Music to read by:
Dear
Ann,
Are
you attempting to do get a job doing stand-up impersonating Kathleen
Parker? Maybe, menopause is finally kicking in, eh? Ran out of
Prozac? Got to see Mitt with windblown hair wearing his magic
underwear? Bill Maher hasn't called in a week?
Girlfriend,
I just don't get you. We are both women. We are both lawyers by
training and writers by nature. We are both acerbic blondes with
penchants for LBDs, ridiculously expensive handbags, 'tinis, and the occasional
fag. We depart on the religion thing and Bill Maher, but for the life of
me, I could have sworn that we were blood sisters when it came to standing
against hypocrisy.
So,
while I'm not going to go all S.E.-Cupp-on-Newt on you - Wasn't she
divine? My new anthem for Newt is Helen Reddy's "I Am Woman" - nor
am I going to eat a box of Chocopologie while lying in my bed watching old Joan
Crawford movies, but I just have to say, I'm just not that into sellouts.
Just so that you can see that I don't make such a charge lightly, I have taken
the time to read, review, and compare some of your old columns raging against
the Obamacare machine with "Your Cream of Knickers / My Syrup of Ipecac"
article, "Three Cheers For RomneyCare!"
Ann,
you'll recall in this column that you were castigating Democrats for the saying
that "National health care will punish the insurance
companies." You missed the whole point that they want to punish them
out of existence, but you made the statement, "You want to punish
insurance companies? Make them compete."
My
dear, Ann, do you think that insurance companies compete in Massachusetts?
Not
particularly. The Governor has to deign to allow them to increase
premiums and guess what, he drags his feet when he deigns at all. And,
here's the kicker: You can't blame any of this on those mean, old,
"profits-before-people" corporations because the insurers are
non-profits.
Ann,
you'll recall you were calling the Democrats liars for saying that there would
be no rationing under Obamacare. Of course there will be rationing, but
you might wish to ring up Governor Deval Patrick and talk to him about his
threats to issue price and cost controls, which ALWAYS lead to rationing.
Oh, I know, Mitt didn't do it, but he created the monster. He wasn't
always going to be around to control it.
You'll
also recall that you were laughing at Dems for claiming that "National
health care will reduce costs."
Do
you know what happened to costs after RomneyCare?
In
2008, the cost projections were revised. The new estimates indicated that the
plan was to cost $869 million dollars in 2009 and $880 million dollars in 2010,
an upwards increase of nearly 20%. MittCare has done nothing to bend the cost
curve down. Since 2006, the cost of the state’s insurance programme has
increased by 42% or almost $600 million dollars. According to an analysis
by the Rand Corporation, “in the absence of policy change, health care spending
in Massachusetts is projected to nearly double to $123 billion in 2020,
increasing 8% faster than the state’s gross domestic product (GDP).”
Oh,
and it also has the highest insurance premiums and longest wait times in the
country.
You'll recall that
this was the column where you excoriated Democrats because you said that
Obamacare would cover illegals, which it will, and claimed they were
lying.
You
wrote:
"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."
Did you know that Jonathan Gruber, the architect of both RomneyCare and ObamaCare, said RomneyCare and ObamaCare are "the same f—ing bill”?
Do you know that more and more Massachusetts firms are dumping their employees and opting to pay the fine of $2,000 a head?
Do you know that Medicaid costs have risen $7.5
billion to an estimated $9.2 billion and of the 407,000 newly insured, only 32%
paid for their insurance entirely on their own?
Do you know that the remaining 68% were either
partially or wholly subsidised by the taxpayers?
Do you know that only 5% of newly insured
Massachusetts residents, who are not receiving any taxpayer benefits, obtained
their coverage through the state's "Connector" health care exchange?
Do you know that upwards of 60% of American
companies could dump their sickest employees through a loophole and 75% of
American companies, that are informed that the fine is less than the premiums
either will or are considering dumping their employee health coverage and
opting to paying the fines?
Do you know that if even just 50% of people
covered by company plans get dumped, federal health care costs will rise by
$160 billion a year in 2016, in addition to the $93 billion in subsidies
already forecast by the CBO?
You
also wrote:
"(14) National health care will not cover
abortions or illegal immigrants."
You
castigated Democrats and called them liars for claiming that Obamacare wouldn't
cover abortions or illegal aliens. I've already shown that MittCare
covered illegal immigrants in a programme called Health Safety Net, which
allowed undocumented immigrants to get needed medical care along with others
who lacked insurance, but let's turn to abortion....
RomneyCare
explicitly provided abortions for free for
everyone, who was below the poverty line, and subsidised participation (there
was a $50 co-pay) was made available to those above the poverty line.
You
wrote:
"Hospitals across the country are going bankrupt
because the federal government forces them to provide free services to
illegals. This situation appears to have angered some segment of the
population, in particular, American citizens who pay taxes to support the
hospitals, but then are forced to spend hours writhing in pain in hospital
waiting rooms."
Yes,
all true. You'll recall that it was Ronald Reagan, who signed EMTALA into
law in 1986. But, let's look at Massachusetts. MittCare, as I have
shown, covered illegals, specifically. Illegals, who were unable to pay
for health insurance, could get coverage through a programme called
"Health Safety Net." Health Safety Net provides free health
care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty
level (FPL) who are not eligible for Mass Health (Medicaid). The law also
partially subsidises healthcare insurance for those earning up to 300% of the
FPL. Last year, Health Safety Net cost $400 million.
Guess
who pays for Health Safety Net?
YOU, Ann Coulter ...
even though you aren't a resident of Massachusetts.
Now,
the hospitals in Massachusetts aren't going bankrupt so much, but doctors are
refusing to take on more Medicare and Medicaid patients and even the some of the
NOT-FOR-PROFIT insurance companies are refusing to write new policies because
they are being driven into bankruptcy.
As
for Americans being "forced to spend hours writhing in pain in hospital
waiting rooms, MittCare didn't solve that problem either. Since MittCare
was signed into law, ER visits have increased by 9%. In 2010 alone, the Health Safety
Net programme paid for an additional 1.1 million hospital and clinic visits.
You wrote:
"(15) Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because
President Clinton failed to pass national health care.
That's not the way I remember it. The way I remember
it, Republicans swept Congress in 1994 not because Clinton failed to
nationalize health care, but because he tried to nationalize health care.
HillaryCare failed because most Americans didn't want it. (For more on this,
see "ObamaCare.")
(snip)
The Times' own polling
showed that two-thirds of voters believed that "government should be less
involved in solving national problems" -- which doesn't sound to me like
voters being huffy with Clinton for failing to stage a government takeover of
one-sixth of the economy.
In a Hail Mary pass just
before the election, President Clinton pulled Hillary off the health care beat.
CNN's repository of liberal cliches, Bill Schneider, reported that Clinton was
trying to calm voters by 'removing the most visible symbol of the liberal tilt
of the last two years, which is the first lady.'
And what a morale boost
for the Democrats that must have been! Kind of like firing the manager of a
losing baseball team in the last week of the season.
Too late. Shouldn't have
tried to socialize health care."
And,
what, dear Annie, happened when Mitt Romney socialised healthcare in
Massachusetts? You hated Bill Clinton for attempting to socialise healthcare.
You hate Barack Obama for socialising healthcare. But, you
love Chris Christie, who is the only Republican governor that did not
challenge Obamacare, and you want us to vote for Mitt Romney, who did
socialise healthcare in Massachusetts.
Please,
please, please, do not go with the Tenth Amendment excuse. Technically,
it is correct, but ideologically and principally, it is an anathema to anyone,
who is a champion of limited government and liberty.
Plus,
look at how lovely (/s) the "little, temporary safety" obtained by
RomneyCare is for those in Massachusetts who gave "up essential
liberty."
The
median health insurance monthly premium for a policy holder in Massachusetts
was $442 in 2009, a 21% jump from 2005.
A
study published in The
American Journal of Medicine, “Medical Bankruptcy in
Massachusetts: Has Health Reform Made a Difference?”, compared bankruptcy
filers from 2007, before reforms were implemented, to those filing in the post-reform
2009 environment to see what role medical costs played. The study found that:
1) From 2007 to 2009, the total number of medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts
increased by more than one third, from 7,504 to 10,093; and 2) Illness and
medical costs contributed to 59.3% of bankruptcies in 2007 and 52.9% in
2009.
A
survey published by Blue Cross Blue Shield
Massachusetts Foundation in
April, 2011, found that per capita health care spending in Massachusetts is
projected to nearly double by 2020.
Methinks
that Ben Franklin, in addition to most certainly being appalled, would say that
they "deserve neither liberty nor safety."
More to come. I think her series is 12 pieces long...
No comments:
Post a Comment