Many Conservatives Were Shocked By Ann Coulter

RightWingNews.com ^ | 7 Feb 2012 | Steve Baldwin

[SoConPubbie]

I was going to blog about Romney’s recent flip-flops on the minimum wage issue and bilingual education – flip-flop #36 and #37, but when I saw Ann Coulter’s recent column praising RomneyCare, I have to admit, I just lost it. She called RomneyCare “free-market” and claims it’s a “conservative” approach to health care. Apparently, the individual mandate is something we conservatives should all run out into the streets and start celebrating. I was shocked.

One of her arguments seems to be that a number of conservative politicians and the Heritage Foundation originally supported RomneyCare and therefore, that makes it conservative. While that be true, that doesn’t make it conservative. A few years back I surveyed all the conservative think tanks and free market groups that work on health care and aside from Heritage, every one of them condemned RomneyCare, including the Beacon Hill Institute, Massachusett’s leading free market think tank.

I was in attendance when the Heritage Foundation sent a representative to Grover’s Norquist’s weekly Wednesday meeting downtown D.C. and addressed over 60 free market leaders about the virtues of Romneycare. Let me assure everyone, the presentation was not well received. Contrary to what Coulter implies, the vast majority of free market thinkers and groups have opposed RomneyCare from the beginning.

Moreover, RomneyCare has been a disaster. Premiums have skyrocketed, many insurance providers have left the state, and health care choices have become increasingly limited. Everything we conservatives have predicted would happen with ObamaCare is now happening in Massachusetts.

Coulter’s other argument is that because the individual mandate is being carried out at the state and not the Federal level, as with ObamaCare, it’s ok for conservatives to support it. What? So, in other words, if a state quadrupled tax rates or banned all guns, then conservatives should support that

[lowbridge]

Bump

[Astronaut]

This isn’t a slam on Romney, but Coulter jumped the shark for me a while ago. She just lobs verbal grenades now and sounds crazy. She is actually hurting the conservative movement because he nutty behavior is fodder for the liberals chattering away on TV. Ann should take her millions and quietly retire until she has something useful to say again.

[Little Ray]

We don’t have to use the “point of the sword” to convert them (though there were a few of those in Europe during the dark ages that worked out okay...).

Kill their leaders (and I mean the Imams, too) and disrupt the organizations that prevent conversion and threaten the missionaries and the converts, then let events take their natural course.

We have a better message than the Moslems, if we can protect those who preach it and those who convert.

We preach in advance of the Army,
We skirmish ahead of the Church,
With never a gunboat to help us
When we’re scuppered and left in the lurch.

[My Favorite Headache]

ANY “woman” who let’s Bill Maher put his d*** in her...is and never has been a Conservative.

[My Favorite Headache]

ANY “woman” who let’s Bill Maher put his d*** in her...is not and never has been a Conservative.

[ALPAPilot]

I was unaware that Christian doctrine included conversion at the ‘point of a sword’.

Pope Benedict begins his book Introduction to Christianity with just this subject. Central to it is credo or I believe. This he contrasts to Judaism and adherence to the Law or pre-christian Rome making ritual central to their religion. But Ann is not a Catholic.

[Vineyard]

A “side note” on how a conservative could support an individual mandate.

Step 1 - Congress repeals the 1980’s laws that requires Hospitals/Emergency Rooms that they must treat everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. If someone shows up in the ER - the ER must stabilize...and assess the ability of the person to pay for treatment. (If the individual has no coverage and there is no charitable organization willing to cover treatment, the ER can turn the individual out with not further treatment.)

Step 2 - Congress passes a “mandate” that people need to buy an insurance policy that covers low risk/high cost procedures, emergency medical treatment due to accidents, etc. No coverage - no treatment. There would be no efforts to track down to see if people have coverage - if they don’t have coverage and need treatment and they can’t pay for it (and no family or church or ?? will guarantee the coverage) - then - too bad - no treatment.

Step 3 - Congress mandates that hospitals/doctors not engage in cost-shifting. Everyone should be charged the same, regardless of payment out of pocket or payment by 3rd party insurance. Perhaps some minor discounts for prompt pay, volume discounts, etc. - but the goal should be to stop charging individuals 2 to 3 times what an insurance company is billed for the same procedure.

Imagine if gas stations had the same policy - you pump first, and when you pay, you are charged based on information available about you ....some might pay $10/gallon, while others pay $3/gallon, while Juan goes in and pumps gas and drives away, not having to pay anything! It is blatantly wrong to do this!

Now - am I for an individual mandate - YES - if described above.

When states mandate that insurance companies must include all sorts of “boutique” treatments that are unrelated to what insurance is about - I am disgusted that it should be un-Constitutional at the state level. When states mandate that insurance coverage should be offered with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions - again, I am outraged. How about a “super surcharge” that elevates the cost of insurance for 5 years or so to anyone who didn’t have coverage or dropped coverage - so that the insurance company can re-coup costs from the person who tried to game the system.

There are conservative approaches to fix the health care system ...I just don’t see them being discussed.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Ann is probably another David Brock. At the very least she is heading down that road...

and David Brock never had to confront menopause...

[JediJones]

The problem with Coulter as well as with people like Neal Bortz is that they look at anyone who has an “R” next to their name is good and anyone with a “D” next to their name is bad.

Doesn't explain why she trashed every conservative in the 2008 and 2012 primaries, usually by picking stuff out from their records and saying it made them "liberals" while praising Mitt and calling him the truest conservative in the race.

[riverdawg]

“The problem with ... people like Neal Bortz is that they look at anyone who has an “R” next to their name is good ...”

Clearly, you haven't listened very often (or very carefully) to Boortz. He rails against big-government Rs more vehemently than against big-government Ds because the former are hypocrites.

[Lee'sGhost]

All true.

I don’t get Ann and her liberal fetish for Romney/Christie. You could both of them together and they still wouldn’t make a conservative. It’s like everything she said previously was a lie.

And I really like Ann Coulter...or did.

[zeugma]

There are conservative approaches to fix the health care system ...I just don’t see them being discussed.

None of what you discuss expands the power of government and/or bureaucrats. 

That is why you won't hear democrats or republicans talking about it.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

My feeling, that explains it all for me, is that Ann has an undetected brain tumor.

[Smokin' Joe]

Recall, Ann did the speech at the homo convention a while back.

Face it, Obamacare, Romneycare, isn't about getting grandma a heart bypass operation, it's about (us) paying for the extended care of AIDS and HIV positive patients, and hiding the expenses in with the skinned knees and banged up elbows...

[Smokin' Joe]

How about a “super surcharge” that elevates the cost of insurance for 5 years or so to anyone who didn’t have coverage or dropped coverage - so that the insurance company can re-coup costs from the person who tried to game the system.

I carry catastrophic care (high per event deductible) and pay out of pocket. You would deny me that choice?

I'm not 'gaming a system' I'm choosing what is the most economical package that covers my needs.

There are conservative approaches to fix the health care system ...I just don’t see them being discussed.

Mandating I buy health insurance is not Conservative. Fining me for not paying for something I don't need is not Conservtive, either. So, I agree, I haven't seen any conservative approaches discussed, either.

[M-cubed]

Ah contrair!!!...it accomplishes alot for the next generation!!.....are u interested in doing 3-4 at a time???

(think it over..it will take u a second or two.....but you'll get it...;.*G*)

[Vineyard]

Absolutely NOT. Read again what I proposed. You, carrying high catastrophic health care insurance and paying out of your pocket for smaller (and expected) expenses is EXACTLY the idea that should be permitted. YOU HAVE INSURANCE. But - many states won’t allow such programs - very very wrong, IMHO...and ObamaCare would MANDATE you carry boutique health care insurance that covers all sorts of stuff you don’t want or need ...or want to try to afford.

And go back and read what I said ....if you failed to carry insurance - no fine, no harm, no hassle - but if you showed up at the ER without insurance - they could turn you away. (And you might die...but it would be your fault for not getting some sort of insurance.) SO YOU would be faced with consequences of not having insurance, not others who would have gotten “stuck” with paying for your “free-ride” if you wanted treatment but had not gotten insurance!

The “super surcharge” concept is that if there are “mandates” (which I am opposed to) for insurance companies to issue insurance to people who have expensive pre-existing conditions - then the individuals should be stuck with extra fees to recoup the money they tried to save by scamming the system.