Me vs. Coulter — Kicking the Ultimate RW Liar’s ASS on Health Insurance Parts 3 & 4

Okay, I've been
neglecting my Coulter-thrashing duties, so I'm forced to combine two of her
crap-laced columns into one. Sue me. Better yet, I almost wish she would.


As a nasty liar, this
woman(?) is world-class. She has made a really good living telling the wingnuts
what they want to hear, and mocking them every chance she gets. If you think
she actually believes this crap, think again. She just has no scruples. If
there was money in being a liberal, she'd switch sides in a heartbeat. But
believe me, I can attest, there is no money in being a liberal, so we won't see
her joining our side any time soon. Thank goodness, because I have to be
honest; I couldn't follow someone on our side who was so nasty.


Just once, I would
love to see the far right come up with a lie that we liberals actually tell.
Just one. This column encompasses both the third and fourth parts in her
series, and she hasn't gotten one right yet. Strange, but if I wanted to, I
could easily come up with some lies told by liberals in this debate, which
indicates that she's not really trying.  Surprised?


Okay, on with the
show… as always, my comments are in Red


Lies About National Health Care: Third in a Series (Commemorative Plates On
Sale Now!)

by Ann Coulter


Posted 09/02/2009 ET

Updated 09/02/2009 ET


(9) If you like
Medicare, you'll love national health care, which will just extend Medicare's
benefits to everyone.


See, here's
the irony in the BS above; most of us on the left truly WISH this was an
extension of Medicare; it'd be easier to sell to the American people if it was.


No liberal
is saying this, because it's not true, which makes her a liar. The reform bills
do extend many of the payment rules currently found under Medicare to the
public insurance plan, but it doesn't actually extend Medicare.


Hey — I have an
idea: How about we make everyone in America a multimillionaire by pulling
Bernie Madoff out of prison and asking him to invest all our money! Both
Medicare and Bernie Madoff's investment portfolio are bankrupt because they
operate on a similar financial model known as a "Ponzi scheme." These
always seem to run fabulously well — until the money runs out.


another lie, But this is a very important one, because it sounds logical to a
lot of people, so pay attention to what I'm about to tell you.


It is true
that Medicare will run out of money sometime on the next 20-40 years or so,
depending on which "expert" you ask, but ONLY if we DO NOTHING to fix
the system.  Medicare itself is sound; it's the system that's dragging it
down. And that's the key. PRIVATE INSURERS are the reason Medicare is running
out of money.


Once more;
PRIVATE insurance is causing Medicare to run out of money. This is a very
important concept when you get around to arguing with your relatives and
friends about this issue.


will run out of money because of the hyperinflation in the health care
industry. You see, as more people become uninsured, and more private insurance
companies refuse claims, more bills go unpaid. Medical care providers have to
make their money, so they have to raise prices to cover their losses. (Last
time I checked, 99% of the money received by most hospitals is from insurance,
but on average, 30% of bills will not be paid.) They raise their prices for
everyone, not just the private insurance companies. But private insurers can
raise their premiums to cover the increase in cost for procedures they won't
pay anyway, but Medicare is paid for with a payroll tax, so they can't very
well just raise the tax every year to cover their increased costs.


Got it?
Medicare is being broken because private insurers are refusing to sell policies
to people who will use them. It's the "market" that's killing
Medicare; it's not anything Medicare is doing wrong.


comparing a very successful government program wherein the participants get
more for their money than most insured under 65 get from their private
insurance company, to a crooked scheme that bilked people out of billions? How
desperate is that? Medicare is one of the most reliable and most sound programs
in the history of the federal government. The only demographic group in this
country that is doing as well or better than the rest of the world is the
over-65 demo. And if the inflation rate was in line with the inflation rate in
the rest of the economy, its current funding set up would keep it solvent for
most of the rest of this century and beyond.

Madoff's victims if they would rather have invested in Medicare.


Not only is Medicare
bankrupt, but it is extremely limited in whom and what it covers. If Medicare
were a private insurer, it would be illegal in many states for failing to cover
hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, chiropractic care, marriage counseling,
aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery.


doesn't cover hearing aids, although it probably should. But it does cover
podiatry, as long as a procedure is medically necessary. That's the key;
"medically necessary."  The rest are elective, and I just did a
quick survey of liberal states and couldn't find any mandates to require any of
the above, including hearing aids. In other words, true to form, she's lying.


(Just for
the record, any public health insurance should cover acupuncture and
chiropractic care as part of a regimen of preventive care. It should also
include holistic treatment. Our dismissal of alternative forms of health care
in favor of surgery and pills for pretty much every ailment is absolutely
insane. But that's just my opinion.)


Moreover, Medicare
payments aren't enough to pay the true cost of those medical services it does
cover. With Medicare undercutting payments to hospitals and doctors for
patients 65 and older, what keeps the American medical system afloat are
private individuals who are not covered by Medicare paying full freight
(and then some). That's why you end up with a $10 aspirin on your hospital


The above
is just completely ridiculous.


If you're
running a business, who would you rather have as a payer? Someone who pays all
of his bills quickly and on time, but who only pays about 90-95% of the price
you want, or a customer who pays 115-120% of your requested price, but who
never pays on time, and who forces you to waste 20% of your administrative
budget chasing them down for payment?

Yes, it's
true that Medicare doesn't pay as much, overall, as private insurance. But ask any
hospital administrator which they prefer to deal with. The problem isn't that
Medicare undercuts their payments to caregivers. In fact,  as I just
explained, hospitals have to adjust their prices up to make up for losses
caused by private insurance companies. But whether or not hospitals make money
from Medicare patients depends on how you read the statistics, and which ones
you choose to ignore. It's simply not as simple as Annie here would like you to
is an excellent explanation
of why Medicare
underpayments are not as bad as the wingnuts would have you believe.


In fact,
even according to the American Hospital Association, the total
"underpayment" from Medicare and Medicaid is $32 billion, and 42% of
hospitals make money on Medicare and Medicaid, which would indicate the problem
might be the hospitals themselves. So, yes, this is a problem. But given that we're
currently paying $2.7 trillion for health care in this country, that can't be
the biggest problem. The biggest problem won't be the $32 billion in
Medicare/Medicaid underpayments next year; it'll be coming up with the $350
billion in increased health care costs that will hit us next year, if the
inflation rate continues to be 12% or more.


I would
also point out that Medicare payments are set by statute. The House has only
had a Democratic majority for the last 3 years, and the Senate is experiencing
its first significant Democratic majority this year. In other words, it's not
the program itself that causes the underpayments, it's Congress. Why might that
be, do you think? it couldn't be that whole "starve the beast"
mentality neocons seem to like, would it?


National health care
will eliminate everything outside of Medicare, which is the only thing that
allows Medicare to exist.


No it
won't. The current reforms won't eliminate anything. 


Obviously, therefore,
it's preposterous for Democrats to say national health care will merely extend
Medicare to the entire population. This would be like claiming you're designing
an apartment building in which every apartment will be a penthouse. Everyone
likes the penthouses, so why not have a building in which every apartment is a


It doesn't work: What
makes the penthouse the penthouse is all the other floors below. An
"all-penthouse" building is a blueprint that could make sense only to
someone who has never run a business and has zero common sense, i.e., a


That's why
we don't say it, Annie. It WOULD be preposterous to say national health
insurance would extend Medicare to the entire population, because it doesn't do
that.  What is being created here is a public insurance OPTION that is a
lot LIKE Medicare, but better in some ways, not as good in others. And it also
works side-by-side with private insurance, thus eliminating nothing.


But isn't
it interesting to see her referring to Medicare as the "penthouse,"
eh? Wait; didn't she just imply that it's a shitty program that was about to go
under because it was some sort of Ponzi scheme? Is she comparing criminals to


dissonance is the rule with these folks. 


(10) National health
care won't cover illegal aliens — as the president has twice claimed in recent
radio appearances.


Technically, what
Obama said is that the bill isn't "designed" to give health insurance
to illegal aliens. (That bill, the "Health Insurance for Illegal Aliens
Act of 2009," was still being drafted by Ted Kennedy at the time of his
death, may he rest in peace.)


But unless the
various government bureaucracies dispensing health care are specifically
required by law to ask about citizenship status, illegals will be covered. We
can't even get employers and police to inquire about citizenship status, but
liberals assure us that doctors will?


This was
written before his speech before Congress, and the not-embarrassed-enough dipshit
Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst. But his outburst was not only uncalled-for,
it was also wrong, as was Annie's ridiculous claim. This is from the bill
itself (page 143):



Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal
payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not
lawfully present in the United States.


In other
words, Annie is wrong. The bill DOES forbid payments for health insurance. I
mean, I guess it's possible that, should an undocumented alien have the money
for it, they could buy insurance from an employer who's paying them enough
money to do so. But the fact of the matter is, that employer would be breaking
the law. And short of that, what is the federal government supposed to do?


Well, read
what she says again, more closely this time.


She's not
actually advocating that undocumented immigrants be denied insurance. (And make
no mistake; despite the wingnuts' paranoia to the contrary, all the current
reform deals with is the insurance system.) She wants to turn DOCTORS into
Border Patrol agents, and determine a patient's immigration status before
diagnosing and/or treating. In other words, in Annie's sick world, if someone
calls an ambulance for you, the EMTs should make you prove you're here legally
before laying a hand on you. Is that the kind of country we want to be? If you
can't prove you're a citizen, you get to die if you're sick or injured? Not
only that, but if an undocumented immigrant is here and develops something
contagious, how STUPID would it be to turn them away without treatment, so that
they can infect everyone they come in contact with?


And if
you're attacked in your home while wearing pajamas, and you're badly injured by
the intruder, how would you feel about the prospect of having to provide those
people proof of your citizenship status before they're allowed to sew you back


and stupid is no way to go through life, Annie. The silliest aspect of all of
this is that Annie here seems to think of herself as a "Christian."
Tell us, Annie; would Jesus approve of a proposal to force people to prove they
"belong" within the artificial borders of this man-made
"country" in order to receive life-saving medical care?


And by the way — as
with the abortion exclusion — the Democrats expressly rejected amendments that
would have required proof of residency status to receive national health care.


There is a
very important distinction to be made here, and it's this sophistry that Annie
uses to keep her idiotic minions following her blindly and repeating everything
she says.  I said it before, and it's worth repeating, whenever a debate
opponent starts with the current bills as health CARE reform. The current
reform does not deal with health care at all. It creates a national health


to this bill, the vast majority of newly insured individuals will receive their
insurance through their employer. Employers must verify the status of all
workers, right? The only undocumented residents who might receive insurance
will be those who don't get insurance through their employer, and have enough
money to pay the premiums 100% out of pocket.


Like I
said; Coulter here wants doctors to deny treatment; this has nothing to do with


Still not convinced?
Day after day, The New York Times has been neurotically asserting that
national health care won't cover illegal aliens (without ever explaining how
precisely it will exclude illegal aliens).


So far, just this
week, these Kim Jong Il-style pronouncements have appeared in the Treason Times:


"Illegal immigrants will be covered. (Myth)" — Katharine Q. Seelye,
"Myth vs. Fact vs. Other," The New York Times, Sept. 2, 2009


"(Sen. Jim DeMint) fueled speculation that a health care overhaul would
cover illegal immigrants, although specific language says it would not."
— Katharine Q. Seelye, "Fighting Health Care Overhaul, and Proud of
It," The New York Times, Aug. 31, 2009


"'Page 50: All non-U.S. citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
free health care services.'
… The falsehoods include (that italic
statement)." — Michael Mason, "Vetting Claims in a Memo," The
New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009


"But that would not help illegal immigrants. Contrary to some reports,
they would not be eligible for any new health coverage under any of the health
overhaul plans circulating in Congress." — Duff Wilson, "Race,
Ethnicity and Care," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009


The last time the Times
engaged in such frantic perseveration about a subject was when the paper was
repeatedly insisting that Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong had a solid case
against the Duke lacrosse players.


By August 2006, every
single person in the United States, including the stripper, knew the stripper's
claim of "gang rape" was a lie. That was when Duff Wilson — quoted
above — co-wrote the Times' infamous cover story on the Duke case,
titled: "Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers." No


So, let’s
get this straight. We're supposed to believe proven liar Annie Coulter over
three distinguished journalists from the New York Times? THREE of them, saying
the same thing independently of each other.


It never
occurs to Annie that all of those articles are a product of journalists doing
what they are actually supposed to to, and don't do often enough, and that is
to present the truth. And the attempted smear of Duff Wilson is unfortunate.
This is something wingnuts always pull, and you can't let them. Facts are
facts, and opinions are not facts.


single person in the United States" didn't actually "KNOW" the
claim of gang rape was a lie. Most of us who followed the story suspected it
might have been a lie, and frankly, the whole case smelled like last month's
gym socks. But the only people who KNEW it was bullshit were those people who
were actually THERE that night. And nothing in the files, according to Wilson,
prove what actually happened that night.That was his point with the article.


When I say
OJ Simpson killed his wife and Ron Goldman, that's not a statement of fact;
it's a statement of opinion, since I wasn't there and didn't see anything.


Annie's a
trained lawyer; she knows she's full of shit when she says she and everyone
else who wasn’t there that night KNOW that no gang rape occurred. On the other
hand, Duff Wilson is telling the truth when he says he doesn't know what
happened., and that the files don't tell us anything more than that. That's
what makes Coulter a charlatan; she knows she's full of crap, and she says it


(11) Obama has
dropped his demand for the ironically titled "public option" (i.e.,
government-run health care), which taxpayers will not have an
"option" to pay for or not.


thing; she finally hits on something liberals have said occasionally, but she
augments it with complete and utter crap.


Obama has
NEVER demanded the "public option" over and above all else. His
demands are more "mission oriented" than that. His demand is for
universal insurance coverage, including those people who won't be covered by an
employer mandate. He prefers the public option, as do I, but if someone were to
come along with a more brilliant idea, anyone with an open mind would be open
to it. (I still can't get my head around how that can be done using anything
"private," non-profit or not.)


Of course,
Annie proves below just why she can't get her head around the concept; she has
no idea how markets work. None. (see
episode of this series


Liberals never, ever
drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. "Abortion" becomes
"choice," "communist" becomes "progressive,"
"communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic
republic" and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack


It doesn't matter if
liberals start calling national health care a "chocolate chip puppy"
or "ice cream sunset" — if the government is subsidizing it, then
the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on
the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay
for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more
government control when partial government control creates a mess.


Which happens to be
exactly what liberals are doing right now.

You'll find out more from my upcoming piece,
"How to Argue With a Right Winger," but suffice it to say, when they
reach the point when they start ranting incoherently, you've won the argument.
This is why I tell progressives to stop worrying. Within a few weeks, Congress
will be passing major health insurance reform, and the wingnuts know it.


But she's
also wrong. MOST of the people getting health care under the proposed plan will
have the option of choosing a private insurance company for coverage. And
except for mandating a minimum level of acceptable coverage, the government
does NOT call the shots on those people, even under this plan. They simply
won't be able to collect obscene profits by NOT providing coverage. 


In any
case, the government already subsidizes the private insurance industry, both
indirectly and directly. Medicare patients need supplemental private insurance,
which is actually one hell of a windfall for those companies, because they get
to charge seniors a few hundred dollars a month to cover the few things
Medicare doesn't cover, and to pay deductibles and co-pays. Plus, like I said;
Medicare pays the inflated cost of health care, and they're inflated largely
because bills don't get paid, and bills don't get paid because private
insurance doesn't cover anyone who might actually get sick.


All these
bills do is make insurance companies accountable, and assure you that the
health care you pay for when you pay premiums will actually be there when you
need it. Right wingers can't handle "accountability."


By the way,
did you notice the "comedic" way she claims WE liberals change the
names of things? This is from the ideology that calls itself
"pro-life," despite the fact that they are in favor of capital
punishment, and seem to have no problem letting people die if they don't have
the money to pay for medical treatment, and the ideology that refers to the
estate tax as the "death tax" and has more names for Obama than they
have IQ points.


Now… on to the next
part of this silliness. 


Lies About National Healthcare: Fourth in a Series

By Ann Coulter


Posted 09/09/2009 ET

Updated 09/09/2009 ET


(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


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.


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.


First of
all, note that the statement she attributes to Obama is actually true. The
bills before Congress make health insurance portable. It is not portable,
currently.And it has nothing to do with "government intrusion" into
anything. In fact, it's caused by a complete lack of government regulation
where it should be.

If you have
been paying into your insurance for 30 years, to the tune of half a million
dollars, and you lose your job or your company goes under, that money is lost,
unless you can afford your COBRA payments, which is actually quite rare.

if you've been paying for 30 years, and the insurance company decides you're
too big a risk this year, they can just drop you.

You can be
paying into your insurance for 30 years, be diagnosed with a congenital heart
condition that you had no idea about previously, and the insurance company can
keep the money and refuse to pay for the $50,000 triple bypass you need in
order to stay healthy.

I'd like
Annie, or any wingnut, to explain to me how those situations are the result of
any sort of government over-regulation.


But this
gets sillier. Watch.


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


In one
paragraph, she makes herself look completely ignorant of both market economics
and the current state of the "free market."


I'll start
by dismissing everything after car and home insurance, because insurance is a
consumer product unlike any other. If I buy a car, I get a car. If I buy a
home, I get a mortgage the use of the home as long as I'm paying that mortgage,
and eventually, the home itself.  Ditto (right wingers love that word) all
other consumer products and services. Got that? If I buy a spatula, I get a
spatula. They are completely irrelevant to insurance.

I suppose,
if a door-to-door salesman knocked on Annie's door, and offered a policy
whereby all she had to do was pay $20 a month, and anytime she broke a spatula
they'd send her a new one, she'd be all over that. The rest of us are a little
smarter, though.


is a contract in which the company with whom you contract promises to pay for
products or services provided by others. As such, ALL OTHER insurance is
heavily regulated by state and federal governments. In the case of health
insurance, it's moderately regulated at the state level, but damn near
unregulated at the federal level.


There are
no regulations in place that prevent health insurance companies operating all
over the country. The right wingers seem to have glommed onto this talking
point, but there is no truth to it. Yes, they must assent to regulation by
state insurance commissioners, but strangely, homeowners insurance and car
insurance companies don't seem to have this problem.

I'll put it
this way. Register your car in your home state, and then try to buy insurance
in another, and watch what happens.


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.


It's just
not that simple. If you are paying for your own health insurance premiums, you
can add them to your medical expenses. If, combined, they come to more than
7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income, they are deductible. If you are running
your own business, and you are paying for health insurance to all of your
employees, including yourself, they are deductible. In other words, they are
deductible in almost all cases, unless the person paying them is pretty well


Say you're
single, and you're paying $600 per month for your own health insurance. You
have to make $95,000 AGI per year, for them to NOT be deductible.  If you
have a family policy and you're paying $1200 per month, you'd have to have an
AGI of more than $170,000 to not be able to deduct them. See the sophistry?
Most people who pay for their own health insurance can deduct it. Only a very
small percentage would not be able to. And if you own your own business,
they're an expense; deduct them.


By the way,
Annie won't tell you this, but it was her hero Ronald Reagan who killed the
health insurance deduction for all, when he championed tax reform on 1986, and
replaced most deductions with a "Standard Deduction" that screws a
lot of people.


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.


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."


insurers of ALL types are regulated by all states.


Funny she
should mention New Jersey, though. Did you know New Jersey doesn't allow health
insurance companies to turn you down if you apply? They can't deny coverage for
anyone based on "pre-existing conditions" or any other criteria. They
also must charge everyone the same, and they cannot deny coverage for medically
necessary treatment. (If the "boob job" is determined to be medically
necessary by a licensed physician, then yes, it is covered. Gotta love it when
they forbid bureaucrats from getting into the doctor-patient process…) The only
thing missing from the New Jersey health insurance system is a public option.
But strangely, they have at least a half dozen insurance companies with a
strong presence in the state, and no one has pulled out yet. That would seem to
undercut her contention that "too many regulations" is a


Plus, think of all
the paper a one-page bill would save! Don't Democrats care about saving the
planet anymore? Go green!


(13) The "public
option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health


Wow, in how
many ways is the above a lie?


First of
all, as I keep pointing out, the only thing these bills deal with is the
INSURANCE system. Therefore, any "triggers" talked about would have
to do with full insurance coverage, and not a "takeover of health


And I may
be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most liberals are against triggers, anyway. I
know I don't have anything nice to say about them. In my opinion, any useful
triggers have already been met. The time for farting around is over. It's time
to do this.


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"?


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?


Again with
the cognitive dissonance. Like I said, it has to be in the DNA.


There is no
"free market" in the health insurance system right now. These bills
create a situation that is as close to a "free market" as you will
ever get.


But why
does she (and frankly, most wingnuts) refer to "the government" as
something other than "the people," anyway? What does she think all of
those town halls were about, at least as regards the people who were not sent
there by Coulter and her ilk to stir up trouble. The PEOPLE are proposing these
reforms, and the PEOPLE are deciding we've had enough, and the PEOPLE are demanding
that health insurers be responsible.


You see,
Annie, Congress, when run by Democrats, does what the PEOPLE want it to do.
Sometimes they fall a little short, but they do try. It's only when Republicans
are in charge that the government says, to paraphrase Republican VP Dick
Cheney, "So?"


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.


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").


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.


Once more,
Annie here demonstrates her inability to understand what a "free
market" actually is, and why health insurance isn't one. There is nothing
in the above three paragraphs that has any corollary in the health insurance


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.


I've been a
fan of Keith Olbermann's since he did sports for Channel 5 in Los Angeles, and
I can tell Annie, this guy has an ego a mile wide, but he's never full of crap.
He simply does not lie. At times I disagree with his conclusions, but I can't
argue with his facts. I wish that could be said of any wingnut.  I will
volunteer to pull his hair, however, if you'll agree to have someone pull up
your skirt to see if it's just the Adam's apple that makes us wonder.


(14) National health
care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.


I dealt
with the illegal immigrants BS above. And I caught FactCheck perpetrating a
similar falsehood with regard to abortion.


And why do
I have to keep correcting the falsehood that these bills deal with national
HEALTH CARE. They deal with national health INSURANCE? Oh yeah, it's because
she's trying to lie, without it looking as much like a lie.


Annie, but there is only one set of facts here.


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.


Has anyone
noticed that I deal with what Annie here actually SAYS, and I don't just
dismiss her because it comes from her vile keyboard? It's because facts are
important when it comes to debates about policy. It's intellectually dishonest
to simply claim that everything coming from Howard Dean and Jan Shakowsky is a
lie. At the very least, show some examples. Not that they would be true, but at
least it would be an attempt.


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?)


This is
right wing sophistry at its finest.  The reason the illegal immigrant
amendment was voted down, you simple-minded cow, is because it was unnecessary.
Section 246 forbids the use of federal money to give undocumented immigrants
insurance coverage.


And the
Carr Amendment actually WAS passed, and mimics the language in the last several
Hyde Amendments, which  prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion.
It's pointless and redundant, but Democrats voted for it (it was passed by
voice vote). Therefore, it's a LIE to claim that no amendment banning the use
of insurance funds for abortion has been passed.


But it
really pisses me off when she goes off on Planned Parenthood like that.


folks; these right wing idiots talk about being "pro-life," but the
fact is, they do NOT practice what they preach. Planned Parenthood does a hell
of a lot more to prevent abortions than any anti-choice group out there, and
they perform all sorts of services that have nothing to do with abortion. And
like every other health care concern out there, they are taking gas, just
trying to keep up with the system. If more people could go to the doctor, a hell
of a lot of stress would be lifted from groups like Planned Parenthood. Planned
Parenthood acts as a de facto primary care medical concern to an awful lot of
people who don't have insurance, and can't afford to go to a regular doctor.

In other
words, Planned Parenthood is in favor of national health care because it's the
right thing to do, and because they'd like to go back to their original
purpose, which was to provide family planning advice and counseling. The
implication that Planned Parenthood would only favor national health insurance
because they want more abortions is beyond insulting.


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


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 — 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.

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?


There are
already laws against spending federal money for abortions. There is a section
of the bill itself that forbids the system from insuring undocumented


Doesn't it
seem strange that the same moron who's always complaining about the length of
the bill, is now complaining because it's not redundant enough?


Comments are closed.