Tyranny is a Pre-Existing Condition Covered by Obamacare

COMPETITION is one of the major things that would ACTUALLY improve our health care system, but it is specifically excluded by the democriminals from the new law.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=36287

Prescription For Disaster Now Covered Under Obamacare

Posted 03/31/2010 ET
Updated 03/31/2010 ET
On the “Today” show this Tuesday, President Obama claimed the massive government takeover of health care the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote was a “middle of the road” bill that incorporated many Republican ideas.

One Republican idea allegedly incorporated into the Democrats’ health care monstrosity is “medical malpractice reform.” Needless to say, the Democrats’ idea of malpractice reform is less than nothing. Until trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, there has been no medical malpractice reform.

The Democrats’ “malpractice” section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to “study” tort reform, in the sense that frustrated mothers “encourage” their kids not to slouch. By “study,” the Democrats mean “ignore.”

So we get more taxpayer-funded government workers under the Democrats’ “medical malpractice reform,” but not one tittle of actual reform.

Democrats manifestly do not care about helping Americans get quality health care. If they did, they could not continue to support trial lawyers like John Edwards making $50 million by bringing junk lawsuits against doctors who are saving people’s lives. (At least Edwards has not done anything else to publicly disgrace himself since then.)

At a minimum, any health care bill that purports to improve Americans’ health, rather than trial lawyers’ bank accounts, must include a loser-pays rule and a restriction on damages to actual losses — as opposed to punitive damages, which mostly serve to enrich the John Edwardses of the world, and their mistresses.

The Democrats also lyingly claim their health care reform includes the Republican ideas of competition across state lines.

I know they’re lying because — well, first because I read the bill — but also because Democrats are genetically incapable of understanding the free market. You might say it’s a pre-existing condition with them.

True, you can buy insurance across state lines under the new health insurance law — but only after the Democrats have created a national commission telling all insurance companies what they are required to cover.

That’s not as bad as the current patchwork of state mandates — it’s worse!

At least before the passage of ObamaCare you could move to states such as Idaho or Kentucky, where all insurance plans aren’t required to cover fertility treatment, restless leg syndrome and social anxiety disorder.

Under federal mandates, there will be no escape.

That’s right, a single, one-size-fits-all, jammed-down-your-throat national plan is what the Democrats mean when they say their plan includes “competition across state lines.”

How much do you want to bet that the national commission in Washington will mandate coverage for every form of shopping addiction treatment, body image therapy and sex-change operations with mandatory mental health counseling, but not injuries from hunting accidents or smoking-related illnesses?

The Democrats compare their new health care bill to entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. But those are welfare, not health care. They may go to deserving welfare recipients, but they are a government-enforced gift from the young to the old (Medicare), and from the middle class to the poor (Medicaid).

There’s no reason why most Americans shouldn’t be able to buy our own medical insurance the same way we buy our own cell phones, hair care and cars.

And just incidentally, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to go bankrupt slightly before the United States of America is projected to go bankrupt. So turning all of health care into a larger Medicare program may need a little more thinking through.

These programs will have to be reconfigured at some point, but how society takes care of the old and the poor should be put in a separate box from how the non-elderly and non-poor should obtain health care.

Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients.

A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an editorial noting the amazing fact that, by the middle of this year, there will be an estimated 6.8 billion people on Earth — and 5 billion will have cell phones! (Even more astounding, at least one of them is seated directly behind me every time I go to the movies.)

How did that happen without a Democrat president and Congress using bribes, parliamentary tricks and arcane non-voting maneuvers to pass a massive, hugely expensive National Cell Phone Reform Act?

How did that happen without Barney Frank and Henry Waxman personally designing the 3-foot-long, 26-pound, ugly green $4,000 cell phone we all have to use?

How did that happen without Obama signing the National Cell Phone Reform bill, as a poor 10-year-old black kid who couldn’t afford to text-message his friends looked on?

The reason nearly everyone in the universe has a cell phone is that President Reagan did to telephones the exact opposite of what the Democrats have just done with health care.

Before Reagan came into office, we had one phone company, ridiculously expensive rates and one phone model. Reagan split up AT&T, deregulated phone service and gave America a competitive market in phones. The rest is history.

If you can grasp how inexpensive cell phones in a rainbow of colors and wonders like the iPhone could never have been created under a National Cell Phone Reform Act, you can understand what a disaster ObamaCare is going to be for health care in America.

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” ““How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless,” “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” and most recently, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America.


Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. “The Democrats’ “malpractice” section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to “study” tort reform, ”

    Are we talking about a FEDERAL cap on STATE tort claims? Are we talking states rights? Are we talking about a FEDERAL law interfering with the free market of what lawyers charge to recover their expenses? I did not think so Ms. Coulter. I really did not know you were a trained economist.

  2. It’s funny how the left doesn’t seem to mind FEDERAL influence and interference when it advances the progressive liberal agenda. It’s OK for the FEDERAL government to restrict free trade by restricting the sale of insurance across state lines and MANDATING what kinds of coverage companies must offer. It’s OK for the FEDERAL government to mandate that citizens buy a government product as a condition of citizenship. So, you’re saying its OK for the FEDERAL government to decide how to run your life, but not OK to put any limits on the federal government (which LIMITING federal government is what our constitution is all about), or for the federal government to step in when there is abuse? The government government has stepped in to regulate various industries when it was deemed that there were anti-trust violations, monopolies, or other conditions that impeded business which will in turn punish the people. The costs that lawsuit abuse add to EVERY industry out there can easily be said to qualify for that kind of government “interference.” So when the “free market of what lawyers charge to recover their “expenses”” is unduly causing the rest of us to suffer, then its time to step in and clean house. The democrats, and many republicans, don’t want to touch tort reform because they are lawyers themselves, or are beholden to lawyers and their lobbying groups for funding and support. I’ll direct you to the quotes of DNC chair Howard Dean. He specifically admitted this fact.

    While I may not agree with everything Ms. Coulter says, or with the way she grand stands to deliver her message, once you get past the window dressing the core of her message is often correct. This is one of those times.

  3. “It’s funny how the left doesn’t seem to mind FEDERAL influence and interference when it advances the progressive liberal agenda. ”

    I could not agree more. The problem with America these days is everybody wants to be right instead of honest.

    “is unduly causing the rest of us to suffer, then its time to step in and clean house.”

    And when the free markets are “unduly causing the rest of us to suffer, then its time to step in and clean house” and institute regulations that will drive more transparency into the markets and expose the hidden information that has been in the financial markets for over a decade.

    But this will not happen because politics is about conflict, it is what fuels the ego.

    When someone else’s pursuit of wealth is “unduly causing” someone else to suffer in this world then it is time to “step in and clean house”. I could not agree more which is why Republicans should be fighting to stop farm subsidies, corporate welfare, etc. Maybe we would all be better off if Republicans and conservatives focused on themselves instead of turning the attention to the “others” that are out to destroy us all.

    As humans we tend to exaggerate many things in our lives and this exaggeration leads to “someone else” suffering.

    Maybe if we all were more concerned with honesty rather than being right we would all be better off. Maybe if we all had a passion for the pursuit of truth we would all be better off. But, no we find conflict much easier. We have this need to be scared in our daily lives, to have “the others” infected with a false conscience. I do not know who is more dangerous to society, the criminally insane or “normal” people.

    Ann Coulter is only concerned about one thing, herself and listening to herself talk. It is her ego that controls her like so many other talking heads of the airwaves. When she talks it says more about her than those she talks about. I would no more listen to her then my children whining, shouting and calling other people names.

  4. Mark,
    It seems that you and I agree on much. We need personal accountability, and as much as possible we need government OUT of our lives. On the instances where some government is necessary, it’s footprint needs to be very small. When you talk of “regulations that will drive more transparency into the markets,” for the most part I agree. However, we must be careful about uncorking the bottle of the bad genie that is government. Most of the ills our economy suffers today are caused by government interference with the free market.

    Honesty, yes. There are grand-standers like Ms. Coulter on both sides, but there is something to be learned from everyone if you burn through the chaff of their personality and motivation. Much of what she says is basically true, but would be better if phrased differently. But you have to accept that she says what she says the way she says it because she is trying to sell books. Once you accept that and read between the lines, things become more clear.

    As you say, we need to be honest, pursue the truth, and hold ourselves accountable. If all of us did that, this country, and dare I say our world, would be much better off.

    Good comments, Mark. Thanks for taking part in the discussion.

  5. Very useful info. Thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: