huge cost to implement such systems and procedure.

It was really just a stroke of luck that kept the defib humming so to speak, that a large part of the market here wanted an SUV. If we would have HAD to build economy cars over the last ten years and went head to head with the Asians earlier, this auto recession would have happened years ago. We were on borrowed time. All it took was a spike in oil price to change the market.

Trade put us where we are. Welcome to the global economy. Edit: which is really inaccurate, we are a long way from a true third world society, but we're headed there.

[rb336]

Oh please. Trying to compete with labor 40 times cheaper? Seriously, I obviously know nothing about business according to some of these posts. Please briefly outline how you would have countered such a situation. What could you have produced of equal value, paying staggering labor costs?

Falsehood #1 - Japanese and German labor costs are at least as high as US. Executive salaries, however are WAY lower, as are health insurance costs [[non-existent for Japan, about 1/3 for Germany)

Not to mention adherence to environmental laws, which is also a huge cost to implement such systems and procedure.

Falsehood #2 environmental laws cost the same to the japanese and more for the germans.