(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.
The only reason you can’t keep health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of … government intrusion into the free market.
You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you have no trouble obtaining car insurance, home owners insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government. (Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.)
Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. The tax code actually punishes people who don’t get their health insurance through an employer by denying them the tax deduction for health insurance that employers get.
Meanwhile, state governments must approve the health care insurers allowed to operate in their states and mandate a smörgåsbord of services that must be covered — i.e. every “medical” treatment with a powerful lobby — which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs a boob job.
If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job, 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.”
Plus, think of all the paper a one-page bill would save! Don’t Democrats care about saving the planet anymore? Go green!
(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? How about I decide when a trigger has been met repealing their salaries? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is — and I believe the historical record is fairly clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument by invoking “triggers”?
Why not have a “trigger” allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market as soon as consumers decide their national health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers — triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab, speech therapy and psychological counseling?
Thinking more broadly, how about triggers for paying taxes? Under my “public option” plan, citizens would not have to pay taxes until a trigger kicks in. For example, 5 percent of the Department of Education’s output is useful, or — in the spirit of compromise — not actively pernicious.
Also, I think we need triggers for taking over our neighbors’ houses. If they don’t keep up 95 percent of their lawn — on the basis of our lawn commission’s calculations — we get to move in. As with Obama’s public option trigger, we (playing “the government”) pay nothing. All expenses with the house would continue to be paid by the neighbor (playing “taxpayer”).
To make our housing “public option” even more analogous to Obama’s health care “public option,” we’ll have surly government employees bossing around the neighbors after we evict them and a Web site for people to report any negative comments the neighbors make about us.
Another great trigger idea: We get to pull Keith Olbermann’s hair to see if it’s a toupee — but only when triggered by his claiming to have gone to an Ivy League university, rather than the bovine management school he actually attended.
(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.
This appeared in an earlier installment of “Liberal Lies About Health Care,” but I keep seeing Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies — which, in itself, constitutes proof that it’s all true.
Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan — where they think they have no reason to be sneaky — in support of national health care?)
Here are the facts:
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.
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?
COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106