Me vs. Coulter: Wherein I Kick Her Ass, Part II

Annie Coulter promised us that she'd come up with more "lies" we
liberals always tell, and she hasn't disappoint. In fact, she's promised eight
more sets after this one. That's going to take some imagination…


for everyone involved, Annie is such a practiced liar, it should be no problem
coming up with them. Look at the BS she's pulled in this one. It's breathtaking
how much of this crap her anus can hold. She should really think about more
fiber in her diet, because the stuff coming out of there isn't particularly
solid… just stinky.


those of you who'd like to follow along, I already
her first crap-laden article about "liberal lies," and
as long as she'll keep making them up, I'll keep knocking them down…



Liberal Lies About
National Health Care: Second in a Series (Collect All 10!)


Ann Coulter

08/26/2009 ET

08/26/2009 ET


the Democrats getting slaughtered — or should I say, "receiving mandatory
end-of-life counseling" — in the debate over national health care, the
Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA
interrogators for talking tough to three of the world's leading Muslim


I been asked, I would have advised them against reinforcing the idea that
Democrats are hysterical bed-wetters who can't be trusted with national defense
while also reminding people of the one thing everyone still admires about
President George W. Bush.


This is how loony the right wing
is, folks. They can't just stick to the subject and make stuff up about that.
No, they have to make things up about "liberals" or
"Democrats" and try to smear us before they even get into their main


There's actually a strategy of
sorts to this type of rant. See, people like Coulter are preaching to the
choir, and the choir is largely on the verge of cerebral atrophy. These people
don't think. But to the average right winger, the mere appearance of such
statements in print makes it credible, and gives them cause to repeat it, even
if its complete and utter crap. In other words, Coulter is trying to kill three
birds with one stone.


The Democrats aren't getting
slaughtered. Do you know how I know about that? Because they have to lie their
asses off to make their point. Since when does a winner have to lie to get
their point across?


No one has "indicted" any
CIA interrogators; an investigation has been ordered, and that is all. And if
the Obama Administration was trying to use Eric Holder's decision to
investigate to deflect attention away from health care, they picked a strange
day to do so; the Friday before he went on vacation, while Congress was in


And please, no one with IQ above 50 admires George W Bush
for anything.


I guess the Democrats really want to change the subject. Thus, here is
Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.


There will be no rationing under national health care.


who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it. (Hey, look — I have
two-thirds of a syllogism!)


I'll say it; there will be far less
"rationing" of basic, necessary health care under the current health
care reform plan than there is now. But she's lying when she says that liberals
say there will be no "rationing" under health insurance reform. And
she will actually unwittingly prove it for me. 


Like I said, cognitive dissonance
is part of the wingnut DNA.


promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short,
"The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with
most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an
additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs … without ever
denying a single medical treatment!


Stop there. Notice how she's
defining "rationing." If that's the definition of
"rationing," then every insurance plan that denies payment for a boob
job or a hangnail removal would be "guilty" of rationing. If a woman
has terminal cancer that is advancing through her body, and her insurance denies
coverage for a liver transplant, according to little Annie Coulter here, that
constitutes "rationing."


So, that proves the status of her
argument as an absolute straw man, which is a polite way of saying
"lie." I challenge her to cite for me one liberal who has EVER
suggested that there would be no rationing under the current health insurance
reform bills AS SHE DEFINES IT.


I'm about as pro-health care reform
as it gets, as you can tell by this blog, but I would never claim that the
public health insurance option would cover every single medical treatment in existence. 


on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually
help you lose weight! But first, let's go over the specs for my perpetual
motion machine — and it uses no energy, so it's totally green!


you newcomers to planet Earth, everything that does not exist in infinite
supply is rationed. In a free society, people are allowed to make their own
rationing choices.


people get new computers every year; some every five years. Some White House
employees get new computers and then vandalize them on the way out the door
when their candidate loses. (These are the same people who will be making
decisions about your health care.)


one person might say, "I want to live it up and spend freely now! No one
lives forever." (That person is a Democrat.) And another might say,
"I don't go to restaurants, I don't go to the theater, and I don't buy
expensive designer clothes because I've decided to pour all my money into my


national health care, you'll have no choice about how to ration your own health
care. If your neighbor isn't entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are
you. At least that's how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon
general, Dr. Conrad Murray.


See how she just blew her own
argument? She redefines the term "rationing." What she describes
above is not "rationing." What she decides is consumerism. Some
people choose to lease a new car every three years, while others will pay
theirs off and drive it for ten years or more. That's "consumer


Rationing would be if the
government refused to allow you to buy a car more than once every five years.
Ask anyone who was alive during World War II the difference between rationing
and being a thrifty consumer. Hell; if Coulter was awake in the early 1970s,
she'll remember the gas
rationing that occurred during the Arab oil embargo.
That's when you could only buy a certain amount of gasoline on certain days, based
on the first letter of your license plate, and were limited to a certain amount
of gas each time.


That's rationing, and there is
absolutely nothing in any of these bills that creates anything resembling that.


Putting in minimal standards, and
ordering coverage of everything that falls under those categories without
exception, as the current health insurance reform bills do, is not rationing. In fact, to a rational person, it's the opposite of rationing. A
system in which private insurance companies routinely deny claims that they
deem to be "too expensive?" That's rationing. A private insurance company that denies coverage (refuses to pay) for treatment because of a "pre-existing condition" is "rationing" care.


It seems to me, if you're going to
write a column that is seen in hundreds of newspapers and make a claim like the
one above, you should at least know what terms mean.


National health care will reduce costs.


claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200
toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.


She starts with a bald-faced lie
and an exaggeration.


First of all, the government that's
in office right now did not "give us" the $500 hammer and the $1200
toilet seat, not that they were ever that high. The Clinton Administration, led
by Al Gore, actually eliminated those expensive items, when Reagan and Bush did


And can we get real about the price
of postage? It's really not that high. Does she really think a private company
could deliver a letter from the middle of Manhattan to the wilds of Montana in
three days or less for less than half a dollar?


last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government
needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil
industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada — presidents Richard Nixon and
Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau — imposed price controls on oil.


night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to
oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long
angry lines at gas stations.


may recall this era as "the Carter years."


This is a major case of irrelevant
historical revisionism. Right wingers just can't handle history as it actually
occurred, so they make it up, and count on their minions to spread it around, like so much fertilizer.


First of all, Richard Nixon was
absolutely not a liberal, by any stretch of the term. HE started what Coulter
is referring to, which was called a "banking program."


In 1974, the price of oil was about
to soar well above $1 per gallon, and Nixon was trying to keep his head above water, politically
speaking (like I have to tell you this) and such highly priced gasoline would have
completely destroyed his presidential legacy. So, he devised a system in which
the federal government subsidized oil companies to keep the price of gasoline
artificially low during a time of double-digit inflation.


The price controls were not on oil;
they were on gasoline only. And while there were two periods during the 1970s
in which there was gas rationing and long lines, one came BEFORE the banking
system was created, and the second, far shorter period came in 1979, when the
price controls were ended. Oil companies and gasoline distributors manufactured
that shortage to maximize profits.


Jimmy Carter, who was relatively
liberal, ELIMINATED the "price controls," which weren't so much price controls as
subsidies; the same kinds of subsidies that Republicans like to use to keep
prices artificially low in areas they favor. It's the reason our sodas are
sweetened by corn, rather than cane sugar. 


the white knight Ronald Reagan became president and immediately deregulated oil
prices. The magic of the free market — aka the "profit motive" —
produced surges in oil exploration and development, causing prices to plummet.
Prices collapsed and remained low for the next 20 years, helping to fuel the
greatest economic expansion in our nation's history.


may recall this era as "the Reagan years."


Pure right wing bullshit.


As I said, the only "price
controls" in place during the Carter years were on gasoline, and they were
lifted by Carter himself. Carter also put in place a mandatory conservation
plan that was reducing oil consumption by nearly 5% every year. During the
Carter years, we saw our importation of foreign oil drop to its lowest level
since the 1960s.


And prices plummeted because the
oil industry itself crashed. It was not a good thing. In fact, it was a much smaller version of what happened last year with mortgage prices.


By the way, have you noticed that
she hasn't even addressed the "lie" she claims we liberals are


National health care WILL reduce
costs. That's not a lie. If it was a lie, the private insurance companies wouldn't be against it to such a degree. See, insurance companies make more money when costs are high. Every time their costs increase $1, it creates cover, so that they can raise premiums $1.20.

The concept of full coverage cutting cost is actually just common sense. Simply covering everyone
means those with insurance will no
longer be paying the bills for those people without insurance. Plus, people will
be able to see a doctor before their condition becomes critical enough to need
emergency or urgent care. Covering everyone will also pretty much eliminate the
rampant inflation in the health care industry.


not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces
vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is


No matter how many times you say
it, they will never understand… health insurance has nothing to do with
"free market" economics.


National health care won't cover abortions.


are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care
bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could
possibly fail to cover abortions.


don't think that requires elaboration, but here it is:


being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are
strikingly nonspecific. (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren't able to
squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save


The bill is non-specific because
all bills are non-specific. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the
creation of a health insurance system, not to create the system itself. And
1000 pages really isn't as long as people think. In paperback book form it'd
bee 300 pages tops.


are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don't include the words
"abortion," "death panels" or "three-year waits for
hip-replacement surgery."


proves nothing — the bills set up unaccountable, unelected federal commissions
to fill in the horrible details. Notably, the Democrats rejected an amendment
to the bill that would specifically deny coverage for abortions.


the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is
covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it's within the regulatory
authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.


we'll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing,
"Well, I'm pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover
abortions, I never would have voted for it!"


I already dealt with this in
another post when I fact checked, so I'll just say the following two words:


Hyde Amendment.


Unless the Hyde Amendment is
altered severely, there is no way this bill could possibly authorize government
funding for abortions. It's not possible to change the rules with a simple majority vote, and the rules require the Hyde Amendment be attached to any appropriations bill that would cover health care. Therefore, without a 2/3 majority, Democrats are not going to kill the Hyde Amendment anytime soon, and it's not likely to be altered enough to "allow" abortions.


wonder Democrats want to remind us that they can't be trusted with foreign
policy. They want us to forget that they can't be trusted with domestic policy.


And the last eight years reminded
us that Republicans can't be trusted with either foreign  domestic policy. Everything the GOP touches
turns to crap. That's why my son is currently stationed in Kandahar, as part of
a war that should have been over 8 years ago, and we're going to spend the next
3-4 years trying to get ourselves out of this damned recession.

In other words, if Annie's going to
try to shoot at  the Democratic Party, rhetorically speaking, she might check to see if her
own side has any bullets.


How gullible does one have to be to
buy this level of bullshit? Balls with no brains is no way to go through life,
right wingers.



Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The PCTC Blog

One comment

  1. Even without your analysis to guide us, the lack of facts and fanciful what-if-you-trusted the-government hyperbole is obvious and atrocious.
    Does she trust anyone? Every man for themselves? What if we asked about the free-market thinking that got us into our financial collapse a year ago?

Comments are closed.