October 12, 2010

"To know what Ann Coulter writes in her books, they’d have to know what’s in her books."

"That would require reading Ann Coulter’s books — and worse yet, admitting it in print, which no self-respecting Timesian would do. Far better to make a major embarrassing error... and thus actually score points when busted by Mickey, since this makes it clear to the NYT crowd that your mind is unpolluted by contact with Coulter’s writing."

167 comments:

HDHouse said...

Having had the wonderous honor of being tossed off the Ann Coulter website and having my comment rights revoked (about 5-6 years ago)...I wonder why the fascination for this skanky thing...particularly from a UM alum...and I do think that the NYT is way to busy with stuff that matters than to read her crap.

..UM grads spinning in their graves??

HDHouse said...

to=too sorry..i got excited.

1jpb said...

Will Alhouse commenters use this thread to list the Coulter books they've read?

Has insty read them?

And, is it really necessary to have a Hayek link in a post about Coulter? They seem like different genres.

HDHouse said...

1jpb said...
Will Alhouse commenters use this thread to list the Coulter books they've read?"

pop up books don't count.

Scott M said...

Okay, I'll bite. Do I have to pray at the alter of Coulter literature to be a conservative?

Care to list the number of Coulter books you have read? How about Michael Moore? Read any of his books or seen any of his movies?

1jpb said...

"...seen any of his movies?"

Meade has.

Scott M said...

So...you think it's possible...just possible, that one can be, at once, an Althouse commentor, a non-Coulter reader, and a decent person?

Robert Cook said...

"So...you think it's possible...just possible, that one can be, at once, an Althouse commentor, a non-Coulter reader, and a decent person?"

That perfectly describes me!

dbp said...

HDHouse said...
and I do think that the NYT is way to busy with stuff that matters than to read her crap.

If they have the time to opine on Ms. Coulter, then they need to make the time to actually read what she has written. Unless they don't mind looking like total idiots.

Simon Kenton said...

I've seen this kind of self-satisfied ignorant virtue in reporters repeatedly, when they write about firearms. If you actually get the story right, you are declasse. It is far better to screw the story up (though, of course, screwing it up in the correct direction) than to get it right, because that would reveal you know something about guns. You'd be decredentialed by all the right people.

Soon enough the high-status print media will sleep beside their fathers in the Halls of Waiting.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Will Alhouse commenters use this thread to list the Coulter books they've read?

Sure.. I will list them. Zero. SO therefore I have no opinion on her books or what is in them.


And, is it really necessary to have a Hayek link in a post about Coulter? They seem like different genres.

The necessity is to point out that the reporter or whoever wrote that article and expressed an opinion about the books and Coulter, had not read her books and was not qualified to express an opinion. AND....that they also have not read Hayek and YET have uninformed opinions that they publish.

As individuals...you and I are welcome to have all the uninformed, ignorant, misinformed, distorted opinions we want.

As a newspaper or reporter you are supposed to have an informed opinion. Or at least some semblance of one. Instead they just make shit up and pretend that it is fact.

Scott M said...

Soon enough the high-status print media will sleep beside their fathers in the Halls of Waiting.

Ah, but will simbelmyne grow on their barrow-graves? I'm thinking not.

garage mahal said...

So the NYT got it wrong because Coulter is friends with Kaus, and, presumably told him things only he could know? Good to know. The Birther thing is nonsense because liberals are godless! Duh NYT!

Pogo said...

The NYTimesian left treat guns and Ann Coulter books as if they are magic totems, and therefore must not be touched.

Pogo said...

Garage, have the decency to read the piece that discusses how the left doesn't even bother to read the stuff they criticize.

Oh, I see.
Never mind.

former law student said...

No one can criticize Islam till they've read the Koran.

In Arabic.

ricpic said...

I might be in favor of national health care if Democrats had to get their heads examined.

--Ann Coulter

Scott M said...

I might not have a problem with some form of national health care if the people in charge of writing it didn't say things like, "we have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it".

D.D. Driver said...

"No one can criticize Islam till they've read the Koran.

In Arabic."

Of course you can criticize Islam without reading the Koran. But what you should not write a newspaper article about stuff that you kinda think (in your gut) that the Koran probably says.

See the difference?

Michael said...

Never read her books but assume they are expanded versions of her columns which I have read and liked. Coulter gives better than she gets and keeps her sense of humor. She has a pretty impressive resume and speaks without uh-ing and ah-ing and does not appear to employ a teleprompter.

"Skanky" is the word that has- beens with middling educations use for attractive women who are richer and smarter.

The points made about journalists intentionally getting it wrong to maintain and/or earn their credentials are very interesting. Much can be reevaluated through that lens.

John said...

OK,jpb, I'll bite. I've read:

How to talk to a Liberal

Godless

Slander

Treason

All more than once.

And which of Coulter's books have you read?

John Henry

DADvocate said...

Anyway Antrax Annie is trending in the news...

I bet Coulter knows how to spell anthrax or, at least, use a spell checker.

I've never read an Ann Coulter book or seen a Michael Moore movie. I already know the ending in both cases. Ann does have better legs though.

But, I just looove people who declare someone the worst person in the world, a la dim wit Olberman. The pretense, conceit and lie are beyond the pale unless you're talking about Kim Jon Il or such.

Jeremy said...

Do the people posting here actually believe Coulter (The Walking Talking Trash Barrel)...likes all gays?

C'mon...even the wing nut teabaggers here aren't that dense.

Are you?

garage mahal said...

Garage, have the decency to read the piece that discusses how the left doesn't even bother to read the stuff they criticize

I did read it. Kaus said the NYT was wrong because Coulter privately expressed doubts about Afghanistan. That's not in any book Coulter has written. The Birther business is not in any book Coulter has written, aside from "Godless", liberals being Godless so how can Obama be a Muslim. The last defense, that Coulter has always been warm to gays is pretty hard to defend, calling Edwards a faggot, and Gore a total fag, and other pretty raunchy gay quotes.

These days with all the crazy on the Right, from Horse Cock Carl, and the Junior DeMints, Coulter actually seems fairly moderate though. Maybe that's it.

Jeremy said...

DADvocate - You don't have to read Coulter's books to know what she is.

Big Mike said...

HDHouse got thrown off Coulter's blog? Who'd have thunk it?

Hagar said...

They do have it on good authority that both Coulter and Hayek wear SS uniforms in WWII re-enactments.

Jeremy said...

Michael said..."Never read her books but assume they are expanded versions of her columns which I have read and liked."

How embarrassing.

HDHouse said...

Scott M said...
So...you think it's possible...just possible, that one can be, at once, an Althouse commentor, a non-Coulter reader, and a decent person?"


you are making me blush. stoppit

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - I would consider being thrown off Coulter's site a badge of honor.

Why would anyone even waste their time commenting on such a disgusting person's website in the first place?

hombre said...

House cites us to his website. (12:59)

Obama's primary frame of reference is: "As I have said before."

Talking points are obsolete. Self-reference is the left's new authority.

LarsPorsena said...

"DADvocate - You don't have to read Coulter's books to know what she is.'

..and we don't have to read 'Jeremy's' posts to know what he is.

That's why 99% of the readers just skip them.

roesch-voltaire said...

All that you need to know about Coulter is summed up by her comments defending Paladino -- Coulter said the candidate was just giving his socially conservative audience the red meat it wanted. That's her in a nut shell dishing out the red meat, no matter what kind, for her audience of the moment.

DADvocate said...

You don't have to read Coulter's books to know what she is.

Is there some point to this comment? Or, is this what passes as a brilliant insight for you?

Nobody likes all gays. Nobody likes everyone of any group.

HDHouse said...

dbp said...
"If they have the time to opine on Ms. Coulter, then they need to make the time to actually read what she has written. Unless they don't mind looking like total idiots."

opining on ann coulter is like taking out yesterday's garbage. nothing changes except the time spent ripening.

she is what she is.

ken in sc said...

Coulter is sort of a female P.J. O’Rourke .

Dust Bunny Queen said...

No one can criticize Islam till they've read the Koran.


As I said. Private individuals can have all the ignorant opinions that they want. Witness the liberals on this blog.

A NEWSPAPER or other publication that is supposed to be representing the profession of journalism should be informed and have the facts.

I can criticize the religion of Islam if I feel like it without reading the Koran. That would mean that I am expressing an uninformed opinion.

If I were writing a book for publication on the religion of Islam, I had damned well better read the Koran and understand what I am writing about.

I, personally, can critize Muslims and Islamists based on their actions and the opinions that they have expressed. That is an INformed opinion based on facts and experience.

Surely you can understand an entsy bit of this? The difference between a private individual, a newspaper or publicist.

Jeremy said...

LarsPorsena - And it appears you're one who doesn't skip by my comments.

Thanks for the support, dumbfuck.

Jeremy said...

Dust Bunny Queen said..."As I said. Private individuals can have all the ignorant opinions that they want. Witness the liberals on this blog."

And God knows you're an expert on "ignorance."

hombre said...

Jeremy rants: Do the people posting here actually believe Coulter (The Walking Talking Trash Barrel)...likes all gays?

Yeah, who cares what she writes or says, the moonbat template has it that she's a gay hater.

That's that on that.

WV "holoid" = Several infest this thread.

Scott M said...

Thanks for the support, dumbfuck.

Harsh words coming from someone who had their ass drop kicked recently. Remember that one, Jeremy? Your WHO comments eviscerated by Gabriel Hanna about a week or so ago? You seemingly dropped off the face of the earth after that.

You should have stayed there. Your vitriol would serve you well in an echo chamber.

Jeremy said...

DADvocate said..."Nobody likes all gays."

That's a ridiculous comment.

1jpb said...

DBQ,

IMHO, insty is dragging down Hayek to Coulter's level (which I see as sub-Hayek) when he indicates that it's an equivalently unacceptable shortcoming if either of their writings isn't understood by an NYT person.

And, what's the big deal if an NYT person didn't know about this particular aspect of a Coulter book from a few years ago. Likewise, is it really the end of the world if an NYT reporter called Hayek (and others) dusty and obscure? If the TPers weren't pushing these books they would be obscure, in the sense that they'd be much less mainstream, and that was the point of the NYT piece.

I don't like the new whiney victimhood version of conservatism. Some of you can't turn around w/o feeling some terrible injustice has been done to you. Sounds like libs.


John,

I haven't read any. So when I say that I think she's sub-Hayek, I'm basing my opinion on my reading Hayek, but only listening to Coulter. Since you've read her books, you'd be in a better position to confirm that her books are actually less substantial than Hayek. And, presumably insty and kaus would fault me for making such a comparison w/o reading Coulter.

BTW, I do know a really successful and smart business man who's read (and liked) at least one of her books. And, he's also gone to signings for Beck and Hannity. So, I know that it's possible to like these books w/o being a dope. But, I also know some sort-of dopes (but great people) who like these books.

Jeremy said...

Scotty - Sorry, Dude...I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to.

Contrary to you and many others here, I actually have a life that doesn't relate to sucking up to The Queen and her squad of teabagging fools on a daily basis.

And your idea of someone losing an argument or being put down by anyone is always related to your own specific brand of teabagger reasoning.

Jesus Christ could post a comment praising president Obama and you'd blast him for being a liberal.

*But I have to admit; I'm appreciative of the fact that you follow my comments and the counter responses to them so closely.

Are you gay...and does anybody here know it yet?

You better hope not...

Michael said...

Jeremy: Speaking of ignorance, I would love to have saved your explication on how the increase in value in a stock results in a like amount being deposited in the vaults of the issuing company. Now that was ignorant. Not the top of your list, but in there.

OK, you haven't read Coulter (and a lot else, clearly). Thanks for clearing that up.

dbp said...

HDHouse said...

opining on ann coulter is like taking out yesterday's garbage. nothing changes except the time spent ripening.

she is what she is.


And, how do you know what she is? From the NY Times? How do they know what she is? Oh, I don't know. Maybe from other people who also don't know anything about her, but have friends with opinions...

J said...

Few rational humans would ever admit to reading a Coulter book. Maybe a few of her essay-rants, which are even entertaining on occasion--something like HS Thompson meets Erma Bombeck on PMS. Maybe she'll publish her Penthouse Forum writings at some point...(rumors there are that Miss AC even did a porny or two back in her bad grrrl days in Ellay during the 90s).

edutcher said...

Note, among other things, that PB&J, HD, Cook, and Jeremy are afraid to admit reading any Coulteriana.

HDHouse said...

Having had the wonderous honor of being tossed off the Ann Coulter website and having my comment rights revoked

They wouldn't let him write in purple crayon.

Michael said...

1jpb: "I don't like the new whiney victimhood version of conservatism."

Oh really? Tough shit. What you don't like is the fact that conservatives have a way of calling bullshit on the NYT and backing it up. That is what you don't like about the new "version of conservatism."

Pogo said...

The Jeremiads and Ritmo-gassings are dull in blogs, dull in their basements, dull everywhere. They are dull with a capital Zzzz. They make somnambulation and paint-drying seem exciting by comparison.

Scott M said...

That's generally the answer someone gives when they've lost an argument in a blog thread and just stopped posting..."I have a life". Of course, the ten or so previous comments spaced relatively close together contradict that, but whatever.

I'll refresh your memory, just for giggles. You were espousing the WHO report as your basis for defending Obamacare. When Gabriel Hanna pointed out the various problems with the WHO report, specifically as it related to your argument, you disappeared into your "life". You didn't refute and you certainly didn't do the apparently unforgivable sin of saying something like "hmm...maybe I should look at that again. Point to you."

Inevitably, it was easy to predict that you would be back calling people names and spewing what passes for logic inside the desert of your intellect.

But, what the hell. If it makes you happy, how am I to point it out...

Jeremy said...

hombre said..."Yeah, who cares what she writes or says, the moonbat template has it that she's a gay hater."

There's that overused "hater" word again.

The fact that Coulter denigrates gays on a regular basis doesn't mean she literally "hates" all gays, it just illustrates how much of an ignorant bigot she really is.

The fact that you think she somehow supports gay rights or gays themselves makes it pretty clear you're not that bright or well read. (And NO, I'm not going to provide 100 links...do your own research for a change.)

Scott M said...

"how am" = "who am"

d'oh

Bruce Hayden said...

I think her writing is just fine, but nothing that I really like to read. Yes, she uses a lot of facts and figures. But she is so in-your-face that it gets wearing.

Coulter is at her best, I think, in person, as a talking head.

Interestingly though, the transcripts of her talking against a liberal on TV are even better than they sound. When you read them, you discover that she loads her arguments up with a lot of facts, and the liberals she is debating tend to be arguing emotionally. I would guess that that is a result of her legal training, except that some of those arguing the other side so emotionally were also trained as lawyers.

She is bright, articulate, fast, and tends to have many more facts at her finger tips than her opponents. But I was unable to finish the one book of hers that I tried to read.

Oh, and she is controversial - I think intentionally so, because that is how she makes her living. The more she pisses off the left, the more appearances she gets, and, in the end, the more books she sells.

Jeremy said...

Scotty - Why not actually read up o the Health Reform Bill instead of mouthing the arguments of others?

I've never read that every aspect of the bill is perfect, only that something had to be done to protect those who are uninsured or can't even get insurance because of pre-existing conditions or affordability, etc.

If you're happy with your insurance, stick with it, but why are you so opposed to the government doing what it can to level the playing field for those who are in dire straits?

99% of your comments here are nothing more than you sucking up to your fellow teabaggers, and opposing literally anything proposed by our president.

*And once again: Thanks for the support and for following all of my comments so closely.

Alex said...

I've never read that every aspect of the bill is perfect, only that something had to be done to protect those who are uninsured or can't even get insurance because of pre-existing conditions or affordability, etc.

Have you read all 2000 pages? Why have health insurance companies jacked up their rates after ObamaCare was passed?

Jeremy said...

Pogo - What makes you read and comment on all of these "dull" comments?

Doesn't that in turn...make you a dullard?

Jeremy said...

Alex - No, I haven't read all 2,000 pages (never said I did), but what does that have to do with the basis of my comment?

Have YOU read something in those pages that reflects the believe that "every aspect of the bill is perfect?"

Could you give us the page number?

Duh.

Michael said...

Jeremy, Moron, said "If you're happy with your insurance, stick with it" Apparently the recent revelations about companies considering paying fines instead of providing health insurance have eluded Jeremy. If said companies withdraw then the employees of that company who are "happy with...insurance" will not be able to "stick with it."

Jeremy said...

Alex - Sorry, I forgot to address your other silly comment, asking why insurance companies are jacking up their rates.

When have they ever NOT jacked up their rates?

Are you saying your health insurance costs have been falling?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

what's the big deal if an NYT person didn't know about this particular aspect of a Coulter book from a few years ago

The big deal is that the NYT is supposed to be a newspaper and is writing an article about the beliefs and about the writings of an author. The did it without research or properly vetting the article to make sure that it was factual and not misleading. (I know....what a quaint concept)

The big deal is that their actions represent a huge lapse of, or more to the point a complete disregard of, journalistic ethics. (ethics...another quaint idea)

is it really the end of the world if an NYT reporter called Hayek (and others) dusty and obscure?

Of course it isn't the end of the world. However, it is once again the reporter expressing his personal opinion instead of reporting the facts. If he (the reporter) stated that to be his personal opinion, that is one thing. The statement of something as fact, when it is not and when it is opinion, is once again a breach of ethics

Maybe you don't care about ethics or truth, but many do. This is the main reason that the deadwood papers are going out of business. People recognize that they are nothing more than propogana mouthpieces for the Democrats and that they are not 'reporting'.

There is a reason that there is an Editorial page that is supposed to be separate from the News pages

Jeremy said...

Michael - Everybody has to have insurance to assure the overall population has better rates. (Who do you think pays for the health care of those who do not have insurance...duh.)

Why do you suppose car insurance is a requirement? Do you also feel people should be able to drive without it?

Are you really this dense?

Alex said...

Jeremy refused to answer why insurance rates spiked immediately after ObamaCare was passed.

Scott M said...

Why not actually read up o the Health Reform Bill instead of mouthing the arguments of others?

I take pains to make sure I don't make arguments based on things I'm not sure about. This doesn't seem to impede you at all.

I've never read that every aspect of the bill is perfect, only that something had to be done to protect those who are uninsured or can't even get insurance because of pre-existing conditions or affordability, etc.

You really need to review your arguments in that thread. No, you never said it was perfect. But you were arguing strenuously, based on a WHO report which has Swiss cheese problems, in favor of the legislation and treating those trying to engage you on the issue like children.

If you're happy with your insurance, stick with it, but why are you so opposed to the government doing what it can to level the playing field for those who are in dire straits?

I can't "stick with my insurance" because I have a very well-managed HSA. Your golden boy and his peeps have given that a nuke. The people around me could quite possibly loose their insurance through work as well. The owners have pledged to do everything they can not to let that happen, but they made it clear they can't promise it won't happen. More hope and change, no doubt.

99% of your comments here are nothing more than you sucking up to your fellow teabaggers, and opposing literally anything proposed by our president.

Making that statement requires that you read at least 99% of my comments. Creepy, to say the least. Frankly, and I think most people here on either side of whatever issue would say at least 50% of my comments are attempts at humor rather than trying to score snark points. Snark only accounts for about 30%.

Come on, Jeremy. Do it. Admit you were wrong. I double-dog dare you.

former law student said...

Surely you can understand an entsy bit of this? The difference between a private individual, a newspaper or publicist.

OK, I think I get it. Because so many people rely on him as a source of news, Insty cannot criticize Islam unless he has read the Koran. In Arabic. The same applies to Drudge.

But another thought occurred to me: Just substitute "watching porn" for "reading Ann Coulter's books" and the NY Times approach is suddenly unobjectionable, even praiseworthy.


at would require watching porn — and worse yet, admitting it in print, which no self-respecting Timesian would do. Far better to make a major embarrassing error... and thus actually score points when busted by Mickey, since this makes it clear to the NYT crowd that your mind is unpolluted by contact with porn."

Why would anyone have to watch porn before they could declare it loathesome?

Further, would not evidence of viewing a lot of porn imply I had a morbid interest, even an obsession with porn?

Pogo said...

"Pogo - What makes you read and comment on all of these "dull" comments?
Doesn't that in turn...make you a dullard?
"

No, more like stepping in shit; a shoe can be scraped off.

Jeremy said...

Alex - Insurance rates have been "spiking" on a yearly basis for decades.

Do you ever even read anything before posting teabagger drivel?

You actually think insurance rates just suddenly "spiked" because of health reform?

Data collected by the Kaiser Family Foundation and comes via USA Today:

Since 1999, health insurance premiums for families rose 131%, the report found, far more than the general rate of inflation, which increased 28% over the same period. Overall, health care in the United States is expected to cost $2.6 trillion this year, or 17% of the nation's economy, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Today, the average cost of a family health insurance offered by an employer is $13,375. That's up 131% over the last decade—a period in which inflation rose only 28%.

AND:

Even before Congress had passed health care reform, opponents were predicting immediate, sharp hikes in health insurance premiums. Since then, the drumbeat of impending doom only has gotten louder.

But...the average cost of employer-provided health insurance rose just 3 percent this year, according to the authoritative Kaiser Family Foundation’s employer health benefits survey.

That’s the lowest rate of increase since the mid-1990s.

Scott M said...

Why do you suppose car insurance is a requirement? Do you also feel people should be able to drive without it?

You usually don't jump the shark this early in a thread, Jeremy. Bravo for getting to the crux of your inanity early so I can tune you out.

Nobody FORCES you to drive. You drive by CHOICE. As such, you are required to have insurance. If you took the bus to work or walked or road a bike, there would be no requirement to own car insurance.

However, the mere act of existing as a citizen is going to be enough, the President says (who was against the mandate when he was just a lowly candidate, if memory serves), to require me under the coercion of federal power, to buy something I don't need.

Jeremy said...

Pogo - And yet once again...you read and comment on what you refer to as "dull" comments.

You're really not that bright, are you?

Alex said...

Do you ever even read anything before posting teabagger drivel?

Do you have closeted issues with your homosexuality Jeremy?

Shanna said...

If they have the time to opine on Ms. Coulter, then they need to make the time to actually read what she has written.

Exactly. I haven’t read anything of hers, but I also don’t go around writing snarky articles about her that are supposed to be factual but actually are not.

Care to list the number of Coulter books you have read?

0. I hate that entire genre of political people talking about politics. Bleck.

How about Michael Moore? Read any of his books or seen any of his movies?

Saw Roger and Me, not by choice (ex-boyfriend). They skinned a rabbit! Yuk. And MM came off like the jerk we all now know him to be.

1jpb said...

dbq (and others complaining about the two NYT pieces insty is highlighting),

Have you folks read every word of both of these pieces? Do you see the irony if you haven't?

If you haven't read these pieces, maybe you should. It is true that they fall short of perfection (as is inevitable for humankind), but they're far from hatchet jobs. Are these pieces the best examples of an NYT lib-bias that gets cons so worked up? If so, you cons should ask yourselves why it's so easy for the professional conservatives to get you worked up. Is it possible that NYT-hate is diverting and consuming your energy and attention that could be focused on less trivial concerns?

Jeremy said...

Scotty - Nobody "forces you" to run to the emergency room when you're in an accident or get sick either.

But when you do...who do YOU suppose pays the tab?

C'mon, I realize you think you're smart, but you sound really, really dumb.

The reason people are "forced" to buy car insurance is to keep insurance costs at a reasonable level.

Do you think a mortgage company or bank would allow you to finance a house without insurance on that property?

Why do you suppose homeowners throughout the country aren't screaming about being "forced" to have such coverage?

Think it might be related to keeping their overall rates in line with others?

*Never mind...why start thinking at this stage of the game.

former law student said...

I can't "stick with my insurance" because I have a very well-managed HSA.

HSAs are not insurance. They are a tax free way to "pay for tuneups and oil changes."

edutcher said...

The insurance business is cyclical, so rates would tend to go up after a period, but the fact that ZeroCare is a God-awful mess of Byzantine regulation and taxes should make any spikes no big surprise. The simple fact that it causes extra record-keeping and requires coverage previously optional would result in extra expense.

Considering the mess, witness the number of companies requiring (and getting) waivers.

Jeremy said...

1jpb said..."dbq (and others complaining about the two NYT pieces..."

While at the same time listening to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and others on a daily basis.

*And of course they ALL say they don't...which is a crock.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Everybody has to have insurance to assure the overall population has better rates.

No they don't. I don't care about the rates of the overall population. It isn't my problem.

(Who do you think pays for the health care of those who do not have insurance...duh.)

I pay for my own health care. Duh.

I don't expect other people to pay for my health care.....nor do I expect other people to buy me insurance.

Why do you suppose car insurance is a requirement?

Automotive LIABILITY insurance is a requirement. That is to protect the other drivers on the road: not you.

You are only required to have LIABILITY insurance if you drive a car. If you don't drive a car, guess what.....you don't have to buy insurance.

Health insurance is to protect YOU, not other people. Health insurance is (or has been up until now) a voluntary risk management decision. If you are young and healthy the risk is not worth covering.

Now, we must buy health insurance just because we breath and posses a body.

Jeremy said...

edutcher - Once again:

Since 1999, health insurance premiums for families rose 131%, the report found, far more than the general rate of inflation, which increased 28% over the same period. Overall, health care in the United States is expected to cost $2.6 trillion this year, or 17% of the nation's economy, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Today, the average cost of a family health insurance offered by an employer is $13,375. That's up 131% over the last decade—a period in which inflation rose only 28%.

Alex said...

Jeremy - I have a solution to increasing health care costs. Deport 20 million illegals and force obese people to go on a diet.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Because so many people rely on him as a source of news, Insty cannot criticize Islam unless he has read the Koran. In Arabic. The same applies to Drudge.


@ FLS

You really are not getting it are you?

Drudge and Instapundit don't provide news. They don't write news articles. The websites LINK to articles and news stories.

The difference is huge.

Where on Drudge is there anything that Drudge has written other than a headline that LINKS to another article written by someone else.

DADvocate said...

Jeremy says "Do the people posting here actually believe Coulter (The Walking Talking Trash Barrel)...likes all gays?

C'mon...even the wing nut teabaggers here aren't that dense.


DADvo says "Nobody likes all gays."

Jeremy says "That's a ridiculous comment."

DADvo says - Jeremy, please elaborate. Sre you saying you like all gays? Is there some large group of people that you like everyone belonging to it? I'm a Catholic and don't like other Catholics any more than I like people of other religions.

Or, is this just another one of you immature, failed insults to try to cover for your lack of intelligence and intellectual ability?

Scott M said...

But when you do...who do YOU suppose pays the tab?

The last three times I've been in an emergency room, Me. Myself. I. I saved a good chunk of our income for just such an occasion and have a catastrophic plan if something really, really bad happens.

The reason people are "forced" to buy car insurance is to keep insurance costs at a reasonable level.

LOL. Really? REALLY? LOL!!!!

Do you think a mortgage company or bank would allow you to finance a house without insurance on that property?

Why do you suppose homeowners throughout the country aren't screaming about being "forced" to have such coverage?


Seriously? This is your argument...again? Nobody is forcing anyone to BUY A FUCKING HOUSE. When you make the choice to do so, you are taking on all the burdens, financial and regulatory, that entails. If you don't buy a house, you're not required to do so.

Your way has EVERYONE buying something they may not want or need, or, in fact, have other ways of dealing with. Face it. You're a big government shill who has no problem whatsoever believing that someone in DC knows better than you do what's best for you.

Jeremy said...

Dust Bunny Queen said..."No they don't. I don't care about the rates of the overall population. It isn't my problem."

Of course it is...you're just to stupid to admit it.

It's the same reason your groceries cost less at the bigger super markets...they buy MORE and are able to operate on a lower profit margin.

Or why...and pay attention to this: companies get a better rate on their health care for employees...when they insure MORE employees. (What a concept, huh?)

Duh.

Jeremy said...

Scott M said..."The last three times I've been in an emergency room, Me. Myself."

Good lord...you ARE that dense.

I'm talking about people who visit emergency rooms...BUT HAVE NO INSURANCE OR MEANS OF PAYING.

Where do you think the cost of their treatment is distributed to keep the hospitals alive?

If everybody could pay their own way...there would be no need for insurance of any kind.

Alex said...

Jeremy didn't respond to my solution. He is clueless!

Alex said...

If everybody could pay their own way...there would be no need for insurance of any kind.

Of course lefties never ask why people can't pay. What stupid life decision they make that renders them unable to pay for simple trip to an emergency room.

Jeremy said...

DADvo says - "Jeremy, please elaborate. Sre you saying you like all gays?"

I don't know ALL gays, but of those of whom I do know, I can't say there's a single one of them I dislike. (Which ones do you dislike?)

But, since you're on this ridiculous tact...I can say for sure that I like ALL ballet dancers, fire eaters, trapeze artists, jugglers, amputees, and many others I don't know personally, but only as a group.

Jeremy said...

Alex said..."Of course lefties never ask why people can't pay. What stupid life decision they make that renders them unable to pay for simple trip to an emergency room."

What the hell does that mean?

Are you saying that ALL people can pay? That there can't possibly be a logical and realistic reason someone can't pay?

And what "life decision" is related to getting cancer or being in an accident that is no fault of your own...but not having the financial ability to "pay?"

You're an idiot.

Scott M said...

Good lord...you ARE that dense.

I'm talking about people who visit emergency rooms...BUT HAVE NO INSURANCE OR MEANS OF PAYING


That's not at all what you wrote, Jeremy. This is

Scotty - Nobody "forces you" to run to the emergency room when you're in an accident or get sick either.

But when you do...who do YOU suppose pays the tab?


You even capitalized that last YOU. Come on, Jeremy. Just this once. Admit that you're wrong about something. Or at least were unclear.

My mother-in-law is an ER doc. Do you have anyone in your family that even works in an ER? Yes, uninsured using the ER like it's a general practice is a problem. So is the unholy amount of fraud and abuse that unsick people foist on ER's every single day because they're gaming the very system you and your ilk want to institutionalize for the rest of us. No thanks.

There are other solutions to an individual mandate. President Obama obviously thought so when he was debating Hillary, did he not?

Jeremy said...

Alex said..."Jeremy - I have a solution to increasing health care costs. Deport 20 million illegals and force obese people to go on a diet."

Well, let's start with this:

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration's 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007. The pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush's final year in office.

But I do have a question: How does that "force obese people to go on a diet" thingie fit into the government keeping their nose out of you personal life thingie the teabaggers here and everywhere are constantly screaming about?

Duh.

Big Mike said...

Come on, Jeremy. Just this once. Admit that you're wrong about something.

@Scott, Jeremy doesn't do that.

Alex said...

But I do have a question: How does that "force obese people to go on a diet" thingie fit into the government keeping their nose out of you personal life thingie the teabaggers here and everywhere are constantly screaming about?

Since this is about statism, let's go whole hog and dictate people's diets. No free health care if you don't register your diet with the government.

Jeremy said...

Scott M said...When I wrote that "Nobody "forces you" to run to the emergency room when you're in an accident or get sick either...."

It was in relation to your auto insurance crap about not being "forced" to drive a car.

The reason many people visit emergency rooms is directly related to not having insurance and the ability to visit their own doctor. (But of course, you already knew that was my point...but once again, you're only way out is to not argue in good faith.)

As an example; The average wait time at UCLA Medical center's emergency room is over six hours...and you can bet your ass most of the people waiting aren't insured...and it's their onely way of being treated.

And everybody who IS insured picks up a portion of the cost.

Michael said...

Jeremy: God you are funny on anything relating to business or money!! Keep it up. "The reason people are "forced" to buy car insurance is to keep insurance costs at a reasonable level." No, Jeremy, people are forced to buy car insurance so that they can register their vehicles and drive legally. The insurance is to protect them against assholes who don't have insurance. The state could give less of a shit about how much car insurance costs, the market settles that. Ever see the ads for the cheap car insurance? Ever see the target audience in the ads? Ever see the ads for State Farm? Guess which cohort pays more? Happily. Jesus you are one funny man. Please keep posting on finance, insurance, the economy and taxes. I print out some for my partners who do not believe such wonderfully ignorant shits exist. Thanks again.

Jeremy said...

Alex - Oh, I see. So the government CAN tell yu what to eat, huh?

But they can't tell you to get insurance?

Duh.

Alex said...

Jeremy - the problem is you guys want free health care but no enforcement of proper preventive measures. So I can just eat myself to oblivion and I'll get unlimited health care under your system.

Michael said...

Jeremy: "And what "life decision" is related to getting cancer...."

Heavy smoker who found it more pleasant to collect welfare and sell a little dope than to get a job and save. Contracts lung cancer.

Kirby Olson said...

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore have ADD in their writing. They just hop from thing to thing. I can't understand why anybody reads the books of activist idiots like these. I do enjoy Coulter on TV. She gets in a few zingers and then they wheel her off.

But for writing, you have to read people like Friedrich Hayek if you want a developed viewpoint.

I don't know if the left has anybody like that. Maybe Michel Foucault's books on Sexuality are sort of developed. He says outright on p. 30 that he doesn't think there should be any sexual crimes, and that it should be ok to have sex with an underaged prostitute as long as you pay them.

It registers the moral quality of the left and the kind of work that attracts them, and also I suppose qualifies as good writing.

Freeman Hunt said...

I've listened to the abridged versions of the same ones John has read, though none more than once. Coulter is humorous, so one of her audiobooks is perfect for a long drive.

I remember Treason being particularly interesting and How to Talk to a Liberal being particularly funny.

Scott M said...

I addressed my car insurance comment to you. When you responded asking "you"/me I responded that I, personally, had paid for my own emergency room visits. Somehow now I'm not arguing in good faith? WTF does good faith mean to you then? The conversation wasn't going the way you (meaning you, Jeremy, not the population at large) wanted so now it's my fault you (meaning you, Jeremy, not the population at large) were being unclear in your own meaning? To quote someone else here on this blog...duh.

I notice that you still haven't address the car insurance "crap" as you call it. DBQ handed you a direct refutation and you ignored her.

People go to emergency rooms because 1) the law forbids turning them away and 2) free clinics are, in most cases horrible, and the poor now both of the above. There are ways to deal with this that don't require an individual mandate. I'll say it again since you've ignored it twice now. President Obama was against individual mandate. Why are you arguing with something he clearly stated many times?

Jeremy said...

Michael said..."No, Jeremy, people are forced to buy car insurance so that they can register their vehicles and drive legally."

Those are only related to laws governing specific state laws. (Tennessee is the only state in the country with no compulsory minimum automobile insurance guideline.)

And, as for "registering" cars, you can buy all the cars you want and register all the cars you want...without a dime in insurance...you just can't drive them.

The primary reason for "forcing" people to be insured is exactly as I said: to spread the cost of liability and cost of such liability coverage out over as many people as possible to keep the rates down...and of course, to make sure you can cover your own personal loss or others. (Uninsured insurance coverage makes sure you're covered even if someone neglects to buy insurance and causes an accident or injury.)

If you don't think "forcing" people to have coverage is good or related to your rates...do you also think your rates would be the same for one car...as they would be for three or four cars?

Scott M said...

Jeremy doesn't understand car insurance outside a concave statist lens. Don't try to explain it...again.

Jeremy said...

Scotty - People go to emergency rooms for a variety of reasons. Accidents being right up there...but why do you keep ignoring the fact that the cost of treating those who are uninsured or unable to pay...isn't pushed onto those who are and can...??

Never mind...we both know the answer to that.

Jeremy said...

Scotty - "Jeremy doesn't understand car insurance outside a concave statist lens. Don't try to explain it...again."

I bought and sold vintage cars for years and years, and I know all about car insurance, so I have no idea what the fuck you're referring to.

Are you actually telling me that the more cars that are insured...won't drive down the cost of insurance overall?

Call your agent today and ask if insuring 3-4 cars instead of one...will do anything for your rates.

*That is, if you're allowed to drive.

Jeremy said...

Michael said..."Heavy smoker who found it more pleasant to collect welfare and sell a little dope than to get a job and save. Contracts lung cancer."

What percentage of smokers do feel fall into that category?

You're an idiot.

Michael said...

Jeremy: Of course you can drive a car without insurance, funny man, which is why other people carry liability insurance. You do understand the concept of liability don't you? I am not sure I can go on reading your stuff, however, it is so completely funny and off the wall. I have a big spray of Diet Coke across my window, marring my excellent view I should add, because of this last, too hilarious, comment of yours. Some of it unhappily passed through my nose. You do not confirm the validity of points, Obama, by repeating that you made them before. But it is quite wonderful to see the unhinged mind coupled with the obstinate and stupid. Appalling but magnetic. Imagining many like you out there. Yikes. But anyhow, I can't thank you enough for your funny take on things. It really is helpful in these dark times to have a comedian on board.

traditionalguy said...

Ann Coulter is one of a kind. She loves argument about any issues in the public forum. She is hated for using blunt known facts and then reasoning from them. That is so dangerous to the Liberal Mythology's continued existence that liberals must refuse her very existence. The interesting thing is her sudden new popularity on talk shows that used to fear criticism for letting her speak so bluntly. Somebody out there doesn't like Obama anymore. And, yes I have read and reread all of her books. Her use of reason will sharpen up any thinker that gives it time to sink in. I dare Jeremy to partake of her forbidden fruit.

Jeremy said...

Michael said..."Jeremy: Of course you can drive a car without insurance, funny man, which is why other people carry liability insurance."

Good lord...of course you can drive without insurance, and you know full well I was referring to driving "legally." There are all kinds of things you "can do," that result in spending time in jail or paying hefty fines or in California, losing your car.

Try to keep up.

Michael said...

Jeremy: Every smoker who contracts lung cancer was in charge of getting lung cancer. Every person who does not get a job is in charge of not having any fucking money. Duh.

My sides are splitting here with laughter. My partners are asking that I hold it down. The man is here cleaning the window and giving me a funny look.

J said...

Coulter's writing on evolution is about the equivalent of Bill O'Reilly discussing abortion (and she was rabidly anti-abortion for years, until she changed her mind a few weeks ago...).

Start with shaky/indefensible/unverifiable premises (like... "everything in Old and New Testament is true, and anything a liberal says is wrong") and anything follows. That's Coulter's standard MO. She doesn't know osmosis from her daily orgasm, but via a few tutoring sessions from the Discovery Institute became an evolutionary Expert in six weeks or so.

Jeremy said...

Michael - You post this about me: "But it is quite wonderful to see the unhinged mind coupled with the obstinate and stupid."

After posting this about it being a "life decision" related to getting cancer....?

"Heavy smoker who found it more pleasant to collect welfare and sell a little dope than to get a job and save. Contracts lung cancer."

You're an uneducated fool.

Marshal said...

"But I do have a question: How does that "force obese people to go on a diet" thingie fit into the government keeping their nose out of you personal life thingie the teabaggers here and everywhere are constantly screaming about?

Duh."

Your medical decisions are no longer "personal" once I have to pay for them. Isn't that obvious?

Kirk Parker said...

Someone: ... and a decent person

Cookie: That perfectly describes me!

Me: Not so fast, the jury's still out on that. If you all your super-left posting here is just a pose, then sure: you're a decent person, albeit one with a very strange hobby.

BUT if you really, really do want the government to have as much power over as many areas of our lives as you claim to here, then no--I see nothing decent in that at all.

yashu said...

Kirby,

Interestingly, Foucault (in his later years) expressed much interest in & admiration for the work of Hayek.

In a vague way you could call Foucault of the "left" (like most other French intellectuals, deeply embedded in a Marxist tradition)-- but he was a very idiosyncratic thinker, at different moments & on different topics not easily placed on the left/ right spectrum (sometimes he seems more like a radical libertarian).

I've always liked him (even if I strongly disagree with much of thought).

DADvocate said...

Just trying to see if there's any reasoning in your idiocy. Apparently not. Just emotional, hatefilled rantings.

I can say for sure that I like ALL ballet dancers...

Did you know some ballet dancers are child molesters? You perv.

Michael said...

Jeremy: Only got an Masters, so my education is not up to academic snuff. Sounds like you might be a smoker, Jeremy!! How Euro, how cool. If you get the big C down there in your engine room it is your own fault you know. But it is not too late they say, quitting right now might give you a shot at a full and happy and lung cancer free life.

Those vintage cars, were they U.S. or foreign? Have any left? I drive a restored 1973 Land Rover 88.

John said...

Why should Jeremy understand liability insurance? Obama doesn't. Remember when he wanted his liability insurance to cover his car being damaged? How he was offended when the insurance company laughed at his (A Harvard trained lawyer who should know better) request?

If the smartest man in the world doesn't understand liability insurance, how can Jeremy possibly be expected to?

Someone mentioned that you need liability insurance to drive. Not quite true. In TX and perhaps other states you can deposit $250,000 cash. It is not insurance you need but proof that if you cause damage, you can pay for it.

And, this is only if you want to drive on public roads. If you drive on private property, eg; a ranch, there is no legal requirement for insurance.

John Henry

Jeremy said...

Michael said..."Jeremy: Every smoker who contracts lung cancer was in charge of getting lung cancer. Every person who does not get a job is in charge of not having any fucking money. Duh."

My father died of lung cancer, as have others I knew, and many were of the age that much information relating to cigarettes/tobacco, etc. was either unknown or distorted.

Before you throw out disgusting comments relating to people deserving to die from such a disease, I suggest you visit a cancer ward. (Oh, and cancer isn't relegated to cigarettes, you fucking dolt. People die from lung cancer who have never smoked.)

As for your other equally ridiculous comment that "Every person who does not get a job is in charge of not having any fucking money"...why not pass that around to the people who are currently unemployed. (And before you jump on president Obama, keep in mind that the unemployment rate was at about 8% the day G.W. walked out the door.)

*Your cancer comment is all I can take, so don't bother pushing anymore of your disgusting drivel in my direction.

traditionalguy said...

J...That is the whole issue: Which set of shaky unverifiable facts do you begin your reasoning from? Again, I dare Ann Coulter critics to read her books. Her facts are 90% verifiable. Whereas the Facts faked for winning otherwise un-winnable arguments are all her opponents have. For example, see the "Global Warming From Man's Use of CO2" set of facts dressed up in Science, that have ALL been exposed as poor counterfeits made up for fraudulent purposes. Facts matter. Delusions kill.

El Pollo Real said...

Obamacare strives to redistribute healthcare resources from those able to pay to those unable or unwilling to pay.

His mother was a perfect example.

Jeremy: Here's a suggestion to make your point:
Why don't you just say that under existing law (which requires everyone to be treated, it's rather inefficient to have them treated in the emergency room. Since we're all going to pay for the treatment anyway, it makes sense to move that primary care out of the acute setting.

That leaves the problem of morality. Should nurses, doctors, administrators be expected to work for anyone for free? There just aren't enough "Doctors Without Frontiers" to go around.

Part of the problem (at least in CA) is cultural. I commented about that several months ago here, mentioning a neighbor who could afford to insure his family but didn't--he considered insurance an overpriced scam (sorry I don't have a link). He learned that attitude from his parents. I can almost gaurantee you that even if fully implimented, there will be an underclass of people who will find someway to avoid the system. I believe that numbers from MassCare (or whatever) would back me up.

I had a thoughtful conversation with a British student about 20 years ago while living in Switwerland. He said that politically, the most difficult aspect of implimenting universal coverage was to convince the poorest members that they needed to pay something into the system--otherwise there's the risk of introducing the notion that healthcare should be free.

Jeremy said...

John said..."Why should Jeremy understand liability insurance? Obama doesn't."

What does referring specifically to "liability" insurance (or any insurance for that matter) have to do with my argument that the more people who are insured, the lower the rates for those who are?

Are you saying the more people who are insured...does NOT lower rates?

Over my lifetime, I've probably owned over 200 cars and I'll lay odds I know more about all forms of auto insurance than 99% of the twerps posting here.

Jeremy said...

El Pollo - "I had a thoughtful conversation with a British student about 20 years ago while living in Switwerland. He said that politically, the most difficult aspect of implimenting universal coverage was to convince the poorest members that they needed to pay something into the system--otherwise there's the risk of introducing the notion that healthcare should be free."

Bullshit.

Michael said...

Hey, Jeremy! Don't be offended. My Mom died of lung cancer too. Guess why? Big smoker. My father quit the day the Surgeon General issued his warning. The very day.

So, dipshit, face up to the fact that there are many diseases that are directly and almost categorically associated with self inflicted behavior. And unless you are a hundred years old your ftaher knew as much as mine about the dangers of smoking.

Scott M said...

were of the age that much information relating to cigarettes/tobacco, etc. was either unknown or distorted.

Apparently only some thought so. With two exceptions, my entire extended family of WWII-era types smoked and smoked heavily. Not a one of them believed that it was anything but bad for you but they were unwilling to quit. Only a couple died from cancer, but that's mainly due to high-risk occupations which, ironically, was their number one reason for not quitting.

I'll ask once again, Jeremy, before I give up. Why was President Obama against the individual mandate that we are now staring down the barrel at?

Jeremy said...

Michael said..."Jeremy: Only got an Masters, so my education is not up to academic snuff."

Really?

You got "an Masters?"

What were it in?

Scott M said...

Michael said..."Jeremy: Only got an Masters, so my education is not up to academic snuff."

Really?

You got "an Masters?"


See...it is possible to be funny without using your urbane dictionary of six-grader taunts.

Michael said...

"And before you jump on president Obama, keep in mind that the unemployment rate was at about 8% the day G.W. walked out the door."

Super factoid, Jeremy. Up only 20% under Obama. Keep repeating that 8% number it is very helpful.

Michael said...

Scott M; Yep. In English, too. But catching the typos is an excellent skill also and I commend you for it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I drive a restored 1973 Land Rover 88.


1972 Chevy K5 Blazer with a Corvette engine (not my daily driver). Really fun in the summer with the top off.....of the truck I mean.

Husband's daily driver (not for work) 68 Chevy stepside, also with a transplanted V8 crate motor, tuned exhausts, disc brakes, drop spindles among other upgrades.

:-)

Jeremy said...

Scott M said..."Apparently only some thought so. With two exceptions, my entire extended family of WWII-era types smoked and smoked heavily. Not a one of them believed that it was anything but bad for you but they were unwilling to quit."

There are no absolutes, and there's no way to make some people come to grips with reality.

My mother's side of the family all smoked until the day most of them died and none contracted lung cancer.

But then again; heredity plays an important part, and if you're implying most people in the 30's,40's and 50's were all well aware of the risks of tobacco, you need to actually read something for a change.

But we both know that's not going to happen soon.

*Maybe you could confer with Michael he's got "an Masters."

J said...

Facts matter.

That's true--like the facts of the fossil record, radiocarbon dating, adaptation observed in nature, etc. Ergo, there are many facts which confirm Darwinian evolution. What sort of facts confirm Moises parting the Red Sea? (hint: nada).

Which is to say, I read Godless (well, about half until overcome with nausea). She routinely conflates the strictly empirical issues (like...accounting for transitional forms, complexity etc) with her religious dogma.

Coulter's writing entertains the yokels mainly because it's invective--she insults people, depends on fallacies such as ad hominem, grand generalizations ("liberals" itself), so forth. Really, Coulterspeak's a model of rightist demogogue misinformation.


And re global warming--nearly all climate scientists agree on warming trends, and that GHGs play a role. That doesn't mean accepting Al Gore as the final word-- as per the usual Foxnewser misinformation.

John said...

About 90% of smokers will not get lung cancer.

About 95% of non-smokers will not get lung cancer.

Smoking will double your risk of getting lung cancer (from about 4.5% to about 9%-NIH) but it is still a pretty small risk.

As for how long we have known the risk, I have books published before 1900 that called them "Cancer sticks" and "coffin nails"

King (mumble) banned tobacco in England in the 16th century for health reasons. I don't know if they knew about cancer but they did know it was not good for you.

The correlation between smoking and cancer or other diseases is not something that has ever been particularly obscure or hidden.

John Henry

Jeremy said...

Michael said..."Super factoid, Jeremy. Up only 20% under Obama. Keep repeating that 8% number it is very helpful."

The recession began in December of 2007.

Who was president?

Factoid: More private sector jobs have been created this year than during the entire Bush administration.

That's right; 2010 has had more private job creation than during the entire 8 year tenure of George W. Bush.

This is the 9th straight month of private sector job growth in the midst of a devastating recession that has put a serious strain mostly on the poor and middle class.

There has been a total of 863,000 private sector jobs created in 2010, exceeding the total created under the Bush/Cheney regime.

Scott M said...

I'll stick with your comments arguing on behalf of a very flawed WHO report while wondering if you either read it or any of its criticism. That's good stuff. As far as absolutes go, there at least appears to be one in which you're never, ever wrong.

Jeremy said...

John - "The correlation between smoking and cancer or other diseases is not something that has ever been particularly obscure or hidden."

Bullshit.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Are you saying the more people who are insured...does NOT lower rates?

Not necessarily.

Rates are based on claims history.

If you have a zillion people who are insured and who are all making claims on the insurance your rates will go up.

If you have a smaller pool of HEALTHY low claim insured, the rates will go down or stay the same.

Claims not numbers.

The number of insured has relatively little to do with the premiums of the pool.

This is why rates are going up now. Obama is forcing the insurers to take on insured who are high risk, unhealthy and will positively be making claims against their insurance. Thus the rates have and will continue to go up.

This are really very basic concepts.

Jeremy said...

Scotty - So the WHO is wrong, too?

Who's right, Scotty?

Rush?

Glenn?

El Pollo Real said...

Bullshit

Fuck you Jeremy. It's true whether you know it or not.

Goodbye asswipe.

Michael said...

DBQ: In addition to the Land Rover I have a daily driver in a Toyota Land Cruiser, 1998 that is nearly perfect. A truck-like drive but probably smoother than the Blazer (certainly slower). the Land Rover's short wheel base probably makes it pretty close to the Blazer ride-wise. Love those step side trucks. I want one in that turquoise that Chevrolet used on its trucks.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"This are really very basic concepts."


Errr.. these are basic concepts.

Similarly. The distinction between Liability insurance and Comprehensive coverage are basic concepts.

It is all about, who is being protected and whether it is worth the premiums to pay for the protection.

In California. Law dictates you have LIABILITY insurance to protect other people.

COMPREHENSIVE insurance protects either yourself, if you want to buy it. Or protects the lender's collateral and is mandatory, until you own your vehicle outright.

Except in the case of the lender....it is up to YOU if you want to protect yourself.

Same thing for health insurance. It protects YOU and if you don't want protection you don't have to buy it. Or at least you weren't forced to buy it until now.

Michael said...

John: If your stats on smoking are correct then the insurance companies are cleaning up on the premiums for smokers! Do you think there is a similar group of stats that would hold true for emphysema, heart disease and other ailments that have been, perhaps incorrectly, associated with smoking?

Jeremy said...

Dust Bunny Queen said..."Rates are based on claims history."

Of course they are, but even thoise with bad driving records will get a better rate if insuring more than one car...correct?

"If you have a zillion people who are insured and who are all making claims on the insurance your rates will go up."

True, but only if ALL or a MAJORITY of them are making claims...correct?

"If you have a smaller pool of HEALTHY low claim insured, the rates will go down or stay the same."

True, but even with a small pool of healthy individuals, you'll still get a better rate with a much larger pool...unless of course, the larger pool is ALL unhealthy. (And by the way, most people file few if any claims over the span of their lives)

"The number of insured has relatively little to do with the premiums of the pool."

That's bullshit. The more people who are insured, the better the rates. (You think the MORE employees who are insured doesn't impact the rate of the employer's overall rates and cost...driving it lower...really?)

"This is why rates are going up now."

Rates have been going up for the past ten years or more. Are you saying they aren't?

*Since 1999, health insurance premiums for families rose 131%, the report found, far more than the general rate of inflation, which increased 28% over the same period. Overall, health care in the United States is expected to cost $2.6 trillion this year, or 17% of the nation's economy, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Today, the average cost of a family health insurance offered by an employer is $13,375. That's up 131% over the last decade—a period in which inflation rose only 28%.

"Obama is forcing the insurers to take on insured who are high risk, unhealthy and will positively be making claims against their insurance. Thus the rates have and will continue to go up."

The MORE who are insured, the lower the rates will become. The Health Reform Bill's requirements have just begun to kick in and you apparently already know all the answers? Crystal ball? Glenn Beck?

"This are really very basic concepts."

Your arguments are really very basic forms of teabagger drivel.

Michael said...

Jeremy: If there are more jobs now than there were during GWB and if the public sector has not lost jobs how is it that the jobless rate has grown 20%? Has the workforce grown by 20% thus erasing the splendid gains we otherwise would be seeing? This is your area of expertise so I would sure like to see you go on a bit more about it.

Thanks in advance.

Jeremy said...

Michael - "Do you think there is a similar group of stats that would hold true for emphysema, heart disease and other ailments that have been, perhaps incorrectly, associated with smoking?"

Like what?

And who is making these "incorrect" claims?

And why would they?

Michael said...

Jeremy: I was surprised that only 5% of smokers get lung cancer. I would have thought it higher. Same for the other ailments I mentioned. Perhaps because I have lost ten or so friends to lung cancer, all of whom smoked, I have drawn the wrong conclusions.

D.D. Driver said...

"Why would anyone have to watch porn before they could declare it loathesome?"

"Porn is loathsome" is an opinion (a misguided opinion, but still an opinion).

Ann Coulter is taking a surprising new position on gays is a provable fact. What was her previous position? What is her new position? Are they different?

To use your porn analogy, you would look pretty stupid if you declared that there is no porn featuring gay people. See a provable fact.

Is any of this sinking in?

garage mahal said...

Nice to see we can finally discuss ObamaKKKare without guns and screaming we're ALL GOING TO DIE. Progress.

Alex said...

While only 10% of smokers get lung cancer, many more times that develop heart disease and vascular disease.

Alex said...

Nice to see we can finally discuss ObamaKKKare without guns and screaming we're ALL GOING TO DIE. Progress.

Well you guys were the ones posting RethugliKKKan for 8 years.

Freeman Hunt said...

A master's?

I don't believe it. A master's in bait doesn't count.

Jeremy said...

Michael said..."Jeremy: I was surprised that only 5% of smokers get lung cancer."

Wikipedia:

Smoking, particularly of cigarettes, is by far the main contributor to lung cancer.

Across the developed world, almost 90% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking.

In the United States, smoking is estimated to account for 87% of lung cancer cases (90% in men and 85% in women).[38]

Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%; among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%.

This risk is significantly lower in nonsmokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women.

Jeremy said...

Alex said..."While only 10% of smokers get lung cancer, many more times that develop heart disease and vascular disease."

Across the developed world, almost 90% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking. In the United States, smoking is estimated to account for 87% of lung cancer cases (90% in men and 85% in women).

More people die from cardiovascular disease, which includes heart disease and stroke than from any other single cause of death - almost 1 million Americans annually.

Most employees in the United States have at least one of the three major risk factors for cardiovascular disease - high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol...and...cigarette smoking.

Freeman Hunt said...

Smoking causes all sorts of health problems, lung cancer only being one of them. Probably more smokers would get lung cancer if they lived longer. Heart attacks and strokes often get them first.

(And, as someone who just watched the healthiest person she knew slowly decline and die from cancer, I can tell you that cancer is no joke, and it's certainly worth quitting smoking to avoid it.)

Freeman Hunt said...

Wait, why are we even talking about smoking? This is part of that insurance discussion that I'm avoiding, isn't it?

Bah.

El Pollo Real said...

Garage Mahal wrote: Nice to see we can finally discuss ObamaKKKare without guns and screaming we're ALL GOING TO DIE. Progress.

Piss me a river six figures wide.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I guess school is out now and the Jeremy persona(s) have gone out for pizza and beer.

Jeremy said...

Dust Bunny Queen said..."I guess school is out now and the Jeremy persona(s) have gone out for pizza and beer."

No, all of my personas are having cocktails at the beach.

Sorry.

jr565 said...

Former law student wrote:
No one can criticize Islam till they've read the Koran.

In Arabic.


Ok. No one can criticize the bible unless they read the Bible in Aramaic and Hebrew.
I expect to see a lot less criticism of christianity from the left going forward, and a lot more studying of Aramaic in colleges going forward.

Methadras said...

former law student said...

No one can criticize Islam till they've read the Koran.

In Arabic.


Been there. Done that.

former law student said...

Been there. Done that.

Fair enough. Which Ann Coulter book should I start with?

Jason said...

Jeremy...

You should go back and delete your 4:25 post above.

Everything in it is wrong and makes you look like an idiot.

DBQ was right. You haven't a frigging clue. She spelled it out for you and you are still digging in your heels. Your head is absolutely, totally, completely, 100 percent up your ass on this topic.

It's embarrassing. It's worse than any beatdown anyone ever suffered at Mike Tyson's hands. And you just don't know when to cut your losses.

Jeremy, I don't say this lightly.

You're a frigging idiot.

Trooper York said...

Is she the one who writes those books about that Harry Potter pussy?

That dude could never run for Senator you know.

Michael McNeil said...

That's true — like the facts of the fossil record, radiocarbon dating, adaptation observed in nature, etc. Ergo, there are many facts which confirm Darwinian evolution.

Another dude who, like Jeremy, thinks he knows so much about evolution that he can lecture others on the subject, simultaneously displaying his gross ignorance by proclaiming that “radiocarbon dating” is helpful in establishing “the facts of the fossil record.”

Actually, radiocarbon dating is useless for dating anything older than about 50,000 years (a geologically and biologically brief period during which little evolution has occurred). Since the Earth is nearly 5 billion years old, and life on Earth began more than 3 billion years ago), this leaves radiocarbon dating a mere five orders of magnitude short in that department.

Freeman Hunt said...

Fair enough. Which Ann Coulter book should I start with?

Treason. It's the most interesting.

John said...

Jeremy seems to be an amazing person. I have known few people to be so stupendously challenged on so many different subjects.

I mentioned that only about 9% of smokers got lung cancer. That figure comes from the National Institutes of Health.

To which he replied "Bullshit"

Or maybe he was referring to my statement that cigarettes were called "cancer sticks" and "Coffin nails" prior to 1900.

With Jeremy, who can tell?

He later thinks he refutes me by stating that 87% of lung cancer patients are smokers, displaying innumeracy on top of illiteracy.

The 87% may be right. I've not checked and will take Wikipedia's word for the moment.

That has nothing at all to do with the statistic that 9% of smokers get lung cancer. Or, that 90% of smokers don't get lung cancer.

Another way to put it would be that very few people get lung cancer, but of those that do, most are smokers.

Someone else asked about heart disease and emphysema. Heart disease is aggravated by smoking but by many other things as well (weight, diet, heredity, stress etc. It is a bit harder to pull out really good numbers for the increased risk of HD in smokers. There is a significantly increased risk. Perhaps double, perhaps more.

My recollection is that it is still a minority, down in the 10-20% range, of smokers who get heart disease. (I'm going by memory and if someone else has a better answer, let me know)

Emphysema I don't recall what the figures were so I will not comment.

The reason I know this stuff is that I used to teach a class Business Government and Society every year. One of the case studies we spent a week on was on smoking and the tobacco companies.

John Henry

J said...

Actually, radiocarbon dating is useless for dating anything older than about 50,000 years

ah so much for the traditional judeo-christian dogmatist's date of ....4000 BC or so--some dixie fundamentalists--"young earth creationists" still believe something like that. Moises and the Pterodactyls, bruttthrrr--

Moreover RC's just one type of radiometric dating--uranium, and other elements are used. Or are the other isotopic methods a fable too, brutthrr? Annie Coulter thought so. Furthermore even the best anthropological evidence shows a date of about 1400 BC for the beginning of the Old Testament myths (and no documents establishing the biblical narrative exist, except copies of the Septuagint--which is the greek translation of semitic texts from about 250 BC, from which all subsequent "hebrew" documents follow, even the so-called masoretic text.)

I have nothing to do with "Jeremy"--that's merely the guilt by association game of the Althousers.

David bone said...

The post is very nicely written and it contains many useful facts. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post. Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement. Thanks for sharing with us. public liability insurance quote