Back when I worked at Best Buy, we were encouraged to offer customers computer optimizations. By encouraged I mean we were forced shove computer optimizations down the throats of all customers buying computers. We were told to tell the customer just about anything to get them to buy them: “Your computer will get a virus if you don’t!” or “Your computer won’t run as fast without the optimization!” or even better “The latest updates will take you hours to download and install! We can do it in just minutes!” All of these are a bit of a stretch. Most customers would respond with, “So, you’re telling me that this brand new computer I’m buying isn’t nearly as fast as it should be and won’t work right out of the box?” Yes, Mr. Customer, that’s exactly what Best Buy is trying to tell you.

For a brief time, that was actually true…but that was when a nasty virus was running rampant and caused some Windows XP to get it without doing anything other than get online. For a while we were able to apply the security patches and run a computer optimization on just about every computer in the store prior to purchase and then charge the customer for the optimization. Just like Betty in The Consumerist story, we were selling computers with the optimization already done. Customers didn’t have a choice. The reality was that the customer was getting a pretty good deal. The Windows XP service pack that fixed the issue was over 200 megabytes which, for most people, would take about an hour or more to download. Since we already downloaded it, all we had to do was install it and optimize the computer a bit. Instant $30 for just a bit of work. Problem is that this only lasted for a few weeks. We couldn’t use that as an excuse once most computers were being shipped with the appropriate security patches already pre-installed.

So, if security issues and large patches aren’t an issue then why would a computer optimization be a good deal? And why should any customer be forced to pay for one if they didn’t ask for it? My take is that value is in the eye of the beholder. If your going to pay $40 for something it should have some kind of value attached to it.

When I was doing computer optimizations, I would make sure that the customer got their money’s worth. I built an automated routine that would install not only the latest patches onto the computer but also a few other bits that would help keep the computer clean. I would also optimize the computer so that certain pre-installed programs don’t run automatically. This varied from model to model. Some models had a lot of crap starting up when you fired up the computer which really slowed things down. Some didn’t have much at all. So if it’s just patches then you’re not really getting your money’s worth. It’s stuff that you can do yourself by just getting online and autoupdating the computer. There were other little optimizations here and there that we did but nothing earth shattering that would boost a computer’s performance by 200%. That would be ridiculous. That alone is what makes computer optimizations a complete rip-off.

As for antivirus software installs, I honestly believe we ripped off customers. I mean, why would you pay an extra $30 just to have someone install software that you can install yourself? I understand that there are people who don’t know much about computers and would rather pay someone to do all that stuff for them. If you’re one of those people then, to be honest, you’re a sucker. Seriously, instead of paying someone, learn to do this stuff yourself. It’s not that hard. Otherwise, you’ll continue throwing money away for no other reason other than you’re lazy.

Is up-to-date antivirus software a good thing to consider when you get a new computer? Absolutely. In fact, I believe every computer salesman should let customers know about their options and educate customers when they buy a new computer. If you’re buying a Mac then antivirus software is less of a problem. But on a new Windows machine? Yes, you might want to consider some antivirus software. While the software pre-installed on the computer might work, usually it’s on a trial basis of about three months or so. Rather than forget to update your software three months later, you might want to consider just buying a good antivirus program that gives you a full year of updates. Otherwise, you put yourself at risk of getting virus or malware infections, which is never fun to contend with.

Bottom line is that laziness is why Best Buy is able to extort so many people into getting optimizations. The average computer buyer really doesn’t know much about computers, so when a Best Buy staff member tells them all the nasty things that can happen if they don’t get the optimization then they feel stupid and end up giving in simply because they don’t know enough to say no!

So, what can you do to protect yourself? Simple. Learn something about the computer you’re using and/or buying! Learn to do stuff yourself rather than relying on other people to do it for you! I don’t care how you do it: read a book, go to a class, get someone to teach you. Whatever method you need to learn how to use and maintain a computer, do it!

UPDATE:

Here a video from Consumer Reports about Best Buy computer optimizations:

1. Best Buy Optimization Is A Big Stupid Annoying Waste Of Money

Related posts:

1. Why Support For Your Computer Matters Just read an interesting post on TheAppleBlog[1] about two different...
2. Apple’s new next door neighbor: Microsoft! Macworld just published a post on their site about Microsoft...
3. Conficker worm hits University of Utah computers What occurred at the University of Utah is scary. I...
4. Ballmer: A tidal wave of idiocracy John Gruber posted this on his blog and I just...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

So, what did I find this week? Let’s look at CD’s first:

This is the really odd ones that don’t make any sense. You’d think that the new releases would be subject to some discrepancies, right? Nope! In fact, the discrepancies center around the Holiday Music Favorites. Want that new Josh Groban Christmas album? You might wanna buy it online and save yourself $2:

And here’s an even odder one. See that album just above the Josh Groban one? A Very Special Christmas Vol.7 for just $7.99? For once I found an item that is actually cheaper to buy in the store than online. How messed up is that?

Now let’s move to the first of the movie discrepancies. There’s a couple here that stick out:

Again, same as last week…err…why is the Inglorious Basterds Blu-ray version being sold for $5 less online? Is this a special “online only” deal? If so, why don’t they say so?

And, yes, while the above pick says “pre-order” I just checked the site again and it’s still listed at the same price. Oddly enough, the two-disc DVD isn’t in the ad but I bet you money that it’s still gonna be a $1 cheaper on the site ($21.99 online versus $22.99 in-store).

Is there something going on with the Blu-ray new releases? Why is The Hangover listed for $4 cheaper?

On this last movie page, none of these really stick out…except one. Can you guess which one is gonna be a $1 less?

Yep…Robot Chicken! The one damn DVD I would buy this week and I still have to price check it online! Damn you Best Buy!

Is it me or does it seem like all these price discrepancies revolve around new release movies that they know they can move fast and make a few extra bucks on without many people noticing? I think there’s a pattern forming. Guess we’ll know when I look at next week’s ads.

Related posts:

1. Best Buy and the Half-ass Price Match I don’t buy a whole lot of movies and music...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

If there’s one thing about Best Buy that has annoyed me the most lately it’s the fact that their in-store pricing doesn’t always match their website. Why?! It doesn’t make any sense to me at all. The way I see it, Best Buy is essentially taking money from customers due to a technicality. It’s almost the same way that cell phone companies rob you of $2 every month due to your own stupidity^[1].

For instance, just yesterday I stopped at Best Buy to pick up a copy of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The price listed on Best Buy’s site was $21.99. However, when the clerk scanned it the price came up as $22.99. The clerk price matched it on the spot but still it shouldn’t even happen in the first place. Want proof? Here’s the page from Best Buy’s own ad from last Sunday’s paper:

Notice the price of the 2-Disc Special Edition? $22.99, right? Now, here’s what was listed on their website the week of the sale:

Kind of odd, isn’t it. Same DVD from the same company and yet there’s a $1 price difference. What’s worse is that the Blu-ray version is listed for $2 cheaper as well:

Since when is Blu-ray cheaper than DVD? I mean, WTF?! There is no logical reason why the same product should be sold at two different prices from the same company.

This isn’t the only time this has happened either. It happened when I bought Pixar’s Up DVD ($2 difference in price). I’m almost certain that the same applied when I bought Watchmen, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. That’s an extra $5 to $10 Best Buy could have gotten out of me had I not paid attention.

This got me wondering: How many customers buy stuff from Best Buy without noticing the price difference between their in-store and website? Granted, we’re talking about a price difference of only a dollar or two, but add that up over thousands of sales and you’ll likely end up with a nice amount to pad the bottom-line. I’m starting to wonder if Best Buy does this on purpose.

Now, I can understand if Best Buy was offering an online only deal but this isn’t one of those kind of deals. It’s your typical everyday new DVD release. Like me, I would imagine that a lot of people check online to see what the price is before driving to the store to buy it. If the price difference was more than a few bucks most people would notice. But make it just a buck or two and you’ll find that a lot of people end up buying stuff and not noticing. This is the behavior that I think Best Buy is anticipating. They’re anticipating that you won’t notice an extra buck being added to the cost. And since a lot of people would much rather drive to the store rather than having it shipped to them this behavior works to their advantage.

This is a practice that I believe Best Buy needs to stop. The fact of the matter is that Best Buy is still a brick-and-mortar operation regardless of whether they sell stuff online. The two part of their business can’t be treated as separate entities with different pricing models. If a product listed on their site isn’t a special online-only deal then the price listed should be reflective of how much it is in their stores and vice-versa. That’s what customers expect and how it should be.

So the next time you shop at Best Buy, be sure and check the price online before you get to the checkout. The price listed in their stores may not always be the same price as shown on their website. If Best Buy continues this practice I may have to up the ante and expose this. I’m sure there are plenty of news organizations that would love to hear about this.  ;)

1. Verizon: How Much Do You Charge Now?

Related posts:

1. More Best Buy Foofy Price Discrepancies Last week, I talked about my frustration with Best Buy’s...
2. Best Buy and the Case of Bogus Computer Optimization Back in 2001, like so many other folks in the...
3. Apple’s new next door neighbor: Microsoft! Macworld just published a post on their site about Microsoft...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In case you missed it^[1], this is an ongoing series based on an ongoing series by Ann Coulter. Ann begins part four of her series with some words about your health coverage should you have to move or lose your job:

(12) Only national health care can provide “coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job” — as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.

This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama’s economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year’s end.

Or you simply lose your job because no one wants to read any more of your cynical opinions. Hmm…there’s a thought. We can wish, can’t we? I know, I know…enough with the “Us vs. Them” mentality, but I can’t help it. With Ann, you kind of have to be a little sarcastic.

The only reason you can’t keep — or often obtain — health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of … government intrusion into the free market.

That statement is partially true. Our current health insurance system is largely employer-based. If you lose your job, you more or less lose your insurance too…that is, unless you pay for your own insurance. And that is where the rub is. Companies receive group discount rates, whereas many people simply can’t afford to pay the high premiums as individuals. More on the government intrusion part in a sec.

Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don’t get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.

Actually, according to the IRS^[2] you can deduct the amount you paid for health insurance premiums for you and your family so long as the following requirements are met:

• You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year.
• You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE.
• You received wages in the <tax year> from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder.

The only rub about this is that it doesn’t include people whose employer doesn’t offer a health insurance plan and aren’t technically self-employed. I’m very curious to know how many people this issue actually effects. So, while Ann is correct on her assertion, she is only partly correct.

If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as “allowing the free market to operate.”

While I agree that the interstate commerce restrictions should be lifted, it is only a small part of the solution. No doubt that a lift in restrictions will allow people to move more freely with their health insurance. However, simply “allowing the free market to operate” isn’t going to promote the sort of standards necessary to help drive down rising health care costs. Lots more to think about other than “how can we make it so that the insurance companies get more money”.

(13) The “public option” trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.

Why does the government get to decide when the “trigger” has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is — and I believe the historical record is clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking “triggers”?

Why not have a “trigger” allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers — but only when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks?

What I think Ann is trying to say is that the so-called “trigger” option is just another way for the government to control what your health care options are. Problem is that most of the so-called “trigger” options being talked about are just that: they’re just talk. I don’t think any of these “trigger” options will make it into a bill. I hear “trigger” and I think “mandates”. In other words, the moment certain conditions are met certain options then become mandatory. This doesn’t sit too well for many states because you can never really anticipate when certain “triggers” will occur that will have an effect on state budgets. So, no, don’t think “triggers” will be a part of the equation.

Ann did offer a good question: Why not have a “trigger” allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? My question to Ann is: Isn’t that what the “public option” is all about?

Some of the bills, like the Baucus bill^[3], focus on simplifying the access to programs like Medicare for people who are within 150% of the poverty line. This is a good step in the right direction in getting poor people access to health care but it still doesn’t address the availability of affordable health care for those above the poverty line. That’s what the “public option” is supposed to be all about.

Now, I’m a believer that a free market should exist. However, a free market can’t be maintained without fairness. I do not believe that the government is going to be put in a position to decide what good and services the public is able to purchase as far as health care is concerned. If anything, I think the “public option” should be a baseline policy that all health insurance companies have to offer to all Americans. This is very similar to what the Netherlands have setup for their health care system^[4]. For those who want a free market, this is probably the only way to do it. A free market can’t really exist unless certain standards are set in place. Having a baseline policy that is affordable to all Americans would be a good place to start.

(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.

On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.

Ann is referring to the Baucus bill and the fact that, although it denies illegal immigrants from receiving health care, it doesn’t outline the process on how to screen people for this^[5]. This is a bit of a touchy topic because if you put in place a method for which hospitals are allowed to screen people on whether they are illegal immigrants or not, what’s to stop hospitals from denying medical care simply on the basis of a person’s immigration status? At least that’s the fear, I think. If I were a Representative in the House I probably would have voted against it if this question was not addressed in the amendment. I don’t like the idea of  anyone being turned away for treatment regardless of immigration status.

On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman — a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one — originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did — as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.

If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?

Republican Joe Pitt’s talk about an abortion mandate^[6] as well as the amendment he proposed^[7] is a good example of why religious views do not belong in public policy. While Rep. Pitts doesn’t outright claim it to be a religious view, words like “the destruction of human life” and “health care is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking life” clearly are the words of someone with certain beliefs.

The problem I have with the whole abortion debate is the fact that no one is talking about how changes in policy regarding abortion will effect real women with real problems. It’s almost as if it’s being painted as a black and white issue; either you’re for abortion or against it. There is no grey area; no instances where an abortion might actually be necessary to save lives.

Earlier this week, I posted a story I saw on HDNet^[8] about Dr. Lee Carhart, one of the few remaining doctors performing late-term abortions. Anyone who wants to understand the real debate about abortion should watch this story. I would love to hear what Ann’s take is on this story. Would she admit that there are circumstances where an abortion is necessary? If so, why shouldn’t one’s health plan cover it?

More to come soon…

1. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter: Part One, Part Two, and Part Three
2. IRS Tax Topics – Topic 502: Medical and Dental Expenses
3. S.1796 – America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009
4. Healthcare in the Netherlands
5. Rep. Nathan Deal Fights Government Health Care for Illegal Aliens
6. Rep. Pitts: Healthcare Bill Contains Hidden Abortion Mandate
7. A Win for Abortion Opponents in House Bill
8. The True Face of Abortion

Related posts:

1. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Two) Continuing on in an ongoing series based on an ongoing...
2. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part One) Before I go off into a rant, let me first...
3. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Three) As stated in part one and part two, this is...
4. US Senior Citizen Speaks Out on Healthcare Bill Yesterday, I received an email about a 68 year old...
5. Glenn Beck is freakin’ crazy Earlier this week, I listened to the following little bit...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

First, let me start off by mentioning something that a recent commentator of my blog made. His comment was that while I do a pretty good job with my blog posts, I should consider citing my sources more. After all, nothing looks more professional than when you cite where you’re getting your facts, right? As he put it:

Clear and concisely referenced resource material is what sets the expert apart from the fear monger.

It’s funny because many of the political commentators I poke at (Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, just to name a few) don’t do this. It’s as if they’re saying, “Don’t worry. You can trust us. You know we’re right anyways.” Well, maybe they’re right, maybe they’re wrong. Either way, it doesn’t hurt to cite where you’re getting your facts. You can’t just say “I read this article in the New York Times the other day” and leave it at that. Which article? Got a link? What’s the title? Who wrote it and when?

The irony is that many of the folks who write highly opinionated stories don’t cite their sources. If they did and if those sources were legitimate and fact-based then they would be a whole lot more credible. But the fact that they don’t creates a situation where you’re not quite sure what to believe. People make stuff up all the time and, while some of it might have a ring of truthiness to it, it still doesn’t change the fact that it’s based on a lie. As such, I have gotten in the habit of vetting many of the stories I read and hear and posting a reply on what I find…especially if it’s something quite controversial or political in nature. It may take a little time but it’s better than just allowing people to believe in something that isn’t true.

From now on, I’ll do my best to cite sources when I claim anything to be a fact. This is a good thing because, let’s face it, writers can claim facts all day long but unless they cite their sources how do we even know they’re putting the facts in the right context? Let me give you a good example.

Last week I received an email about sending the ACLU a Christmas card this year:

What a clever idea!

Yes, Christmas cards. This is coming early so that you can get ready to include an important address to your list.

Want to have some fun this CHRISTMAS? Send the ACLU a CHRISTMAS CARD this year.

As they are working so very hard to get rid of the CHRISTMAS part of this holiday, we should all send them a nice,

CHRISTIAN card to brighten up their dark, sad, little world..

Make sure it says “Merry Christmas” on it.

Here’s the address, just don’t be rude or crude. (It’s not the
Christian way, you know.)

ACLU
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York , NY 10004

Two tons of Christmas cards would freeze their operations because they wouldn’t know if any were regular mail containing contributions. So spend 44 cents and tell the ACLU to leave Christmas alone. Also tell them that there is no such thing as a ” Holiday Tree”. . . It’s always been called a CHRISTMAS TREE!

And pass this on to your email lists. We really want to communicate with the ACLU! They really DESERVE us!!

This is pretty typical of the usual fear mongering drivel I receive now and then. The problem is that none of it is true, nor is it anything new. In fact, this particular email has been recycled just about every year for the past four years^[1].

Funny thing is that I reference snopes.com about this very email in a reply and I’ll be damned if I didn’t get another email back that talked about how the people who run snopes.com are left-wing Liberals! However, a simple search on Google for ‘snopes Mikkelson‘ immediately revealed at least three different legitimate sources, including one on FactCheck.org^[2], that tell a much different story. Took just 5 minutes and I found out all I need to know. Next thing you know someone will write a bit about how the organization running FactCheck.org is a bunch of tree-hunging hippies.  ”Damn hippies!” LOL!

Interesting thing to think about though…both Snopes.com and FactCheck.org cite their sources at the bottom of the page.

On the Snopes page about the ACLU Christmas Cards (see link in footnotes), they cite sources from The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and also provide links to articles on the BBC^[3] and a post on the ACLU website written by the Executive Director^[4]. All of these are good sources and provide facts about the whole ACLU Christmas card debate. To claim it to be anything else is foolish because there are no facts to support it.

While reading an article in Wired magazine, I read the following sentence that put it all in perspective for me:

Being rational takes work, education, and a sober determination to avoid making hasty inferences, even when they appear to make sense.

Nothing could be closer to the truth. Whether it’s the bit about the ACLU Christmas cards, Barack Obama’s birth certificate^[5], or some other story that has been fabricated on pre-conceived ideas, the bottom-line is that there are a lot of people who react in highly emotional and visceral ways that defy logic and rationality.

The next time you receive something of questionable content that doesn’t cite any sources, don’t take it at face value. Take just a little time out and look up the facts. Look it up on Google, Yahoo, Bing, or wherever. Get the facts from a reputable source. Educate yourself and be in the know. It doesn’t take much time and you’ll be glad you did.

1. snopes.com: ACLU Christmas Cards
2. FactCheck.org Q/A about Snopes.com
3. BBC News America: Lines drawn in battle over Christmas
4. ACLU: How The ACLU Didn’t Steal Christmas
5. FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

(9) If you like Medicare, you’ll love national health care, which will just extend Medicare’s benefits to everyone.

Hey — I have an idea: How about we make everyone in America a multimillionaire by pulling Bernie Madoff out of prison and asking him to invest all our money! Both Medicare and Bernie Madoff’s investment portfolio are bankrupt because they operate on a similar financial model known as a “Ponzi scheme.” These always seem to run fabulously well — until the money runs out.

Ah, right! A “Ponzi scheme”! So, what you’re saying is that the government takes people’s money but doesn’t use the money to actually give people health care benefits? Wait a minute! Isn’t that what health insurance companies do too?  I’m so confused.

Not only is Medicare bankrupt, but it is extremely limited in whom and what it covers. If Medicare were a private insurer, it would be illegal in many states for failing to cover hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, chiropractic care, marriage counseling, aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery.

This is funny because private insurers largely refuse to cover things like hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, and chiropractic care. Marriage counseling, aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery? Where the hell did those come from? Last I checked, Medicare doesn’t really cover any of this stuff either so…err…what’s your point?

Moreover, Medicare payments aren’t enough to pay the true cost of those medical services it does cover. With Medicare undercutting payments to hospitals and doctors for patients 65 and older, what keeps the American medical system afloat are private individuals who are not covered by Medicare paying full freight (and then some). That’s why you end up with a $10 aspirin on your hospital bill.

No, you end up with a $10 aspirin not because the hospital doesn’t get paid enough by Medicare but because they don’t get paid at all by the ones without insurance or have claims denied by the patient’s insurance company. It’s easy to blame Medicare for why hospital bills are so damn expensive but that’s simply not the truth. There are a myriad of other factors as to why medical bills are so expensive. The American medical system stays afloat mainly due to the large profits health insurance and pharmaceutical companies receive. The ones who suffer the most are the doctors and hospitals who have to put up with denied claims, failure to pay, a shortage of qualified nurses, a confusing mess of contracts from the insurance companies, and a slew of other things that make the business of practicing medicine downright difficult.

National health care will eliminate everything outside of Medicare, which is the only thing that allows Medicare to exist.

Considering the insane profits insurance and pharmaceutical companies are getting, is that such a bad thing? I don’t know about you but I really don’t like the idea of Mr. CEO of Aetna being able to pay for another yacht just because my dad got a heart bypass. Doesn’t make sense and neither does your statement.

Obviously, therefore, it’s preposterous for Democrats to say national health care will merely extend Medicare to the entire population. This would be like claiming you’re designing an apartment building in which every apartment will be a penthouse. Everyone likes the penthouses, so why not have a building in which every apartment is a penthouse?

It doesn’t work: What makes the penthouse the penthouse is all the other floors below. An “all-penthouse” building is a blueprint that could make sense only to someone who has never run a business and has zero common sense, i.e., a Democrat.

That would be a great analogy indeed if it really worked that way. The thing is that what is being proposed isn’t merely an extension of Medicare to the entire population but rather a segment of the population. In other words, no one is looking to give a penthouse to everyone, just access to an apartment to those who are stuck in the rain with no where to live.

One thing you did get right is that it would make sense only to someone who has never run a business, which is what the current health care industry is…a business. Problem is that that business is profiting severely off the sick and injured of others. So what you could have said was that it would make sense to someone who actually has a conscience but would be confusing as hell to someone who only understands business terminology like growth and profitability. The more we continue to look at our health as nothing more than just a business the more we continue to overlook the very problem. While I agree that doctors and hospitals should be paid for what they are worth, I do not agree with how the rest of the industry is ran. Lots of gross mismanagement and greed at play.

10) National health care won’t cover illegal aliens — as the president has twice claimed in recent radio appearances.

Technically, what Obama said is that the bill isn’t “designed” to give health insurance to illegal aliens. (That bill, the “Health Insurance for Illegal Aliens Act of 2009,” was still being drafted by Ted Kennedy at the time of his death, may he rest in peace.)

First of all, none of the bills were written by Obama. He has laid out his own proposals of what he’d like to see in the bills but it’s up to Congress to shape the bills to reflect his plan. Here’s what Obama actually said in his recent address to Congress:

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants.  This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

Which, as we all know, was followed by a rather loud “You lie!” from Senator Wilson. I think the keyword here is insure, meaning that no illegal immigrant will be eligible to obtain any government sponsored health care insurance plans, period. In other words, if a bill hits Obama’s desk that would allow an illegal immigrant to gain access to health insurance he isn’t going to sign it.

But unless the various government bureaucracies dispensing health care are specifically required by law to ask about citizenship status, illegals will be covered. We can’t even get employers and police to inquire about citizenship status, but liberals assure us that doctors will?

Right now, any illegal immigrant can walk into a public hospital and receive care if they are injured or sick. That’s not likely to change any time soon either. The reason is that to deny anyone health care in this country regardless of whether they are a legal citizen or not presents a moral dilemma: Would you want to live in a country that turns away treatment to someone even if it could mean saving their life?

Not only that but I think Ann is confusing access to health care with access to health insurance. These are two separate disparate things. Anyone can get access to health care when they are sick or hurt. But whether they can afford it is a different matter. That’s where health insurance comes into play. When it comes to the debate over whether illegal immigrants can receive health benefits, we’re talking about access to health insurance here, not access to health care.

And by the way — as with the abortion exclusion — the Democrats expressly rejected amendments that would have required proof of residency status to receive national health care.

Umm, probably because it’s not really required in the bill. I mean, if you have to be a citizen of the United States to get health insurance anyways then why would you need to state that you have to show proof of residency status to receive care in the bill?

Beyond that, can you imagine all the problems that would occur in an emergency room if you had to verify every incoming patient and require proof of residency status? A guy shows up after a heart attack and requires immediate medical attention. But, wait! We can’t let him in yet till he proves he’s a legal resident! It’s a moral question: Do you force the issue and run the risk of him dying? Or do you provide him the medical attention he needs and deal with that issue later?

(11) Obama has dropped his demand for the ironically titled “public option” (i.e., government-run health care), which taxpayers will not have an “option” to pay for or not.

Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. “Abortion” becomes “choice,” “communist” becomes “progressive,” “communist dictatorship” becomes “people’s democratic republic” and “Nikita Khrushchev” becomes “Barack Obama.”

Yeah, but then again, some names just don’t change. “Bitch” is still “bitch” last I checked. Look, Obama has never dropped his demand for a “public option”. Just the opposite. And he has made it clear that in his own proposals that the “public option” would only be available to those who can not afford health insurance. As he stated in his address, “The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.”

It doesn’t matter if liberals start calling national health care a “chocolate chip puppy” or “ice cream sunset” — if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more government control when partial government control creates a mess.

Which happens to be exactly what liberals are doing right now.

First of all, the “public option” is not something that will result in the government calling the shots. Ironically, when it comes to death panels and rationing of health care, that’s exactly what health insurance companies are doing right now. They don’t want to give policies to those who are old and sick. They’d rather give policies to those who are young and healthy. To them, that’s just good business because it means less claims paid out and more profits. So as far as death panels and rationing of care those two things already exist due to the fact that it is tied into the profitability of insurance companies.

I think it’s highly irresponsible to claim that our government would go out of its way to kill off old people and make taxpayers pay for every abortion and the health of illegal aliens in this country. I would presume that most of the folks in Washington are people who know the difference between right and wrong; people with morals and values. Conservatives like Ann keep telling us that this is a “Christian nation”. If that’s the case, then why all the talk about the government doing evil things? I mean, our government is operated by people, right?

Granted, someone has to pay for the care illegal aliens receive at public hospitals. I wouldn’t want to live in a country that denies anyone health care just because they’re not supposed to be here. Unfortunately, most of the cost for providing health care to illegal immigrants is already taken out of taxes like property taxes and the like.

As for abortion, I’m sorry but there are legitimate reasons for why certain abortions should be covered. If a private insurance company is willing to cover the cost of an abortion under certain circumstance then there should be no reason why a “public option” insurance plan shouldn’t do the same. Now, whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, that’s a different conversation.

Bottom line is that we’re already in a mess as it is and, quite frankly, it’s a mess that wasn’t 100% caused by government control. While one could argue that certain government restrictions have caused the industry to falter, the majority of the problems within the health care industry were cause by the very thing that most “conservatives” keep harping about: free enterprise.

For the past 20+ years or so companies within the health care industry have had free reign to shape the industry as they see fit. As such, costs kept going up as publicly traded companies demanded more growth and profitability. And when it comes to health insurance companies, profitability is far more important than whether your grandpa should be able to get that new heart valve put in. Same applies to pharmaceutical companies. They’re more concerned with getting as big of a return on their investment on a new drug before the patent runs out than whether you can afford to shell out $500 a month for it.

According to Ann, it would seem that either way we’re screwed. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. If it’s not the government telling us what to do then corporate America will most certainly pick up the slack.

Related posts:

1. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Two) Continuing on in an ongoing series based on an ongoing...
2. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Four) I know, I know…I’m so damn far behind on this...
3. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part One) Before I go off into a rant, let me first...
4. US Senior Citizen Speaks Out on Healthcare Bill Yesterday, I received an email about a 68 year old...
5. Glenn Beck is freakin’ crazy Earlier this week, I listened to the following little bit...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The gentleman in the video seems like a nice guy but, unfortunately, when it comes to the current health care debate he has no idea what he is talking about. What he is talking about is the typical FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) that has been spread around since the whole debate began. I feel sorry for this man because what he believes has been perpetuated on a series of lies.

First, no one in Congress is talking about a complete and total take over of the current health care system by the government. That is a lie predicated on the idea that the so-called “public option” would entail the government telling you what you can and can not do. In no way will the government “make every decision for us” when it comes to our health care. Nor will the government be telling any doctors what they can and cannot do. More on this in a second.

There is one thing that the gentlemen got right. There is a lot of waste in the current Medicare and Medicaid system. No doubt that there is a legitimate concern over how Medicare and Medicaid will be reformed and how it’ll be funded. However, it has already been told that not a single dime will come out of the Medicare trust fund to fund any new health care proposals. In fact, there are proposals that would eliminate billions of dollars in waste and fraud in the system, including unwarranted subsidies that currently go directly to health insurance companies and don’t benefit Medicare recipients in any way.

There are no death panels. Period. It has been proposed that free end-of-life counseling be made as an option that would allow you to discuss end-of-life issues with your doctor if you so choose. It has never been proposed as something that would be mandatory. It has never been proposed that end-of-life counseling would be a substitute for medical treatment for senior citizens. Nor has there been any proposals that tell doctors and hospitals what they can and cannot do as far as end-of-life procedures are concerned. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying and doesn’t know what they are talking about.

Yes, there are over 40 million people without health care insurance. I’m one of them. And, while it is true that anyone can visit a hospital and receive care if they’re hurt or sick, you still have to pay for it. And if you can’t and you’re a legal citizen of the United States, be prepared to receive a bill for it. So, no, there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to health care in this country. Everybody has to pay. And for those that don’t pay their bills (both legal and illegal citizens) then, yes, that money will come out of the state and local tax dollars you pay every year.

While you can receive care when your hurt or sick, the problem is that without health insurance you can’t get affordable preventative health care. Right now, I am without health insurance, have been diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, and can’t find a single insurance company that will provide full coverage of my ulcerative colitis for at least a year. As such, I’m stuck having to pay in the excess of $300 a month for medications that I’m required to take to prevent outbreaks from ulcerative colitis. Every doctor visit I have for it is anywhere between $125 to $250. That may not seem like a lot but it all adds up. Fortunately, my wife, Sarah, is close to getting a federal job, which means we’ll have full-coverage medical benefits with no restrictions on pre-existing conditions. However, other folks that are in the same position as me are not as fortunate.

So while others might think that the government is looking to “take over” the health care system and tell your doctor what they can and can not do, guess what…insurance companies are already doing that. I can attest to that too. I have a $1,200 bill sitting on my desk right now that my insurance company refused to pay. What was it for? A medicine ball that my doctor prescribed to me after my hernia surgery for pain relief and aid in my recovery. While my doctor felt that I needed to have it, it seems my insurance company didn’t. What’s that about? That was nearly 9 months ago and, to this day, I have yet to resolve the matter with my insurance company. And, believe me, if I had an extra $1,200 laying around I would just pay the bill and be done with it…but I don’t. On top of that, I’ve had to setup payment plans with a few doctors for the few doctor visits I’ve had this year.

Others in our country have gone through the same thing with insurance companies but on a much grander scale. Instead of just a $1,000 bill, some folks have been stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills to the point where they had to file bankruptcy. In fact, nearly 60% of all bankruptcies filed are due to people not able to pay for their medical bills…and these are people who did the right thing and had medical insurance.

So while others might be more concerned about a “government takeover” of the health care industry, I’m much more concerned about the growing cost of health care, the growing denial of claims and coverage made by the insurance companies, and the ever inflating cost of pharmaceuticals. I do believe this is by far the one thing that effects our economy the most. I also believe it’s a moral issue. I believe that everyone in the United States should have access to affordable health care, not just for times when they are hurt or sick, but also to affordable “preventative” health care.

Now, with that being said, the gentleman refers to a few lines from the HR 3200 bill that has been floating in the House. Keep in mind that this is just one of five bills that have been proposed. The HR 3200 just happens to be the one bill that has been picked on the most, mainly because I think it’s the biggest and most complete out of the bunch. To follow along, feel free to visit the Library of Congress site for more info on this bill. There’s also a PDF of the bill as well, which is easier to follow.

The gentleman makes a reference to page 29 of the bill in which he claims it says “All health care will be rationed based on age, the present health of any patient and the availability of health services and supplies.” If you actually go and read what page 29 of the bill says you will find that that verbiage does not exist in any way. Page 29 has nothing at all to do with the rationing of health care. In fact, nothing in the bill talks about the government rationing of health care.

He also mentions that on page 30, “a government committee will decide what treatments or benefits will be made available under the health care that will be provided. It will be illegal to provide any medical benefits to anyone that haven’t been pre-approved by the committee.” That would be truly scary if this were in any way true…but it’s not.

And, lastly, page 179, “Any non-resident Alien is EXEMPT from individual health care taxes.” This is completely false. In fact, page 179 doesn’t have anything to do with illegal aliens, rather it talks about employer responsibility. This too is a lie, plain and simple.

So where did the gentleman get this information? Here’s a link to some of the same misinformation that has been spreading around. I’ve done some research and nearly every single reference made is completely false and in no way reflects what the HR 3200 bill actually says.

Here’s the truth:

There has been a lot of misinformation spread around about the HR 3200 bill, but it is just one of five bills being proposed and does not fully represent what the final bill will look like. Here is a more accurate look at what is being proposed:

If you have insurance:

• End discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
• Limit premium discrimination based on gender and age.
• Prevent insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most.
• Cap out-of-pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick.
• Eliminate extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money.
• Protect Medicare for seniors.
• Eliminate the “donut-hole” gap in coverage for prescription drugs.

If you don’t have insurance:

• Create a new insurance marketplace — the Exchange — that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.
• Provide new tax credits to help people buy insurance.
• Provide small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees.
• Offer a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.
• Immediately offer new, low-cost coverage through a national “high risk” pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created.

For all Americans:

• Insure that not add a dime is added to the deficit and that this plan is paid for upfront.
• Requires additional cuts if savings are not realized.
• Implement a number of delivery system reforms that begin to rein in health care costs and align incentives for hospitals, physicians, and others to improve quality.
• Create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system.
• Order immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine.
• Require large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform.

If these proposals look familiar to you, you’re not crazy. What is listed here is exactly what President Obama talked about in his latest address to Congress. You can find out more information about his plan here. Looks to me that such proposals consist of both conservative and liberal ideas. If the final bill includes everything listed here then I’m all for it. Certainly would benefit me and millions of other Americans a lot.

Bottom line is this. Do a little research. Find out what the real skinny is on some of the claims being made. Don’t believe everything you hear.

Related posts:

1. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Two) Continuing on in an ongoing series based on an ongoing...
2. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Four) I know, I know…I’m so damn far behind on this...
3. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Three) As stated in part one and part two, this is...
4. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part One) Before I go off into a rant, let me first...
5. 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.

(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…

Related posts:

1. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Three) As stated in part one and part two, this is...
2. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part One) Before I go off into a rant, let me first...
3. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Four) I know, I know…I’m so damn far behind on this...
4. US Senior Citizen Speaks Out on Healthcare Bill Yesterday, I received an email about a 68 year old...
5. 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.

I was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis around March of this year. Anyone who knows about this disease will know that it’s an anti-immune disease with no real cure. The only thing you can do is take maintenance drugs that help keep flare-ups from happening. The problem is that the most popular drugs used to treat ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, and other similar ailments can be quite expensive. There is a cheaper option but the side effects aren’t all that great.

I started off taking Asacol and purchased a three month supply while I still had insurance. Even then the cost after deductible was still quite high. I think I spent darn near $200 for the three month supply and that was even with a bulk discount. Recently, I started to run out of Asacol and started to shop around for more. What I found out shocked me. Without insurance, a one month supply (that’s 180 pills; 6 pills per day for 30 days) would cost me around $300. Simply put, I can’t afford that. $300 per month may be chump change to some folks but, to me, that’s a lot of money. I simply do not understand why any drug would cost this much. My only alternative was to either seek out a new insurance policy or buy a cheaper alternative drug.

So, off I went to look for another insurance policy. Unfortunately, due to my pre-existing condition, no insurance company in the state of Texas will cover me for my ulcerative colitis for at least a year. So much for that. Aside from that, the rates for insurance plans weren’t all that great. While the cheapest PPO plan was just over $100, the deductible left a lot to be desired: $10,000. Good plan if all you care about is coverage for cases when you get terminally ill or hurt but that’s about it. For me, a deductible around $2,500 would be ok, which brings the plan to around $162. That’s still pretty good but, even then, only provides 80% coverage plus deductible. Thing is that if I can’t get coverage for my ulcerative colitis then what’s the point? I’m pretty much paying $100 a month into something that is only good if the shit really hits the fan. Even then, there’s still no guarantee that the insurance company will cover me for every claim. I know this because I’ve been through it. I’ve had plenty of claims denied for various bullshit reasons.

I ended up deciding to buy a cheaper alternative to Asacol in the form of sulfasalazine. Even without insurance, I got a 3 month supply for around $30. While it does treat the disease as well as Asacol, it’s still not as good. The side effects leave a lot to be desired. First, it causes infertility, which means my wife and I definitely can’t have kids while I’m on the stuff. Second, I have found that it can cause some light numbness in my toes. That part has my wife kind of freaked out right now. There are some other mild side effects but those are my top two right now.

So I’m in a weird position where I have a disease that no insurance company will cover for a year and I can’t afford the outrageously expensive drugs for. For all the pundits out there, tell me, what should I do? Am I supposed to just grin and bear it like a good little American? Or do I hope for change in the system that will allow me some relief from the shitty business practices that health insurance companies hammer average citizens with every single day? I’d much rather go with the later option.

Sigh! That’s a lot off my shoulders! Now on with my rant…

A lot about health care has been said by those on the far-right and when I hear it my head just wants to explode. Much of it is just fear mongering, misinformation, and lies. Ironically, that exactly what the far-right says, that’s its all just fear mongering, misinformation, and lies. To show you what I mean, I’ll be writing a multi-part series of posts based on Ann Coulter’s recent series called Liberal Lies About National Health Care.

In the first part of Ann’s series, Ann starts right off with commentary on her first point:

(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.

Umm…duh?

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they’re a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

Ironically, President Obama touched on this very thing in his recent speech to Congress:

My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition.  Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies.  In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company.  Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down.

I would presume that this means he’s well aware of the government restrictions that disallow insurance companies from providing interstate coverage. But, quite frankly, that is but a small percentage of the overall bigger problem with insurance companies. More on that later.

Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That’s what single-payer health care is: “Single payer” means “single provider.”

While I will admit that many Democrats, including Obama, were for a single-payer system at one time, that is simply not the case now. Why? Well, I’ll let Obama explain it:

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone.  On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches.  But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have.  Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.  And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

Nope. Nothing about making it a total government takeover of the health care system. Besides, doing so in a down economy would be extremely stupid, if not futile.

(2) National health care will “increase competition and keep insurance companies honest” — as President Barack Obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn’t a competitor; it’s a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to “choose” whether they take the service — at least at first — but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It’s like a new cable plan with a “yes” box, but no “no” box.

Again, I’ll let Obama explain this one:

…if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices.  If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage.  If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage.  We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.  Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers.  As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage.  This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance.  It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance.  And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.

Gee, Ann, that doesn’t sound at all like government-provided health care. Sounds more like a health care fair where the government gets a little kickback fee for bringing the insurance companies new customers. As for your cable plan analogy, I akin this to being like the digital box that replaces the old antenna ears. While it may not be cable television, it’s still better than nothing.

(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are “villains.”

In his speech, Obama mentioned a story about a man who died due to lack of treatment:

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about.  They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

For which Coulter replies:

Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

Assuming this is true — which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care — in a free market, such an insurance company couldn’t stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor’s shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

So, basically, what you’re saying is that a health care insurance company’s ability to make a profit and please their stockholders is more important that doing the moral, right thing? Am I getting this right? Seems to me that they could find a much better business model that doesn’t require screwing over people’s health to protect the bottom line.

If only customers had a choice! But we don’t because of government regulation of health insurance.

What does government regulation have to do with an insurance company’s ability to accept or deny a claim? Nothing. The government doesn’t make those decisions, the insurance companies do. And when it comes to the acceptance or denial of those claim, no, the customer has no choice. While you can appeal any denial of a claim, good luck getting it appealed with any expediency. Insurance companies are practically worse that the very government that you bitch about, Ann!

(4) National health care will give Americans “basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable” — as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in theTimes.

You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, “I’m taking my business elsewhere.”

Umm…Ann…I can’t get full coverage from any insurance company right now. Thus, I can’t simply tell an insurance company that “I’m taking my business elsewhere”. Pre-existing condition limitations are the very “basic consumer protections” Obama was talking about and I welcome it. Telling customers that they aren’t covered due to a pre-existing condition is a shitty business practice plain and simple. So much for your hamburger analogy.

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most “pre-existing” conditions aren’t already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

Bullshit. Blue Cross Blue Shield is available in just about every state, including Texas, and insures more than 100,000,000 collectively. They aren’t exactly a microscopic size company. So why would they not cover pre-existing conditions? Because just about every health insurance company follows this practice. Not because of government regulations, though I will admit that it might play but a fraction of the reason. No, I think the real reason is that it cuts down on the number of claims paid out in a huge way thus boosting the bottom line and satisfying an ever greedy stock market.

Show me a health insurance company that is in danger of being in the red. Most publicly traded insurance companies are highly profitable and, quite frankly, will deny coverage to anyone if they can get away with it if it means maintaining Wall Street expectations.

So, what’s the bottom line here? Are “liberals” really all that evil for wanting to inject fairness and more competition into the system? Or is the “status quo” still the better way? Ask yourself a question: With all that has been happening in the financial markets, would you allow a company to invest and barter your health as stock on Wall Street?

Related posts:

1. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Two) Continuing on in an ongoing series based on an ongoing...
2. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Three) As stated in part one and part two, this is...
3. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Four) I know, I know…I’m so damn far behind on this...
4. US Senior Citizen Speaks Out on Healthcare Bill Yesterday, I received an email about a 68 year old...
5. Glenn Beck is freakin’ crazy Earlier this week, I listened to the following little bit...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“I can’t stand him under any circumstance and I’m sick of him and his cronies.“

Upon reading this, I was really taken aback and found myself reflecting a lot on this response. The question I responded back with was “Why do you hate him so much?“. For someone to hate Obama that much, I’m very curious as to the reasons why and where this animosity comes from.

I’ve gotten to the point now where I care less about trying to change people’s minds and care more about trying to understand why certain people feel the way they do. I figure it’s a far more healthy approach. After all, a lot of folks on the far-right aren’t easily persuaded by people with opposing views. As such, I’ve given up trying to change their minds. Instead, I’ll try and understand how they came to a given conclusion to begin with.

The best analogy I can give you of how I perceive the GOP and folks on the far-right is that they resemble Silly Putty. Think about what Silly Putty is:

• An amorphous thing that has no set form and can be molded into any shape at leisure.
• Lives inside of an egg-shaped shell when not used.
• You can press it over some newsprint and, when lifted, will get a reverse image of what the newsprint looks like.
• It stretches without breaking, yet it can be “snapped off” cleanly.
• It bounces higher than a rubber ball.
• It floats if you shape it in a certain way, yet sinks in others.
• If you slam it with a hammer, it keeps it shape, yet if you push with light, even pressure, it will flatten with ease.
• Gravity has a slow, yet devastating effect on creations.
• It is non-toxic and non-irritating to the skin (or so they say).
• No one really knows what the hell it’s made of (or cares to look it up).
• Originally called Nutty Putty.

I think that about sums it up, don’t you think?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.