Posted on 6, Feb | 
Posted by Jim PontilloFor those of you who didn’t get to witness the spectacle where Ann Coulter (America’s conservative firebrand extraordinaire) proclaimed she was going to campaign for Hillary if McCain becomes our nominee, on Fox last week, you missed quite a display; and it was a hoot! Even the Fox staff behind the cameras couldn’t contain its laughter.
Devoted readers of this column know Ann Coulter has been its subject on more than one occasion. My infatuation starts because she’s good looking (I have priorities), but she also flies broadly into the politically correct dogma and chastises it every chance she gets. That I quite enjoy.Â
Plenty of good looking conservative commentators (Michelle Malkin, Debbie Schlussel, Laura Ingraham, Star Parker, etc.) offer scathing rebuke for liberals and their retarded policies, but none do it quite like Ann. Let me give you an example:Â
July 26, 2004
“Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazoned with the “F-word” are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.â€
“Now that’s funny, and I don’t care who you are!â€Â Sorry Larry.
I’m sure this latest John McCain rant jacked her Amazon book sales.
It’s bad enough idiot liberals jump on the hate Ann bandwagon like dogs after the proverbial “bitch in heatâ€, but when conservatives start bewailing, it leaves you scratching your head. Don’t you bozos know she’s selling books?
Conservatives must have questionable IQ’s dispersed across its ranks just like liberals do.
If you look at a graph tracking visitors to Ann Coulter’s website you’ll see it looks like a damn lightning storm; every time she opens her trap she gets a spike. Whether she gets book sales or not, we need somebody reminding America when our politicians go off track and Ann’s consternation over John McCain’s policy initiatives and his choice in congressional allies is heeded by anyone who understands conservative ideology.
McCain-Feingold is an egregious assault on free speech, and impairs liberty.
McCain’s opposition to “water-boarding†ties our intelligence official’s hands and denies them tools which will avert future terrorist attacks.
McCain’s a global warming advocate for crying out loud, that’s really whacky. Not long ago liberals were screaming about AIDS in Africa killing everyone on the continent; now that it has been proven to be overblown hype no one wants to talk about it. When I was a kid in school global-cooling was the big problem. Five or ten years from now when global-warming is unequivocally shown to be bull, no one will talk about it and Democrats will never be held accountable for their mendacity. (Only conservatives are ever held to a standard.) McCain’s support of this dubious “scientific†prognostication is ridiculous.
McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. That by itself raises the ire of anyone who understands what liberty and freedom are about. McCain suggests that aggressive interrogation techniques are offensive to our moral foundations and heritage, yet I guess absconding with an individual’s compensation for work and investment is reasonable.
In spite of all this, the most lasting legacy a president leaves is his choice in Supreme Court Justices. Hillary Clinton will definitely appoint ones who believe the Constitution is a “living document†which needs to be “interpretedâ€, where the right to bear arms shall not be infringed means, the government must take our guns away.
I’m not sure McCain will be much better than Clinton in his appointments, but I’m willing to risk it.
As for you Ann, if you really have lost your marbles and have forgotten how the first Clinton administration illegally prostituted the office of the presidency for personal gains and donations to the Democratic Party, traded missile technology to China for campaign contributions, abused government power by having faithful White House employees harassed by IRS audit, and promoted the whole Travelgate debacle by replacing entrenched loyal travel office workers with Clinton cronies, not to mention Hillary’s involvement in questionable cattle futures, Whitewater, Vince Foster, etc., I’ve got a book you need to read:
It was written by a bright gal I know:
Â
UPDATE: Ann’s column this week has a conclusion that’s tough to argue with.
Â
Copyright 2008Â Jim Pontillo
Comments
Crumbunist
on February 6, 2008, 8:17 am
I think the reason I hate Ann Coulter comes from comments like
“[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.” As if the entire world exists by virtue of America’s good will, and
“These people can’t even wrap up genocide. We’ve been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven’t finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It’s like genocide by committee. Who’s running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA? This is truly a war in which we have absolutely no interest.” As if liberty, human rights and defense from tyrants are not American values, and
“[Princess Diana's] children knew she’s sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it’s the definition of ‘not a good mother.’ … Is everyone just saying here that it’s okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?”…”[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional – I’ve never had bulimia! I’ve never had an affair! I’ve never had a divorce! So I don’t think she’s better than I am.” As if having extramarital sex is the worst thing possible in the history of time and counters various humanitarian missions, and
“It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 – except Goldwater in ’64 – the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.”
I’m convinced that she’s a post-op transsexual, and her picture doesn’t convince me otherwise. [Hot? Really? Maybe you should catch up with the career of Joey Arias.]
Oh right, and she thought Canada fought in the Vietnam War, and used that to justify Canada-bashing in the face of not joining the Iraq War.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=84EjWeTMBZs
Crumbunist
on February 6, 2008, 8:22 am
‘Hillary Clinton will definitely appoint ones who believe the Constitution is a “living document†which needs to be “interpreted‒
As opposed to the Bush Administration interpreting “the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended” as “please send people to secret prisons forever”?
Matt
on February 6, 2008, 10:24 am
“McCain’s opposition to “water-boarding†ties our intelligence official’s hands and denies them tools which will avert future terrorist attacks.”
It is this sort of half-arsed rubbish that makes me embarrassed to be a Conservative at times. Can you not see how much this contradicts every great principle the US stands for?! And you think Hillary would ‘interpret’ the constitution badly….
“Five or ten years from now when global-warming is unequivocally shown to be bull…”
Good luck with proving it is undeniably ‘bull’. How you can deny overwhelming scientific evidence is amazing but then again people of your kind aren’t particularly interested in the facts…Oh and by the way millions of people in Africa are dying from Aids just because your local shock-jock isn’t putting it top of his agenda doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
William Rooks
on February 6, 2008, 12:32 pm
Well Matt, I’ll tell ya. Here In Wisconsin we are having more snowfall this winter than at any time since records were kept. We will ultimately have more than 80 inches of snowfall this year.
Global warming? You gotta be kidding.
Twenty years ago your big brains were telling us we were due for another ice age. Now, if you were to tell me THAT this year, I might actually buy it – until I realize that the earth’s climate goes in cycles, and self-adjusts itself. How arrogant is man that he thinks he can control anything like climate and weather. Hillary will help control global warming? She can’t even control Bill’s mouth or his sexual apetite.
Insane McCain is Ted Kennedy cloned and in the Republican Party….which has become at best “Liberal Light”.
Jim
on February 6, 2008, 12:35 pm
Matt,
Your stats are really quite nice. It is unfortunate that there is such misery over there. However, the continent still has the fastest population growth in the world (even if you killed all 30 million with AIDS), and they can’t feed the people they have already.
Now, I’m not saying people dying from AIDS is a good thing, but it is not the public health catastrophe presented to the American people by bleeding hearts that said the whole population of the continent would be decimated.
The epidemic is minor in comparison to all the other difficult issues that part of the world faces.
Perhaps Africa’s greatest difficulty is overcoming the liberal insistence by America’s leftists that these poor people should not use coal and other natural resources to bring their people into the 21st century, all because the left fears the mirage of global warming. Actually, the left doesn’t fear it, it loves it so it can use the issue to attack Ameircan capitilism.
I get sick of asking this same question, but do you even know what percentage of the atmosphere is comprised of CO2 and what percent of it is attributed to man? Look it up. Then look up how much CO2 can be emitted or absorbed by the world’s oceans and come back and tell me the science is settled and undeniable. But first, you and Crumbunist need to put down that crack pipe.
Crumbunist
on February 6, 2008, 10:05 pm
Actually, the worst greenhouse gas by far is methane, which is emitted from livestock waste and agricultural waste. Unsurprisingly, the massive growth of human population and environmental exploitation is releasing a great deal more methane into the atmosphere than normal.
Furthermore, global warming is part of a larger problem of unstable global weather and climate change. The many enormous hurricanes in the past several years, massive snowfalls, record high and low temperatures, are results of the global climate shifting, whether or not it is the fault of man. If enough greenhouse gases are emitted [for example, from the massive methane pockets trapped under the oceans] then the world will enter a hot phase, followed by a cold phase as the particles in the air block out sunlight.
Furthermore, passing binding laws and regulations to lessen pollution [which causes problems other than global warming anyway] is not contingent on Hillary Clinton’s ability to repress her husband’s freedoms.
I don’t see what I said to merit being accused of drug abuse.
Jim
on February 6, 2008, 10:14 pm
Crumbunist,
Your contributions here are greatly appreciated even if I think you might be whacked out from time to time. So, I apologize for accusing you of using the crack pipe, but please take it away from Matt!
As for pollution, I am all for reducing it in sensible fashion, however, when did CO2, the gas Al Gore claims is going to increase earth’s temperature until we all cook become a pollutant?
Best Wishes,
Crumbunist
on February 6, 2008, 11:34 pm
I agree that global warming as a result of Man is exaggerated, but reducing pollutants should have been a prime goal back in the sixties when we discovered acid rain. Disease and deformities and other health problems can be reduced, and local ecosystems at the least can be saved if greenhouse emissions and chemical pollutants are severely restricted.
This may cause short term problems for industry, but forcing them all to adopt more efficient, safe methods of production will not be a detriment because the American market is coveted and extremely profitable.
Dan
on February 7, 2008, 6:04 am
Doesn’t it seem that religious fanatics like Ann Coulter are following their own depiction of the anti-christ? Jesus was a humanitarian, not a bigot.
William Rooks
on February 7, 2008, 9:31 am
Yes, well, the question I HAVE is why is it exactly that the globalists and the socialist in this country always seem to blame the climate on OUR emissions? While the two or three countries responsible for the worst and biggest harmful emissions are given a pass – always. China, India and what used to be the soviet union. It just might be that Americans are getting fed up with the PC climate bull when our industry is already hampered and doing what it can more than most countries. Yet our home grown socialist always tell us we have to do MORE while there is no enforcement or criticism of those three countries (or anybody else really) named above.
Americans have figured it out, and don’t buy it anymore, except the PC indoctrinated youth, and the aging hippies. The UN is always telling us the US is the main pollluter, the biggest civil rights offender, the most warlike, the most corrupt, the biggest reason for global warming (which is a lie of itself – the global warming issue that is). Yet is is to us that they always have their hand out to pay for the things their own countries can’t or won’t fix or do anything about. We are not the sugar daddy for the world, and we are not the blame for the world’s ills. And we certainly are not the blame for climate, which is in God’s hands, not ours. How arrogant are WE to think WE can fix it, or destroy it.
Every time the “greenies” or UN try to “fix” something they make it worse. Isn’t that a clue to anybody?
Don’t remove the underbrush through controlled burning. So plenty of fuel is there to cause state wide forest fires instead of county wide. Don’t build oil platforms because it bothers the whales.
But let Japan and China kill them off with impunity. Pay billions to Africa for AIDS, but of course the dumb people refuse to use condoms or restrain themselves so we have to pay even more. Put the biggest violators of human rights of all time ON the panel for human rights at the UN. It’s all insanity.
Eric Muller
on February 7, 2008, 1:12 pm
I’ve always been a fan of Ann Coulter and I like her sense of humor. Read all of her books.
But she clearly has crossed the line a few times in the past year or so (although I agree that it’s a book-sales gimmick).
As far as global warming goes – it’s no doubt real.
The shrinking of the ice caps is documented.
It’s just that, to think that we could do a blessed thing about it is the height of arrogance. And some of our politicians would give it a try by slowing our economy(actually, all they have to do is continue to do nothing while all of our manufacturing gets outsourced and that will slow the economy plenty). Probably due to sun spots anyway.
And air polutuion? We’ve spent kabillions of dollars since the 60′s drastically cutting polution from factories and cars. And we’ve made tremendous progress on air quality.
But now, we have polution from CHINA coming across the jet stream and poluting our air!!
So maybe it was all a waste of money and energy after all (like worrying about global warming).
Crumbunist
on February 7, 2008, 7:25 pm
The United States is still an enormous polluter. At the time the Kyoto Protocol etc were being planned out, China and India were not nearly as bad as they are now. In the past decade their respective economic booms have lead to booms in consumer products, such as air conditioners, cars, and other luxuries that add a disgusting level of pollutants to the world. China is alo heavily dependent on coal energy, probably the worst fuel source possible at this stage. The USA, China, and India ALL have to implement massive pollution reductions: the current ones are insufficient [Bush actually increased caps on pollutants such as mercury and lead in the atmosphere].
Nuclear energy would solve a lot of problems, but for some bizarre reason everyone is opposed to building new plants. I wish the governments of the world would exercise eminent domain more often to get around retarded NIMBY luddites.
Anon
on February 8, 2008, 1:23 am
People like you should be locked up and waterboarded.
Terry Reeves
on February 8, 2008, 12:20 pm
Ann can sure be funny sometimes.
F-Word
on February 8, 2008, 12:41 pm
Ann Coulter is the intelligent kid that never had anyone to love them. So instead, she lashes out at every person she can think of, except for “Pretty girls” because as she says, “They are all on her side.” She uses absolutely ridiculous measures to try and peddle her terrible books full of slander and lies. Maybe one day she will have something useful to say instead of just throwing out insults and attacks at people who really don’t deserve it, but she will likely continue to be an ignorant thorn in the side of anyone who wants to reach out and help people. Anyone who has no sympathy for others because they are a cold rich spoiled person should rot in the closest thing to Hell we can find.
Crumbunist
on February 8, 2008, 8:28 pm
tru say yo
Geroge Mason
on February 8, 2008, 10:03 pm
F-word,
I often hear the accusations that Coulter’s books (I’ve read most of them) are full of lies, but when it comes time to site the lies her detractors talk about they are relegated to some obscure and minor footnote which is inconsequential to the theme or facts in her book.
Six best sellers—let’s see you site six great “slander and lies” which seem to permeate these texts.
Please reproduce them here, and discredit the wench once and for all.
Matt
on February 9, 2008, 5:59 am
“Well Matt, I’ll tell ya. Here In Wisconsin we are having more snowfall this winter than at any time since records were kept. We will ultimately have more than 80 inches of snowfall this year.”
Urgh, you really haven’t a clue have you? The consequences of global warming are many and varied. While global warming can cause heat waves in some parts of the world, in others the melting of ice-bergs and the resultant cooling of oceans can cause extreme weather conditions such as widespread flooding, snow storms and tornados (as we are increasingly seeing at strange times of the year in America).
“How arrogant is man that he thinks he can control anything like climate and weather.”
What a ridiculous argument! The point is man can AFFECT the environment by his activities. I could affect my local environment by dumping a truck full of toxic sludge into my local river. The result would be that the river would become polluted. How do I stop the river from becoming polluted? Well I don’t dump my toxic sludge in the river and find alternative, clean ways of disposing it. Taking from your argument you would probably say to me there is nothing I can do to stop the river becoming polluted, that’s just the way things are. You should wake up and realise the damage we are doing to our river and act before we destroy it forever http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/global_warming2.htm
I am not arguing this from an anti-capitalist point of view, and I greatly appreciate Crumbinist’s contribution to remind us that our contribution is often exaggerated. But it is not enough to say we may not be totally to blame so therefore we can do nothing. Our contribution needs to be emphasised so we can actually see some action being done.
Matt
on February 9, 2008, 6:06 am
William Rooks
When I say ‘we’, I mean all human beings. China is probably more to blame at the moment for the problem than the US. But America has the political and economic power to drive change in world policy towards our climate. It alone can get everyone moving in the right direction and we need a reformed UN to help drive this change.
“Pay billions to Africa for AIDS, but of course the dumb people refuse to use condoms or restrain themselves so we have to pay even more.”
A little harsh considering these people have never been taught about contraception, will never have the chance to learn about it and anyway have little or no access to it. Not to mention the number of gang rapes that take place in the likes of Sudan for which the victims receive no help afterwards.
Jim
on February 9, 2008, 10:11 am
Matt,
Please explain to us why we are not in the next ice age right now as promised to me when I was in grade school (circa. 1974).
Libs were wrong then, what makes you think they are right now?
Crumbunist
on February 9, 2008, 8:17 pm
Science becomes more accurate as technology advances, and our technology, with supercomputers, satellites and more, is as far advanced of the 70′s as the 70′s were in advance of the 20′s. Our much greater understanding of the world, and growing scientist pool from rising world powers gives us a more accurate model of climate.
The swing between hot and cold climates is covered by global warming/climate change, as Matt explained. When the ice caps melt, fresh water enters the gulf stream, which slows down because fresh water is colder than salt water. As the gulf stream slows, so do its dependent weather patterns. Eventually, the stream may stop, and oceanic weather patterns will collapse.
Matt
on February 10, 2008, 9:12 am
Jim,
See Crumbinist’s reply as it is all you need for explanation. I find it surprising that so much of your vitriol is targeted at science (for which you somehow conflate with the term ‘liberal’, as if all scientific research is somehow ‘liberal’).
Given that America has been the home of scientific innovation and research for the past hundred years plus I would think you would be proud of how your nation has led the field at the cutting edge of international science. Instead, you seem to want to undermine America’s proud reputation in this field.
You are blinded by ideological dogma and your hatred of ‘liberals’ which seemingly makes you unable to consider evidence that may be contrary to the position of your narrowly defined neoconservative stance. Whether it be your inability to recognise the gross betrayal of the founding principles of the union in Guantanamo Bay or the outright denial of any human contribution to global warming, your ideological dogmatism blinds you to all the wrongs this Bush administration has committed.
jim
on February 10, 2008, 12:26 pm
It’s interesting how proud of science you guys are when you think it supports your arguments (even when it doesn’t).
How about the science of economics which proves undeniably that free-markets and laissez-fair systems raise the standard of living for all living under them?
If you were such a proponent of “science†you would chastise and ridicule the policy initiatives of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton who promise to raise taxes (and hurt the economy), and implement socialized medicine which will degrade the quality of health care for all in this country.
Crumbunist
on February 10, 2008, 3:05 pm
I never criticized the free market. I agree that it is the fastest, best way to generate a great deal of capital. Under laissez-faire policies, however, working classes are undeniably exploited and treated poorly, increasing the wealth of an unchecked plutocracy at the expense of most others.
As I have mentioned here before, social welfare programs such as universal health care [different from socialized medicine] are most beneficial to the hard-working middle class. They remove the burden of private health care and insurance debts, and enable poorer people to receive the treatment they would otherwise never receive. The net result is a healthier, wealthier, more accessible middle class standard of life.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19299.htm
This website accurately rebuts the most common misconceptions of “socialized medicine”. The truth of the matter is that a completely free economy, with no taxes and no social welfare safety net, caters to the wealthy: the working classes are left to fend for themselves, and in many, many cases, cannot financially survive serious health issues.
Crumbunist
on February 10, 2008, 3:27 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states#Health
Some of these figures indicate that universal health care and extensive welfare states in the rest of the developed world place it ahead of the US in many important health-related statistics.
Matt
on February 10, 2008, 4:22 pm
“How about the science of economics which proves undeniably that free-markets and laissez-fair systems raise the standard of living for all living under them?”
You raise an interesting point here about the so-called ‘science’ of liberal or mainstream economics. The liberal theory, in order to gain its ‘scientific’ credibility, must construct a model of the human being as a predictable, utility maximising individual with perfect knowlege of the world around them and that leads to them making rational, predictable choices. Look at any economics text book and you will see that the supply-demand graphs and models for profit maximisation etc are all based on this highly presumptuous and contested model.
Marx developed a critique of this model originally posited by the likes of Ricardo and Smith but we do not need to be Marxists to point out the weaknesses of the liberal model. All we need to recognise is that human beings are not chemicals that act predictably in every situation. Conservatives should reject the liberal model as it has an unrealistic view of human nature and embrace Friedrich List’s nationalist economic doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List
On universal health care – it works very well in European countries like Sweden and is a basic requirement for any nation striving to get close to the holy grail that is a meritocracy.
Jim
on February 11, 2008, 5:49 am
I guarantee that health care costs would go down by half and quality would increase by double if the trial lawyers were removed from the equation. In countries where there is a less expensive and allegedly higher quality system, it is almost impossible to bring a suit.
Busy Bee
on February 11, 2008, 3:25 pm
Matt,
Sweden’s government doesn’t even need to borrow any money to fund all those generous Swedish social benefits — this year it is expected to record a budget surplus of 2.7 billion kronor ($372 million). Not much sign of a crisis there. London-based Capital Economics Ltd. said last week it expects the economy to grow “by something close to 5 percent” this year. So how come the Swedes are so grumpy? Most governments with that kind of record could expect to be swept back into power. while unemployment levels are low by European standards, the government massages the figure by redefining some jobless as ill. “On a normal day, nearly a fifth of the potential workforce is on sick leave or receiving a disability benefit,” the Paris- based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said in a report on the Swedish economy. More days are lost due to sickness than in any other OECD country. Youth unemployment is running at more than 20 percent, one of the highest rates in the region. Most Swedes might have jobs now — but they worry about whether their children will. Economic growth might look strong, but it has been helped along by high levels of immigration. Sweden, like Ireland and Britain, is one of the European Union countries that grant eastern Europeans unrestricted access to the labor market. …The country may be getting richer overall, but if people’s living standards aren’t rising, they won’t feel any happier with the government. As Timbro’s Munkhammar says, GDP per capita hasn’t been growing nearly as fast as the general economy. In short, people aren’t getting richer — and they don’t like it. Meanwhile, taxes remain prohibitive, even by European standards. Sweden’s income-tax rates can be as high as 60 percent, among the most punishing in Europe. With a total tax burden of slightly more than 50 percent of GDP, according to Eurostat, the Swedish government takes more of its people’s money than any other country in Europe…
KraKaKoa
on February 12, 2008, 3:37 am
Ann Coulder good looking? Hahaha you have incredibly low standards don’t you? You must be one of those caucasian fatties with retracted penises.
James Clavell
on February 12, 2008, 6:26 am
God, you republicans are just stupid. I mean, you’re really just fucking stupid. You have to understand that you believe this kind of shit because you are incapable of the level of thought that liberals generally employ.
You guys are just the big stupid kids on the playground of life. No brains, no fine discernment (discernment means an ability to judge correctly), just noise and fury and bullshit. It no longer suprises me that you are a political party. As I get older, I realize that there are just that many stupid people in the world.
But nutrition is much better than a couple of generations ago, and I think that the country is getting just a little smarter. That’s why your own party is going left on you. The smarter ones are beginning to realize that the left was right all along.
And you holdouts, well, I guess that makes you the really stupid ones, does it not?
Crumbunist
on February 12, 2008, 9:44 am
Nutrition is actually getting worse, thus the 60% overweight rate and 30% obesity rate.
The Wife
on February 12, 2008, 10:00 am
KraKaKoa, don’t portray your insecurities off on others. He is actually 5″11″ and weighs 175 lbs. And hung very nicely…..thank you!
Matt
on February 12, 2008, 2:39 pm
Busy Bee,
You can argue all you want about statistics and how successful the Swedish economy has been (if you want to argue it like that, Britain which also has free health care for all has one of the most successful economies of recent years of any of the most developed nations in the world).
The real argument, however, is over whether a universal health care system is necessary for a proper meritocracy. For me it most definitely is. This also goes for free education for all – giving people a (relatively) equal starting point in life from which to compete and prosper. Without these two vital cornerstones no country can hope to call itself a properly fair meritocracy.
RobertHuntingdon
on February 12, 2008, 5:52 pm
Matt
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to say “taxpayer funded”, fine, at least you are being honest. But there is no such thing as free health care. For that matter, the governments do not even provide “free” health care either. The government cannot produce health care, all it can do is pay others to provide it (again, via taxpayers funding it).
You claim to want a meritocracy. That’s a noble goal. But you fail to realize that what you advocate is the exact literal opposite of what you claim to seek. Even a “free” education is not free… and it’s failing. Badly.
Even if “free” health care was a good idea — and it’s NOT — it still wouldn’t be “fair”. It can NEVER be fair for you to be forced to pay (through your taxes) for your neighbor’s health needs when he just eats whatever he wants, gets no exercise, doesn’t bother to go to work and expects the government to send him a welfare check, etc… That’s communism… or at least the road to it. And it’s always (eventually) blossomed out of control until it failed. And it always will.
And even if it was “fair” it still wouldn’t be a good idea. Why? Because it simply does not work. Every time a government interferes in the free market it causes some sort of problem and/or unintended consequence. Sometimes it is minor, sometimes it can be mitigated, sometimes (very rarely) the unexpected consequence actually turns out to be good… but ALL interference — no matter how noble the goal intended — causes unintended problems. Reagan said it best, “Government is not the solution. Government is the PROBLEM.”
There is a reason why rich Brits (and Canadians, and Danes, and Swedes… etc…) come to America to get their medical treatment. Because even as hobbled with massive interference from foolish and even idiotic government regulation as it is, the American health system is still infinitely better than the crap they have at home.
Period.
RH
RobertHuntingdon
on February 12, 2008, 5:56 pm
(continued)
Anybody who thinks “free” health care will help instead of hurt very badly needs to read this article.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp
If you come away from it failing to see why “free” health care is the WORST possibly thing we could do to help the poor, then you either A) didn’t read it, or B) put ideology above facts.
RH
Busy Bee
on February 12, 2008, 8:17 pm
Matt,
first off what statistic did I use? Was it the one that proved you wrong about Sweden? That’s right I didn’t give you any statistics I just relayed facts.
Well, Matthew it just so happens I have family who live in salford and Manchester, England. They own their own construction equipment rental company. So don’t even try to tell me how great Britain’s national health care system is. It sucks, and a matter of fact do you know what they did to try to fix their collapsing health care system. Bingo, you got it they raise the tax burden on corporations and the people. They said the health care system was under funded and needed more money. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/19/nbrown19.xml )
Basically it’s what Robin Hood told you. These systems are not free and as corporations leave Britain and head to Germany and other European countries at alarming rates to avoid the rising tax burdens. Britain’s health care system will come to a complete cardiac arrest and no electric shock machine will be able to restart that (free/tax burden) heart.
People like you amaze me. Somehow you trust the citizens to get jobs on their own, show up to work on their own, buy houses and cars on their own, raise their kids on their own, but you don’t trust them to take their money and save it for retirement, So you create Social Security, and you don’t trust them to take THEIR hard-earned money and provide themselves with health care, so the government’s going to take their money and call it’s free healthcare.
I find it simply amazing that people are smart enough to manage their lives. Except for when it comes to things like health care and retirement. What your saying is the government trusts you to go out and earn your money. But, they don’t trust you will spend it properly on yourself so they’ll just steal it from you so they can help others and maybe you to…
Busy Bee
on February 12, 2008, 8:40 pm
Universal healthcare is a bad business plan no company in their right mind would ever operate with so many middlemen before getting the final merchandise sold.
1. Citizen pays taxes
2. IRS collects taxes and gets paid to do so
3. New government universal healthcare bureaucracy gets paid to do so and I’m sure there’s going to be some high-paying positions, after all your life at stake. not like you’re going to argue about paying for good decision-makers.
4. New government run universal health care customer service center to help ease the pain of getting screwed.
5. Now pay overhead, since the government bureaucracy really don’t earn the money they’ll definitely get screwed and paid too much overhead.(not to mention the kickbacks from better funded hospitals).
6. Now hopefully there some money left to pay for doctors and nurses.. but that really doesn’t matter because the government universal healthcare system is going to collect a paycheck whether you’re provided with good service, bad service or mediocre service.
Now tell me Matt how is it better for the government to pay for my healthcare than it is for me to pay for my healthcare on my own?
Is it not better for me to pay the doctor $2000 to do the job right. Rather than for the government to pay the doctor $200 to not give a fuck because it doesn’t matter how good he is, he gets $200 regardless.
jim
on February 12, 2008, 8:49 pm
Take it easy Busy Bee,
Your grammar seems to be getting worse with each new post.
Take a deep breath.
Relax Busy Bee, relax.
Crumbunist
on February 12, 2008, 9:56 pm
“Even if “free†health care was a good idea — and it’s NOT — it still wouldn’t be “fairâ€. It can NEVER be fair for you to be forced to pay (through your taxes) for your neighbor’s health needs when he just eats whatever he wants, gets no exercise, doesn’t bother to go to work and expects the government to send him a welfare check, etc… That’s communism… or at least the road to it. And it’s always (eventually) blossomed out of control until it failed. And it always will.”
1) Can you prove that Universal Health Care is a universally bad idea?
2) You aren’t paying for your neighbour’s healthcare under UHC. UHC is effectively a single insurance company run by the government. A portion of your tax dollars is paid into this company. Naturally this means some people pay more than others, but the very wealthy are as susceptible to cancer as anyone else, and the very poor are as capable of a healthy lifestyle as anyone else. Your income does not determine your healthcare needs.
On top of this, Britain’s NHS is considering cutting chain smokers and the morbidly obese from coverage unless they actively change their lifestyle. This is not different from private insurance firms denying coverage to people with prior health issues [a very common problem in the USA.] It is hardly communism: it is moral socialism.
3) Please provide examples of countries obliterated by their godless communistic UHC system.
Crumbunist
on February 12, 2008, 10:14 pm
(continued)
“And even if it was “fair†it still wouldn’t be a good idea. Why? Because it simply does not work. Every time a government interferes in the free market it causes some sort of problem and/or unintended consequence. Sometimes it is minor, sometimes it can be mitigated, sometimes (very rarely) the unexpected consequence actually turns out to be good… but ALL interference — no matter how noble the goal intended — causes unintended problems. Reagan said it best, “Government is not the solution. Government is the PROBLEM.—
Laissez-Faire lead to the Great Depression, and the New Deal and other make-work projects [Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, modern Berlin] helped create jobs and gradually increase income through deficit government spending. Before you criticise government deficits, remember that Reaganomics drove the US government into record deficit. All that one needs to know to understand the faults of Laissez-Faire economics is the Iron Law of Wages: the belief that no matter what, there will always be someone willing to work or less money. Capitalism is unconcerned with the welfare of the public as long as their product is still purchased.
“There is a reason why rich Brits (and Canadians, and Danes, and Swedes… etc…) come to America to get their medical treatment. Because even as hobbled with massive interference from foolish and even idiotic government regulation as it is, the American health system is still infinitely better than the crap they have at home.”
As a citizen of one of those countries, I can assure you that wealthy people go to the US for high-end care because America’s private system caters to wealthy people at the expense of the poor. Egalitarianism isn’t so appealing when you can hop a plane and cut a check to get elite care.
I read your article, and even living under UHC, I got my appendix out and myself out of that hospital in 12 hours.
Period.
Crumbunist
on February 12, 2008, 10:36 pm
To Busy Bee:
Doctors are private citizens paid by the government health agency, as that agency is the sole legal insurance company. They get paid because they perform a service, not because they’re on government payroll. As for your complaint about low pay:
http://www.payscale.com/research/Uk/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2F_Doctors/Salary
http://www.payscale.com/research/ca/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2F_Doctors/Salary
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Doctor_of_Medicine_(MD)_Degrees/Salary
$120,000-$135,000 USD/$100,000-$125,000 CAD/30,000-75,000 Sterling a year seems like a pretty decent salary to me, especially for doing a civic and moral duty, and especially compared to the average national income [$53,528 CAD, $48,000 USD and £21,892 GBP].
As a former poor kid, I can definitely tell you that yes, UHC helped me and saved the lives of a few people in my family [myself included], care that we would not otherwise have received without being condemned to eternal debt. Now that we are alive and our coughs and sniffles were caught before they developed into much more expensive pneumonia and tuberculosis, we have weathered the recession and become productive, wealthy contributors to society once more.
Kindly get stuffed.
Thomas Stone
on February 12, 2008, 10:58 pm
Crumbunist,
Shakespeare said it best,
“Brevity is the soul of wit.”
Crumbunist
on February 13, 2008, 2:32 am
quoth Pascal: “I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter.”
RobertHuntingdon
on February 13, 2008, 5:41 pm
Crumbinist, did you sleep through all your history classes? Or were you just spoon fed a political ideology laced with an occasional fact to make the three tons of horse dung easier to swallow?
Lassez-Faire didn’t cause, or even remotely lead to, the Great Depression. What caused the great depression was people buying stocks on credit expecting the market to continue to go up forever. When it didn’t, they lost everything because they couldn’t pay their debt.
Workfare and the “New Deal” didn’t help get the country out of the depression in the slightest. They were tried. They failed. AND they were found unconstitutional, so something else was tried. IT failed. Finally what got us out was the wartime spending on the defense industries when a REAL product (instead of raking leaves from one side of the yard and then back to the other) was produced.
Essentially the same thing happened with Reagan. Carter left him a real mess and he cleaned it up by deficit spending on a REAL product (the military again). With the increase in the economy the tax base went up, and the deficit could have been paid off, pity nobody had enough sense to do that.
As for your laughable objections to the fact that UHC is a horrible idea… I just have to laugh at #2… you claim that it’s not paying for others… and then with the next sentence you admit it’s paying for others! Great logical argument there bud. As for #1, again did you sleep through half of school? The first rule of logic is that you cannot prove a negative. But please provide me with one example of any socialistic health program increasing the profits of a hospital, increasing the output of drug research companies, increasing the ability of doctors to treat the patient, etc etc etc. You can’t do it. You may be able to provide me with one which didn’t cause obvious and major HURT, but you cannot find ANY example of it helping. Until you find a few dozen, my point stands.
RH
Crumbunist
on February 13, 2008, 6:38 pm
Government intervention in the economy relieves depressions. Glad we agree.
I did not say that you pay for your neighbors: I said that wealthier people pay more total cash for their healthcare.
The concern of UHC is not with profits or with corporations. Delivering timely, effective, preventive healthcare to every member of society is the goal. Many systems, such as the NHS, may operate with less technology or staff than they would please, but there is a tension between not wanting to pay more taxes and wanting better care. Many people forget that when you get better care, you should be expected to pay more for it.
The private system may increase profits for corporations, but it doesn’t increase their ability to care for patientS. Less patients can be treated effectively and preventively than under UHC.
Based on the facts that the United States lags behind every country with UHC in key health statistics and yet spends by far the most money per capita on healthcare, I would say that the private system costs more with less benefit.
Matt
on February 14, 2008, 4:36 am
Busy Bee,
While you are right that the NHS is hardly the most efficient of businesses in the world you have to realise that it is a cherished institution in Britain because of the principles it stands for. There was even talk of a national holiday to mark its introduction. In Britain everyone regardless of income is entitled to a basic standard of health care. Those who have the money can go to the private system (which offers a much better service).
In America only those who can afford it get any health care at all. The poorest in society are left behind with no basic health care. Surely it is better that everyone gets a basic level of health care and are able to opt out for the private sector if they wish than to have no basic health care which degrades society.
To complain about the amount you personally would have to pay for such a system is rather selfish to be honest. Put yourself in the shoes of the various characters you hear Hillary or Obama talking about and you might have a different view.
Caesar Rodney
on February 14, 2008, 6:14 pm
Matt,
It’s not selfish for you to reach in my pocket and take money I earned, but it’s selfish for me to swat your hand away?
Matt
on February 15, 2008, 6:59 am
Caesar Rodney
“It’s not selfish for you to reach in my pocket and take money I earned, but it’s selfish for me to swat your hand away?”
A rather simplistic view of things to be honest. Governments don’t tax people to steal their money, contrary to what many of the more hysterical neoliberals on this discussion will tell you.
Do you ever stop and wonder to yourself what would happen if the government stopped all taxation and public service provision? There would be no control of immigration and crime, there would be no education and the fabled US military and intelligence services would be non existant (that’s right folks, the US government uses tax payer’s money to protect them from terrorism!).
McCall G Chapman Jr
on February 15, 2008, 9:46 am
Crumbunist:
The only thing governments do better then private industry is wage war; and that’s debatable. A Democrap-led war, for example, would be a losing proposition since liberals believe killing is only acceptable if the target is unborn (and don’t bring up FDR, the smartest thing he ever did was choosing a Republican to lead our forces in WWII). Perhaps Hitlary would send Planned Parenthood to end the war in Iraq…
Socialism/Communism DOES NOT WORK.
I (and millions of others, believe it or not) have worked hard to gain/maintain my independence and the harder I work, the more money the feds STEAL from me to subsidize deadbeats like you. The LAST thing I want is to have to depend on those bastards for my healthcare. Been there, done that in the Navy; but after one particularly scary experience, I actually opted to PAY to see a civilian doctor.
Never in my life have I sucked on the government teat; I’m 44 and have never even drawn unemployment benefits. I am proud of this, but jackasses like you love to point out that some of us with “a bad case of the can’t-help-its” need the government to help them unf**k themselves and it’s the responsibility of the motivated and successful in this land to pay their bills while they pry their heads out of their asses. Guess what? It almost never happens; apparently Lazy Ass Syndrome is almost universally terminal and many sufferers spend the rest of their days smoking crack and spawning more Democraps.
Sure, some people genuinely need help but politicians can’t be trusted to make that determination. Governments should not be engaged in charity. That’s what CHARITIES are for.
The ants are tired of being screwed by the grasshoppers (with the help of the government, of course.)
Get a job. Get to work. Get a life.
McCall G Chapman Jr
on February 15, 2008, 10:25 am
Matt:
You are either grossly misinformed, a liar, or both.
Your characterization of the American healthcare system is just plain wrong. NO ONE in this country is denied basic healthcare, PERIOD. That’s what the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the various state Departments of Health are there for. Furthermore, it is illegal for hospitals to deny care to the indigent.
C’mon, do you honestly think all those welfare whores give birth to their often illegitimate and crack addicted babies in their government subsidized homes?
Sure the system’s not perfect, but we’re not the Spartans here; we don’t let people die simply because they’re completely useless. After all, you’re still here.
Matt
on February 16, 2008, 1:50 pm
McCall G Chapman Jr
Well people have to pay for Health Insurance in the US as far as I’m aware. Therefore those who cannot afford this Insurance cannot claim its benefits. There are exception for serious immediate problems (broken leg, heart attack etc) but to get a check up with your local doctor or to be treated for recurring illnesses that create and perpetuate social disadvantages you must be able to afford to pay.
Crumbunist
on February 17, 2008, 8:19 pm
The world according to McCall G Chapman Jr Esq PhD:
LIEBERAL DEATHOCRAT HITLERSTALINS WANT TO GO BACK IN TIME AND HARVEST ME FOR STEM CELLS
DID I SAY STEM CELLS I MEAN PURE MURDER IN A TEST TUBE
AND THEY’RE GOING TO FUND IT BY ROBBING MY BANK
GOLD STANDARD
RON PAUL 2008
William Rooks
on February 19, 2008, 11:31 am
Once again, do you notice that the truly liberal mind cannot argue facts, but resorts immediately to name calling and disgusting comments? And they call US stupid?
Hey Jay Leno! Want some more stupid liberal people for your man on the street show? The kind that haven’t a clue as to history, economics, or what has been lost already in this country? The kind that think the leader of Germany during WWII was Heinz Stake when given the “German name. Of a steak sauce” hint. here ya go. The kind of folks who think we fought the French in the Rev War. Don’t even know about the Korean war ever happening. Some well indoctrinated illiterate, mindless slogan repeaters here right on the board here.
I guess Animal Farm isn’t required reading anymore in school. But I just bet “An Inconvenient Truth” most certainly is.
Crumbunist
on February 19, 2008, 12:47 pm
Jus’ sayin’ that McCall Graham Chapman Jr III has some ludicrously exaggerated and paranoid views of liberalism is all, don’t be hatin’!
Matt
on February 20, 2008, 1:02 pm
William Rooks,
“I guess Animal Farm isn’t required reading anymore in school. But I just bet “An Inconvenient Truth†most certainly is.”
I wouldn’t have thought you would want Animal Farm as required reading in schools – it was written by a socialist after all….