Ann Coulter: “Three cheers for RomneyCare”

posted at 8:55 pm on February 1, 2012 by Allahpundit

Remember what I said in the minimum-wage thread about conservatives gradually being forced to play ideological Twister to defend Romney if he’s the nominee? Here’s Exhibit AAA1.

I don’t understand. I don’t understand why, if you support one of these candidates, it can’t simply be because they’re the best of a bad lot. This happens endlessly in the comments here as Romney fans and Gingrich fans insult each other into digging in ever deeper behind their guy, but I can’t fathom why that mindset would affect Coulter. She has a million arguments for Romney over Gingrich or Santorum if she wants them: He’s a better fundraiser and organizer, he polls better against Obama head to head, he’s good enough at debates to have thwarted Newt twice in Florida, he’s got private sector experience, etc. There’s simply no need to cheer him on for the least conservative thing he ever did in public life. Either she’s so sick of people dumping on her for backing Mitt that she decided to write this as a rhetorical middle finger to her critics or she’s curious to see just how strong her persuasive powers over the right are. If she can turn them around on RomneyCare, she can turn them around on anything.

Read it all, but here’s the worst part. Turns out government coercion isn’t so bad as long as it’s not coming from the feds:

As Rick Santorum has pointed out, states can enact all sorts of laws — including laws banning contraception — without violating the Constitution. That document places strict limits on what Congress can do, not what the states can do. Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally…

No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.

States have been forcing people to do things from the beginning of the republic: drilling for the militia, taking blood tests before marriage, paying for public schools, registering property titles and waiting in line for six hours at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to drive.

There’s no obvious constitutional difference between a state forcing militia-age males to equip themselves with guns and a state forcing adults in today’s world to equip themselves with health insurance.

The hyperventilating over government-mandated health insurance confuses a legal argument with a policy objection.

Once you accept that State Mandate Y should be tolerated because people already tolerate State Mandate X, you’ve built yourself a self-perpetuating government expansion machine. Why not let the state mandate people’s diets while we’re at it? After all, we let them force militia-age males to carry guns. And the punchline, of course, is that the federal/state distinction she’s drawing isn’t nearly as bright as we wish. Fully half of RomneyCare was paid for with federal tax dollars through Medicaid, i.e. by you and me. Romney’s ostensible big solution to Massachusetts’s free-rider health-care problem actually required Massachusetts to be something of a free rider.

A lot of people are going to end up writing about this, so rather than me blathering on, let me point you to two of them for further reading. One: Inveterate RomneyCare critic Philip Klein has a lengthy rebuttal to Coulter, part of which is devoted to reminding her that RomneyCare actually wasn’t designed as a solution to the free-rider problem. It was designed to grow the pool of premiums in order to offset the costs of expanding coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Go see how the math turned out on that. And two: Mark Levin spent half an hour of his radio show tonight rebutting Coulter point by point. I’ve only been able to listen to the first 10 minutes so far but the time was well spent. Carve out 30 minutes and settle in. Exit question: Her CPAC speech next week should really be something, huh? Click the image to listen.

Update: Actually, as a counterweight to Coulter’s piece, go read Laura Ingraham’s lament about tea-party impotence in the presidential race. The great expectation on the right is that we’ll elect a conservative Senate this year that’ll hold Romney in check even if he reverts to his RINO-ier ways as president. I’m not as sure of that as other people are. The pressure to fall in line behind a first-term president will be enormous lest he be undercut publicly before the following election, and it’s not clear how bold Romney would be in stumping for conservative measures that originate in the Senate.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

I’m finished with Coulter. She can go to hell.

Samantha on February 2, 2012 at 4:23 PM

It seems either Ann is trying to undo her negative impact on the McCain campaign last time around with her articles lothing the candidate or she has been bought and paid for by Romney.

Her comments that

“States have been forcing people to do things from the beginning of the republic: drilling for the militia, taking blood tests before marriage, paying for public schools, registering property titles and waiting in line for six hours at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to drive.
There’s no obvious constitutional difference between a state forcing militia-age males to equip themselves with guns and a state forcing adults in today’s world to equip themselves with health insurance.”

misses the point that the state imposed requirements she mentions are for things you voluntarily want to do (join the national guard, get married, or drive) or is a tax (public schools) for services provided by the state to everyone. If you don’t want to join the guard, get married, or drive, the state’s requirements don’t apply to you. However, forcing health insurance purchases say that even if you don’t intend to need health care (due to age, position, etc.), you have to buy insurance just in case (can I buy insurance in case I need to go grocery shopping?).
And, Oh-by-the-Way, there is no expectation that your insurance will be adequate to cover your health care requirements. That is the biggest bill of goods in the whole matter. If we believe as a society that health care at a certain level is an absolute neccessity (like school through high school and unlike food on the table), then government should tax us for it and provide it like they do with schools (ask yourself this question, though, how is your health care vs how is our education system?).
If we want the benefits in improvements in health care that we get today and the ability to see a doctor right away, leave it as it is with health care for most through insurance and hospitals unable to turn away those who present themselves with life threatening injuries/requirements. Or we can go like Britain and others with managed, stagnated health care. The split-the-difference only benefits the health insurance, malpractice insurance, and trial lawyer lobbies.

WhyNot on February 2, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Its ironic, Coulter had written recently that nominating Newt would guarantee an Obama victory, and yet this full throttle defense of RomneyCare and by extension ObamaCare may very well help to achieve that which she states she does not want. Perhaps the pillow talk with Maher had an impact.

oldmans on February 2, 2012 at 7:26 PM

I’m not surprised the TEA Party is impotent in the presidential race. The movement is too divided to settle on one man and back him to the hilt. A major problem, however, is there is no good choice for anyone among the bunch that’s running. They may fall in behind the last man standing, but they will have to hold their nose and vote for anyone they get.

Quartermaster on February 2, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Coulter’s success as she was climbing the mountain of peer acclamation was amazing. She peaked a few years ago – nowhere to go but down, and the only way she can think of to rebel against that slide to inevitable public indifference is to become more outrageous. In doing so she has lurched herself into the category of many once-thinkers-now-entertainers: she confuses her fame with significance. She doesn’t comprehend that the average CONSERVATIVE thinker once and for all relegated her opinions to the trash heap during the 2010 election cycle, when she fell in lust with the cutsey-snarky, but basically liberal Chris Christie. She’s pulled the string on her Coulter doll one too many times.

GGMac on February 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I can’t find anywhere to email coulter on her site to tell her what a disappointment to me that she is. I guess that’s so she can insulate herself from any bad comments. Thats the cowards way out IMO

That leaves me left with the 3 main gals I trust, the wife, Megan Kelly an Sarah Palin.

Vodkanockers on February 3, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8