From Atlas Shrugs:
Thursday, February 02, 2012
FLASHBACK COULTER: "IF YOU DON'T RUN CHRIS CHRISTIE, ROMNEY WILL BE THE NOMINEE AND WE'LL LOSE."
Bottom line on the race to date: Newt fared badly in Florida. This is not a Newt vs Romney battle yet. The battle is Newt vs. Rick for the conservative vote. I prefer either over Romney.
Coulter: "If you don't run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we'll lose."
Right Scoop: Ann Coulter wrote an article called “Three Cheers for RomneyCare” where she defended Mitt Romney and RomneyCare. Mark Levin decided to read her article, fresh off the presses, on the air and go through it line by line, “reeducating” her on why RomneyCare is not only wrong, but a big problem for Mitt Romney and all of Massachusetts.This is the rebuttal in its entirety. It runs 30 minutes:
As I said here last week on Coulter's break with reason:
OT but related: Coulter's tirade against Newt on Bull O'Reilly's show last night (watch it here) was not logical or coherent with her positions. Her hatred for Gingrich is visceral, abiding, and inexplicable rationally. There is something more here. Personal, I think.Comparing Newt to Jesse Jackson is an outrageous charge. She is way off base, and O'Reilly ought to have a conservative pundit out as vocal in their support of Newt as she was in support of Romney.She is ...unhinged, and I hate to use that word because it is used against me with such venom and dishonesty, but you can see she is beside herself. She is staking out positions she wouldn't support in other contexts, like covering for mainstream media reporters.Romney is more conservative than any of the other candidates? Nuts. More than Santorum? More than Ron Paul, who is largely conservative except for nuts on foreign policy? Something else is happening here. They must know each other and hate each other for some reason we don't know.
Re: the value of mandates and their effects on the cost problem, I recommend this (more at the link): http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/107101
- Second,coverage mandates—laws that decree specific coverage requirements for all policies in any given state—have an extremely deleterious impact on the ultimate cost of an , for obvious reasons. While mandates certainly make health insurance more comprehensive, they also make it more expensive. Government mandates requiring an to cover specific , benefits, or patient populations have grown from only a handful in the 1960s to 2,156 as of 2010. These coverage requirements can be responsible for more than 50 percent of health-insurance costs, depending on the state, and account for a significant part of the disparity of health-insurance prices between states. New federal mandates in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) require insurers in the group or individual markets to provide coverage, without any cost sharing, for certain preventative health services, such as certain and screening tests.But coverage mandates for individuals don't necessarily seek to curb the cost problem -- what people care most about. They seek to curb adverse selection (the "death spiral"), or as Jon put it, the creation of more free riders and indigents. Also, I recommend keeping up with the Hoover Richard Epstein.generally, particularly for regular updates from the indispensable
Alexis Shrugged opines:
While the concept of a mandate for everyone to pay their share of health costs instead of riding free may sound inoffensive at first, put into practice it's terrible! What states mandate as an acceptable level of coverage ends up including whatever their pet interests are lobbying for. They end up including free birth control, coverage of abortion, Viagra, sex change operations, boob jobs - you name it - as basic, essential, minimum requirements forthat all have a "right" to.