Little Annie Coulter promised us that she'd come up with more "lies" we liberals always tell, and she hasn't disappoint. In fact, she's promised eight more sets after this one. That's going to take some imagination…
Thankfully for everyone involved, Annie is such a practiced liar, it should be no problem coming up with them. Look at the BS she's pulled in this one. It's breathtaking how much of this crap her anus can hold. She should really think about more fiber in her diet, because the stuff coming out of there isn't particularly solid… just stinky.
For those of you who'd like to follow along, I already answered her first crap-laden article about "liberal lies," and as long as she'll keep making them up, I'll keep knocking them down...
by Ann Coulter
Posted 08/26/2009 ET
Updated 08/26/2009 ET
With the Democrats getting slaughtered -- or should I say, "receiving mandatory end-of-life counseling" -- in the debate over national health care, the Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA interrogators for talking tough to three of the world's leading Muslim terrorists.
Had I been asked, I would have advised them against reinforcing the idea that Democrats are hysterical bed-wetters who can't be trusted with national defense while also reminding people of the one thing everyone still admires about President George W. Bush.
This is how loony the right wing is, folks. They can't just stick to the subject and make stuff up about that. No, they have to make things up about "liberals" or "Democrats" and try to smear us before they even get into their main argument.
There's actually a strategy of sorts to this type of rant. See, people like Coulter are preaching to the choir, and the choir is largely on the verge of cerebral atrophy. These people don't think. But to the average right winger, the mere appearance of such statements in print makes it credible, and gives them cause to repeat it, even if its complete and utter crap. In other words, Coulter is trying to kill three birds with one stone.
The Democrats aren't getting slaughtered. Do you know how I know about that? Because they have to lie their asses off to make their point. Since when does a winner have to lie to get their point across?
No one has "indicted" any CIA interrogators; an investigation has been ordered, and that is all. And if the Obama Administration was trying to use Eric Holder's decision to investigate to deflect attention away from health care, they picked a strange day to do so; the Friday before he went on vacation, while Congress was in recess.
And please, no one with IQ above 50 admires George W Bush for anything.
But I guess the Democrats really want to change the subject. Thus, here is Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.
(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.
Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it. (Hey, look -- I have two-thirds of a syllogism!)
I'll say it; there will be far less "rationing" of basic, necessary health care under the current health care reform plan than there is now. But she's lying when she says that liberals say there will be no "rationing" under health insurance reform. And she will actually unwittingly prove it for me.
Like I said, cognitive dissonance is part of the wingnut DNA.
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!
Stop there. Notice how she's defining "rationing." If that's the definition of "rationing," then every insurance plan that denies payment for a boob job or a hangnail removal would be "guilty" of rationing. If a woman has terminal cancer that is advancing through her body, and her insurance denies coverage for a liver transplant, according to little Annie Coulter here, that constitutes "rationing."
So, that proves the status of her argument as an absolute straw man, which is a polite way of saying "lie." I challenge her to cite for me one liberal who has EVER suggested that there would be no rationing under the current health insurance reform bills AS SHE DEFINES IT.
I'm about as pro-health care reform as it gets, as you can tell by this blog, but I would never claim that the public health insurance option would cover every single medical treatment in existence.
Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight! But first, let's go over the specs for my perpetual motion machine -- and it uses no energy, so it's totally green!
For you newcomers to planet Earth, everything that does not exist in infinite supply is rationed. In a free society, people are allowed to make their own rationing choices.
Some people get new computers every year; some every five years. Some White House employees get new computers and then vandalize them on the way out the door when their candidate loses. (These are the same people who will be making decisions about your health care.)
Similarly, one person might say, "I want to live it up and spend freely now! No one lives forever." (That person is a Democrat.) And another might say, "I don't go to restaurants, I don't go to the theater, and I don't buy expensive designer clothes because I've decided to pour all my money into my health."
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.
See how she just blew her own argument? She redefines the term "rationing." What she describes above is not "rationing." What she decides is consumerism. Some people choose to lease a new car every three years, while others will pay theirs off and drive it for ten years or more. That's "consumer choice."
Rationing would be if the government refused to allow you to buy a car more than once every five years. Ask anyone who was alive during World War II the difference between rationing and being a thrifty consumer. Hell; if Coulter was awake in the early 1970s, she'll remember the gas rationing that occurred during the Arab oil embargo. That's when you could only buy a certain amount of gasoline on certain days, based on the first letter of your license plate, and were limited to a certain amount of gas each time.
That's rationing, and there is absolutely nothing in any of these bills that creates anything resembling that.
Putting in minimal standards, and ordering coverage of everything that falls under those categories without exception, as the current health insurance reform bills do, is not rationing. In fact, to a rational person, it's the opposite of rationing. A system in which private insurance companies routinely deny claims that they deem to be "too expensive?" That's rationing. A private insurance company that denies coverage (refuses to pay) for treatment because of a "pre-existing condition" is "rationing" care.
It seems to me, if you're going to write a column that is seen in hundreds of newspapers and make a claim like the one above, you should at least know what terms mean.
(7) National health care will reduce costs.
This claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200 toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.
She starts with a bald-faced lie and an exaggeration.
First of all, the government that's in office right now did not "give us" the $500 hammer and the $1200 toilet seat, not that they were ever that high. The Clinton Administration, led by Al Gore, actually eliminated those expensive items, when Reagan and Bush did not.
And can we get real about the price of postage? It's really not that high. Does she really think a private company could deliver a letter from the middle of Manhattan to the wilds of Montana in three days or less for less than half a dollar?
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.
As night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long angry lines at gas stations.
You may recall this era as "the Carter years."
This is a major case of irrelevant historical revisionism. Right wingers just can't handle history as it actually occurred, so they make it up, and count on their minions to spread it around, like so much fertilizer.
First of all, Richard Nixon was absolutely not a liberal, by any stretch of the term. HE started what Coulter is referring to, which was called a "banking program."
In 1974, the price of oil was about to soar well above $1 per gallon, and Nixon was trying to keep his head above water, politically speaking (like I have to tell you this) and such highly priced gasoline would have completely destroyed his presidential legacy. So, he devised a system in which the federal government subsidized oil companies to keep the price of gasoline artificially low during a time of double-digit inflation.
The price controls were not on oil; they were on gasoline only. And while there were two periods during the 1970s in which there was gas rationing and long lines, one came BEFORE the banking system was created, and the second, far shorter period came in 1979, when the price controls were ended. Oil companies and gasoline distributors manufactured that shortage to maximize profits.
Jimmy Carter, who was relatively liberal, ELIMINATED the "price controls," which weren't so much price controls as subsidies; the same kinds of subsidies that Republicans like to use to keep prices artificially low in areas they favor. It's the reason our sodas are sweetened by corn, rather than cane sugar.
Then, the white knight Ronald Reagan became president and immediately deregulated oil prices. The magic of the free market -- aka the "profit motive" -- produced surges in oil exploration and development, causing prices to plummet. Prices collapsed and remained low for the next 20 years, helping to fuel the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history.
You may recall this era as "the Reagan years."
Pure right wing bullshit.
As I said, the only "price controls" in place during the Carter years were on gasoline, and they were lifted by Carter himself. Carter also put in place a mandatory conservation plan that was reducing oil consumption by nearly 5% every year. During the Carter years, we saw our importation of foreign oil drop to its lowest level since the 1960s.
And prices plummeted because the oil industry itself crashed. It was not a good thing. In fact, it was a much smaller version of what happened last year with mortgage prices.
By the way, have you noticed that she hasn't even addressed the "lie" she claims we liberals are telling?
National health care WILL reduce
costs. That's not a lie. If it was a lie, the private insurance companies wouldn't be against it to such a degree. See, insurance companies make more money when costs are high. Every time their costs increase $1, it creates cover, so that they can raise premiums $1.20.
The concept of full coverage cutting cost is actually just common sense. Simply covering everyone means those with insurance will no longer be paying the bills for those people without insurance. Plus, people will be able to see a doctor before their condition becomes critical enough to need emergency or urgent care. Covering everyone will also pretty much eliminate the rampant inflation in the health care industry.
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.
No matter how many times you say it, they will never understand… health insurance has nothing to do with "free market" economics.
(8) National health care won't cover abortions.
There are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.
I don't think that requires elaboration, but here it is:
Despite being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific. (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren't able to squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save paper.)
The bill is non-specific because all bills are non-specific. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the creation of a health insurance system, not to create the system itself. And 1000 pages really isn't as long as people think. In paperback book form it'd bee 300 pages tops.
These are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don't include the words "abortion," "death panels" or "three-year waits for hip-replacement surgery."
That proves nothing -- the bills set up unaccountable, unelected federal commissions to fill in the horrible details. Notably, the Democrats rejected an amendment to the bill that would specifically deny coverage for abortions.
After the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it's within the regulatory authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.
Then we'll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing, "Well, I'm pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover abortions, I never would have voted for it!"
I already dealt with this in another post when I fact checked Factcheck.org, so I'll just say the following two words:
Unless the Hyde Amendment is altered severely, there is no way this bill could possibly authorize government funding for abortions. It's not possible to change the rules with a simple majority vote, and the rules require the Hyde Amendment be attached to any appropriations bill that would cover health care. Therefore, without a 2/3 majority, Democrats are not going to kill the Hyde Amendment anytime soon, and it's not likely to be altered enough to "allow" abortions.
No wonder Democrats want to remind us that they can't be trusted with foreign policy. They want us to forget that they can't be trusted with domestic policy.
And the last eight years reminded us that Republicans can't be trusted with either foreign domestic policy. Everything the GOP touches turns to crap. That's why my son is currently stationed in Kandahar, as part of a war that should have been over 8 years ago, and we're going to spend the next 3-4 years trying to get ourselves out of this damned recession.
In other words, if Annie's going to try to shoot at the Democratic Party, rhetorically speaking, she might check to see if her own side has any bullets.
How gullible does one have to be to buy this level of bullshit? Balls with no brains is no way to go through life, right wingers.