Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Two)
Continuing on in an ongoing series based on an ongoing series by Ann Coulter (sounds confusing doesn’t it!), Annie regurgitates additional talking points about health care in part two of her series. It’s worth mentioning that in part one, I took some time to setup exactly how the health care industry has impacted me. If you haven’t read it, be sure and read it before moving on. It’ll help in understanding where my point of view comes from.
(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.
Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it.
Got proof? No, you don’t. Instead you rattle on with a bunch of conclusions based on a few unsubstantiated facts that have little to do with the actual debate:
Apparently, 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!
That would be true if the government was responsible for deciding who gets treatment and who doesn’t. But it’s not. What uninsured Americans will receive isn’t a government health care program but rather a government sponsored health care insurance plan. In other words, uninsured Americans will be dealing with health insurance companies, not the government. So it won’t be the government denying medical treatment, it’ll be the health insurance companies which, ironically, isn’t at all different than what is going on now. Insurance companies deny medical treatments every single day.
Under 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.
Again, if it’s through an insurance company how can you call it rationing? If you want to get technical, insurance companies are rationing health care as we speak. The government can’t tell insurance companies which claims are covered and aren’t covered. The only thing the government can do is put forth some regulations that keep the insurance companies honest, which is exactly what is at debate here. Besides, how is it any different if an insurance company rations your health care than the government doing it?
The only way that the government could potentially ration health care is if we were on a single-payer system, which we aren’t and won’t be for a long, long time. Hell, I’m willing to bet that the United States won’t ever transition to a single-payer system in even my lifetime.
What Coulter presumes is illustrating here is a fictitious scenario that doesn’t even exist right now and isn’t even up for debate. Besides, her joke about Dr. Conrad Murray, the doctor who is suspected of possibly giving Michael Jackson the drugs that killed him, is such that I can’t really take anything she has to say seriously about this.
(7) National health care will reduce costs.
The 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.
There is very little or no difference at all between the health care industry and the oil industry. They are two very different industries with completely different rules on how they are operated. Making this kind of comparison does little to support a valid point other than “Carter bad. Reagan good.”
Freedom 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 necessary.
Incorrect. Insurance companies make decisions for millions of Americans as it is. You call that allowing others to make their own rationing decisions? Even if we were to lift the restriction that disallows insurance companies from providing service on an interstate level, that still will not stop them from denying claims for pre-existing conditions and other reasons. There is no freedom when you have a corporation who will deny you service in an effort to maintain profitability.
I think what Annie is trying to say is that Democrats are claiming that a public option in and of itself will lower health care costs. That would be incorrect. Providing some sort of a public option that allows Americans to gain access to affordable health care insurance isn’t the only thing that will aid in lowering costs. You also have to lift some of the restrictions that don’t allow insurance companies to compete. That much is true. But you also have to put in place a different set of restrictions that keep insurance companies honest, the biggest one being a denial of health coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Not only that but there are definitive ways for which health care costs can be reduced by implementing some simple common sense guidelines for which doctors and hospitals can prescribe to.
(8) National health care won’t cover abortions.
No need to quote Annie here because, quite frankly, her little diatribe about this makes little sense. Here’s what Obama had to say about this:
…Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.
As it stands, there are loads of restrictions on abortion. In fact, in most states its actually quite difficult to walk into a clinic and get an abortion without going through a long, arduous process to ensure that a patient looking to get an abortion is making the right choice. Beyond that, if the patient is covered under a health care plan through an insurance company then it wouldn’t be the government providing funding for an abortion. Even then, I would bet that an insurance company wouldn’t cover an abortion except for very strict cases when the mother’s and/or child’s life is in question.
More to come in part three…
Tags: coulter, healthcare, lies
Permalink
Related posts:
- Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Three) As stated in part one and part two, this is...
- Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part One) Before I go off into a rant, let me first...
- Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Four) I know, I know…I’m so damn far behind on this...
- US Senior Citizen Speaks Out on Healthcare Bill Yesterday, I received an email about a 68 year old...
- Healthcare CEOs Shoot Themselves in the Foot When I read this story it just pissed me off....
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Enjoyed reading this, thus far. Nice to see someone with some common sense!
) Just one quick thing… most insurance companies cover abortions. As they should. God forbid an insurance company(who is regulated by state law) regulate morality. Pro-life or Pro-choice, abortions are a *legal* medical procedure in the US. And while this country provides for both sides of the argument, our government-sponsored healthcare should as reflect that as well. It really is unfortunate it’s as difficult as it is to get an abortion in this country. Most unfortunate to those woman who live in poverty, and/or who are minorities, as they are the ones who don’t often have the means or the know-how to get one.
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Thanks, Christine! Much appreciated! It’s nice to receive comments like this. Certainly motivates me to write more. Ann has a few more parts to her series so I’ll definitely will be following up on them very soon.
Regarding the abortion issue, I found a document online that talks about Restricting Insurance Coverage of Abortion. Here are the highlights:
What this tells me is that you can’t just walk into a clinic, get an abortion, and expect your health insurance company to pick up the tab. It varies by state and insurance company. Not only that but it’s pretty restrictive. I just don’t think it’s fair to ask an insurance company to cover the bill for a mistake. Other than that, there are legitimate medical reasons for an abortion and no one (the government and/or insurance companies) should get in the way of allowing you and your doctor to make that sort of decision. Personally, I feel that no insurance company should pick up the tab except in cases when the mother and/or child’s life is at risk, severe abnormalities, or in cases of rape/incest. Those are highly legitimate reasons regardless of what side of the morality bench you’re on.
Whenever anyone asks me whether I’m pro-life or pro-choice, I say that I’m both. I’m pro-life in the fact that if you make a mistake then you should take responsibility. I’m also pro-life from the perspective that if you wait over three months to make up your mind to have an abortion then that is three months too late. However, I’m pro-choice in the fact that I believe that it should be every woman’s right to choice what happens to their body. No one should be forced into believing anything as far as what’s the moral right thing to do. As stated above, there are legitimate reasons for abortion. If my wife was to get raped tomorrow and got pregnant as a result you bet your ass I will allow her to have an abortion if she so chooses.
I guess my point is that while I have my own beliefs on the moral implications of abortion, I’m not too keen on stuffing those beliefs down other people’s throats.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:55 am
“I just don’t think it’s fair to ask an insurance company to cover the bill for a mistake.” – So does this mean *any* mistake? Because I’ll tell you, people make stupid mistakes every day that have serious physical consequences, yet insurance picks up the tab. What about people who choose NOT to wear a helmet? Not to wear a seatbelt? Not use proper gloves when working with dangerous things? Not drive the speed limit. Not eat the right foods. Not exercise in order to stay fit and healthy. What about those who smoke? Who drink? I know a few of these aren’t one time mistakes… but most certainly ARE mistakes, in my opinion. Power tools comes to mind here with the one time mistakes that end up taking loads of men to the emergency room every day. What’s the difference between a mistake and an accident? You see, we can banter back and forth on what is and isn’t a mistake or an accident. I can give you examples of mistakes made every day by otherwise regular average people. I could give you compelling evidence that women aren’t the ONLY ones who make mistakes. But unfortunately, they are the ones who are mostly penalized for their mistakes. And I’ll ask you something else, what’s morally right… a mother of 4 who is single, working 2 jobs to provide for her children, who made a “mistake” and got pregnant(although it takes TWO, we seem to forget that), who then chooses to abort for the welfare of her other children. Or that same woman keeping the pregnancy, putting an even greater strain on everyone involved, digging herself an even deeper hole, who has to then be given even more money by the state, less food on the table, live in a place too small, so on and so forth. Which is more morally right? And yet that same woman is vilified every day for making a most difficult choice, as if it were an after thought. I assure you it is not.
People do what we would consider to be stupid things every day. People make mistakes every day. Accidents happen. Insurance companies can pick up the tab for ALL of them? No matter the cost? Yet… can say no to this one?
Did you have a chance to look up the statistics on abortions? That is, the percentage of them done in the first 6 weeks? First 9 weeks? It’s quite telling. Very few are left to the 12 week mark. And sometimes, it’s extremely difficult for a woman to find a clinic that will perform an abortion… which eats away at the time. If a woman had the choice and the means to terminate a pregnancy within a couple of weeks, no doubt even more would. The statistics you gave are hardly very big in the scheme of abortions. 5 out of 50 states restrict abortions being covered on private health insurance.
I have Cigna health insurance. They cover abortions.
Although admittedly, if I were in need of an abortion, I highly doubt I’d file an insurance claim(but I can afford not to) which would then become public knowledge… with the ability of it being used against me somehow in the future from another insurance company. And I must add that the fact I have to even worry about such backlash is utterly disgusting.
Your personal feelings about restricting the access of abortions… that is, a *legal* procedure… is of no consequence. And in the long list of medical procedures done very day, all legal, some cosmetic, most not, I would not be hard-pressed to find some I feel insurance should NOT pay for. But they are. They are because people have the “right” to medical procedures that affect their lives and their health. People do stupid things. People make mistakes. Most are one-time occurrences… yet you are singling out women… and women only.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:20 am
You make some very valid and good points here. Thanks for writing a well thought-out, well written response. I sure wish others would do the same. Unfortunately, a lot of folks just regurgitate their so-called values and don’t put forth any logical, reasonable thought that helps support their principles.
Based on your response, I would say that I’m not 100% against any insurance company covering the cost of an abortion. I think that decision is up to the patient, doctor, and insurance company. You brought up a lot of points that make total sense. No doubt there are times when a would-be mother might request an abortion under certain circumstances that go outside the obvious ones (ie. rape, incest, life of mother/child). In these cases, it’s really up to all parties involved to sit down and look at the situation and determine what’s the best course of action.
Yes, people make mistakes everyday and I’ll agree that people shouldn’t have to pay for each and every mistake they make. However, from personal experience there are those who continually make the same mistakes and just don’t seem to learn from them. I knew a girl once who used to bounce from guy to guy to guy and kept getting pregnant. She had multiple abortions, one of which I helped her by partially paying for and driving her down the clinic (FYI, I didn’t get her pregnant. I was just helping her out.). This is one of those situations where it was her own mistake and thus she should pay for it.
I guess what I’m saying is that I agree that there are extenuating circumstances but it really depends on the situation.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Thank you. I do try and keep emotion out of a debate/comments online as much as humanly possible. Funny thing… I am much better at it anonymously than I am in person. ;o)
I agree with you that there are women out there who have abortions for no better reason than she didn’t want a girl. Those disgusting things(in my opinion) happen. But they are a tiny percentage. It’s equivalent to lumping all those on welfare into the same category, or criminals, or Republicans(LOL!). And I admit, I have often found myself doing such lumping. But, I also more often than not, err on the side of compassion. And I will keep erring on the side of compassion. It keeps me human and it keeps me tolerant. I’d much rather be compassionate and wrong on occasion than assume the worst from everyone. That is, lumping those women who have abortions for reasons that make sense to them, that seem like the right thing to do, together with those who make that same decision for reasons I abhor… and assuming they are ALL either white-trash, minorities, poor, uneducated, stupid, or a combination thereof. I will continue to believe in the whole goodness of people… even when proven wrong.
I know what you mean about people who can’t seem to form articulate thought beyond the… “You’re wrong and I’m right.” Who are wholly wrapped in the emotion and feelings of their convictions without giving it deeper thought and analysis for fear of… well… I believe for fear of losing what they think they must cling to. Some ideal. Some form of themselves, that if they give it up for something else they lose who they are. For me… I see it as a gain. ;o) I see it as enlightenment. I see it as tentatively holding something dear without fear of losing that same ideal for something new, something better, something not thought of before. I see it as growth. I see it as wisdom. I see it as a journey.