A blog about Hobbies & Crafts, Politics, and Sports & Recreation.
Gender: male Member Since: March 14, 2006 Last Signed In: November 21, 2009 Profile Views: 302 Blog Views: 5560 Unemployement passes 10% Conservatism coming back? dj absent dave dodger fan ... Transparent Administration? Charlie Sheen Open Mouth - Insert foot John Adams Project I Pledge to ??? US Debt clock Take Two Aspirin And Call Me When Your Cancer is Stage 4 Highlights from the health care bill November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Take Two Aspirin And Call Me When Your Cancer is Stage 4
by Ann Coulter
07/22/2009
All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink.
The reason seeing a doctor is already more like going to the DMV, and less like going to the Apple "Genius Bar," is that the government decided health care was too important to be left to the free market. Yes -- the same free market that has produced such a cornucopia of inexpensive goods and services that, today, even poor people have cell phones and flat-screen TVs. As a result, it's easier to get your computer fixed than your health. Thanks, government! We already have near-universal health coverage in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' hospitals, emergency rooms and tax-deductible employer-provided health care -- all government creations. So now, everyone expects doctors to be free. People who pay $200 for a haircut are indignant if it costs more than a $20 co-pay to see a doctor. The government also "helped" us by mandating that insurance companies cover all sorts of medical services, both ordinary -- which you ought to pay for yourself -- and exotic, such as shrinks, in vitro fertilization and child-development assessments -- which no normal person would voluntarily pay to insure against. This would be like requiring all car insurance to cover the cost of gasoline, oil and tire changes -- as well as professional car detailing, iPod docks, and leather seats and those neon chaser lights I have all along the underbody of my chopped, lowrider '57 Chevy. But politicians are more interested in pleasing lobbyists for acupuncturists, midwives and marriage counselors than they are in pleasing recent college graduates who only want to insure against the possibility that they'll be hit by a truck. So politicians at both the state and federal level keep passing boatloads of insurance mandates requiring that all insurance plans cover a raft of non-emergency conditions that are expensive to treat -- but whose practitioners have high-priced lobbyists. As a result, a young, healthy person has a choice of buying artificially expensive health insurance that, by law, covers a smorgasbord of medical services of no interest to him ... or going uninsured. People who aren't planning on giving birth to a slew of children with restless leg syndrome in the near future forgo insurance -- and then politicians tell us we have a national emergency because some people don't have health insurance. The whole idea of insurance is to insure against catastrophes: You buy insurance in case your house burns down -- not so you can force other people in your plan to pay for your maid. You buy car insurance in case you're in a major accident, not so everyone in the plan shares the cost of gas. Just as people use vastly different amounts of gasoline, they also use vastly different amounts of medical care -- especially when an appointment with a highly trained physician costs less than a manicure. Insurance plans that force everyone in the plan to pay for everyone else's Viagra and anti-anxiety pills are already completely unfair to people who rarely go to the doctor. It's like being forced to share gas bills with a long-haul trucker or a restaurant bill with Michael Moore. On the other hand, it's a great deal for any lonely hypochondriacs in the plan. Now the Democrats want to force us all into one gigantic national health insurance plan that will cover every real and mythical ailment that has a powerful lobby. But if you have a rare medical condition without a lobbying arm, you'll be out of luck. Even two decades after the collapse of liberals' beloved Soviet Union, they can't grasp that it's easier and cheaper to obtain any service provided by capitalism than any service provided under socialism. You don't have to conjure up fantastic visions of how health care would be delivered in this country if we bought it ourselves. Just go to a grocery store or get a manicure. Or think back to when you bought your last muffler, personal trainer, computer and every other product and service available in inexpensive abundance in this capitalist paradise. Third-party payer schemes are always a disaster -- less service for twice the price! If you want good service at a good price, be sure to be the one holding the credit card. Under "universal health care," no one but government bureaucrats will be allowed to hold the credit card. Isn't food important? Why not "universal food coverage"? If politicians and employers had guaranteed us "free" food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the "food crisis" in America, and you'd be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan. Instead of making health care more like the DMV, how about we make it more like grocery stores? Give the poor and tough cases health stamps and let the rest of us buy health care -- and health insurance -- on the free market.
Subject: A few highlights from the first 500 pages of the Healthcare bill in congress.
Aren't the media supposed to act as a watchdog and not a Democratic lap dog? Why is Obama getting a pass on so many issues they used to mock Bush on? I maybe viewing this through my biased glasses, but do you dems on this site not see the irony? If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky? If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip? If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income! taxes, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is? If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite? If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually understand what happened on 9-11? If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless! than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than 2 centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved? If George W.. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved? So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.
One of my biggest pet peeves about driving is the left lane cruisers in our state. I grew up in Wyo and lived in various other states, but don't recall the abuse of left lane as we see here in Ca. The left lane cruisers (majority of the drivers in Ca?) cruise the left lane even when there are no other traffic on the road. And, when you come up on one, seldom do they move over to the right. What is it about Ca drivers that they disregard this simple driving etiqutte? I have other pet peeves (shopping carts left in paking area, truck parked crooked in the next stall, cell phone yackers driving slowly, etc...), but the left lane cruising seems to be the most commonly abused. Okay, I do understand some of this. We have an idiotic law that has the trucks crusing at 55 while the vehicles cruise at 70. Therefore, nobody likes getting stuck behind a truck. Also, the right lane tends to be more beat up due to all the trucks. But, basic common courtesy is to at least move over when a vehicle is coming up on you and your right lane is open. More importantly, people in this state needs to learn to pass only on the left and cruise on the right. Very simple to follow and this is a basic common courtesy that should be instilled upon every new driver. Very frustrating. |