Skip to comments.Mark Levin’s rebuttal of Coulter’s “Three Cheers for RomneyCare” article (Coulter for statism?)
Posted on 02/01/2012 7:14:46 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Ann Coulter wrote an article today 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:
She’s a Trojan Horse. I suspected this long ago when she was egging on the “conservative gays” long ago.
She’s DONE for me.
"I bet you $10,000 that my bought
maid, here, absolutely supports my mandated RomneyCARE AND deathpanels,
and especially the fact that Romneycare cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;
drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;
collapsed disposable income per person by $376; and
even reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million.
My robotic tart-twit even supports my coverup of the BIG DIG
AND my backstabbing of GOP candidates through surrogates,
(heck, the wench even jumps right in to attack them for me!!!!).
She especially LOVES my personal imposition of gay marriage by
my personal order under improper Executive Authority,
my support of TARP, and Sharia and other antiConstitutional agendae,
and my bribing of Officials with a promise of future positions.
She loves my Teams abuse of women GOP candidates and their helpless children,
and even my making money from the 911 Victory Mosque.
These are truly things, like our abuse of dogs,
that make this mindless vessel and me 'conservative'."
Ann must have fallen asleep next to a pod.
You may never choose Mark Levin for your PR department, but to choose him for your long-range planning department would be ever so wise.
Whose right is health care? Do you think it's yours?
Congressman Anthony Weiner has said that health care is not a commodity. If it isn't a commodity then do doctors and nurses have rights? Assigning health care the status of a right makes health care workers slaves to that right who must serve it. On what ground could a health care worker refuse to provide their products and services since that would violate the patient's "basic human right to health care."
That is a direct loss of individual rights for health care providers. The collective right of the people to receive health care would supersede the provider's individual right to set fees and hours or to change their occupational status or even decide how to apply their skills and knowledge if taken to its logical extreme. A collective right, by practical definition, is a state right because it is a right that is created and given by the government to those it chooses to give it to. It is not a natural right possessed by each person protected by the Constitution from the government. It is also a collective/state right by virtue of the fact that it would supersede individual rights when the two come into conflict. How else would the government view a right that it created and administers vs. one it has no control over?
Of course it isn't stated in any bill that a patient's right to care supersedes a provider's right to set fees and hours etc, but it doesn't need to. Rights, as always, are adjudicated in the courts. The Health Care Reform bills simply establish the foundation for the courts to rule in favor of the collective right.
Weiners view is collectivist, fascist and totalitarian. Collectivist because it has to be described as being a right of the many instead of the one and superior due to that fact. Fascist because ultimately the sole authority for its creation and oversight is from one entity the Federal government. Totalitarian because the Federal government is the enforcer of this collective right as well. State and local jurisdictions will have little say about it.
Congressman Weiner's view is the underlying philosophy of all of the Health Care Reform legislation in the House and Senate. Consider this section in the Senate version of the bill; the setting up of community watch dogs that will monitor citizens for various health parameters. Read pages 382 - 393.
So, even citizens themselves will be subject to Federal regulations on their behavior in order to fulfill the "human right" of universal health care. It isn't the individual's liberty that is being protected by that it is the government's control over its own health care system that is being guarded. How much clearer can it be that these bills abrogate the concept of individual rights? Someone will be checking your lifestyle, according to gov regulations, to be certain you serve the best interests of the "basic human right to health care" ie. "the Public Option."
HCR is not just about rationing care and wealth redistribution. It's about the end of individual rights as the corrosive effects of the new collectivist "basic human right to health care" spreads throughout the legal and political systems like a virus.
I think that the main purpose of Health Care Reform (HCR) is as a direct assault on individual liberties.
Health Care is a Liberty Issue
Conservative Underground - 18 August 2009 - Tim Dunkin
Second Bill of Rights aka FDR's economic bill of rights
(An early attempt to embed collective rights into American politics and society.)
that’s what I was thinking...
sleepy bump ... will listen tomorrow
Hit her in her pocketbook. Any way to subvert further books sales, depress Conservative listenership and viewership when she appears on RINO talking head shows, disruption of her public appearances (peaceably) this time not from a socialist perspective but from a conservative Tea Party perspective, disinviting her to conservative confabs (get to the leaders of these organizations who send the invites), calling in to debate her if she takes calls on talk shows, considering any articles written by her as further Verbotten per policy on FR (such as Jim prohibits DU postings), etc. and we can work to banish her to the dark side of RINOism where she deserves to live out her deplorable career. All the while, write her and let her know that these punishments are being enacted. Make these people by where it counts the most, their salaries and royalties. Make an example out of her to other conservatives in the public domain. THEN maybe they will come back with penitent hearts and apologies. The base needs to revolt and make a clear statement about this individual and to this individual.
THERE I SAID IT!
BTW, does AZ and MI having their delegates cut in half actually hurt Newt in the long run?
Yep-—she wasn’t bad until she started rubbing up to the gays.....and then she went looney. As I have said a million times——you can NEVER be rational if you think sodomy is a Virtue. It never can be.
You can’t have government glorifying or promoting evil in a civil society (like telling kids there is pride in an*l sex-—it is a lie and disgusting). Even Plato knew the society would collapse if it wasn’t virtuous. Freedom demands virtue (Founding Fathers). You can not demean the body the way homosexual acts do and call it “good”. You are using others for lust and as a means. It is always evil.
Annie has turned everything upside down—she calls good-evil and evil-good. Can’t ever make sense when you “think” like that.
It is about time for someone to stop slow down and make some sense of all of this confusion.
Thank goodness Mark has not went to the dark side. I like him a lot. I cannot give up my principles just to win any seat.
She’s banking on a job in Romney’s administration.
Sounds like she has one
Love Mark Levin!