Has Coulter gone off the deep end? I don't want the government mandating I buy anything. Government always gets it wrong. Its bad enough now what the government takes from productive citizens to give to the slothful. How about mandating some Tort Reform? Yes, Democrats (Marxists) are a problem, but don't tell me Romneycare has any redeeming qualitys. What a crock!

It seems that Ann is in love with Romney. He does have nice hair, but I think he's bit old for you, Ann.

Reagan was easily the greatest president of my lifetime. Yet, in each and every presidential election since, the Republicans have failed to run a candidate that is half as conservative as Reagan. This election cycle will be no different. This has to be one of the greatest ironies of modern history.

I do not think Ann has gone off the deep end. She raises some good points differentiating between Romneycare and Obamacare.

"Romneycare used the $1.2 billion that the state was already spending on medical care for the uninsured to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance for those who couldn't afford it."

This is key to me as is the point about the 1946 mandate for hospitals covering all comers. In that effect, Romney was likely trying to improve an already bad situation in which he had no controls.

Now I totally agree with wjmccrindle who says "I don't want the government mandating I buy anything." I would emphasize "ANY" level of government when making that statement. Nobody should force me to buy coverage. And re-distribution of wealth is evil.

That's all I have for now. My candidate is Santorum, but I am afraid we will be stuck with Romney and thus have to pray that he lives up to some of his current rhetoric. Obamacare and other items must be repealed because we cannot afford them and they are unsustainable in the long run much like any other government "ponzi scheme". The only really legitimate function of the federal government is defense.

Blah, blah, blah .... You can yap all you want to, Ann, about how different Mitt Mire is different than Obama Care, but the bottom line is that NO government - State, Federal, Local or otherwise - has any authority to tell me what product or service I HAVE to purchase and threaten me with fines if I don't.

Ann, I love ya ... and ALWAYS look forward to your columns. This one, not so much.

How is the required buying of medical insurance different than the required buying of old-age insurance (Social Security)? I agree with Ann that Mitt (along with the entire Mass. legislature) did the best he could with a miserable govt.-made situation. And now, like everything else, it's a mess.

Short of dismantling the government and REstarting with a Madisonian republic, I see no way out of the quagmire we're in.

I must say I've lost a great deal of respect for you Ann. Romneycare, Obamacare, and the Democrat party in general are slowly walking us to the pit of socialism/marxism and you should know better than endorse ANY of that rhetoric!! Comparing having to go to the DMV in order to drive on the roads to the government, (at any level), mandating I purchase a given product, (it just happens to be health insurance in this case), is specious at best and dangerous at worst. Romneycare was passed at the state level and shouldn't have been, but obamacare would be a truly epic disaster for the country. If it stands as is, (and I don't think it will once the SCOTUS is done), there will be virtually no limit to what the congress and executive can mandate the common citizen do, or not do. It's bad enough now, it will be virtual tyranny then. My big question is this: what the hell is the government doing in the health care business in the first place? There is no Constitutional authority for it. Same for education, and a number of other things. I'm saddened to see this article from you Ann. I expect better. I know you'll label me a heretic but the only person I see in the mix right now that is serious about reform of the gargantuan government behemoth is Ron Paul. Call him kooky if you must but the other candidates are just a little less bad than obama when it comes to a government totally out of control!! God Help Us!!

All correct in saying that the government should not mandate a citizen buying anything. We should therefore eliminate property taxes since they are essentially the government forcing us to pay for the land we occupy. We should also eliminate the vast majority of government functions since we are being forced through income and sales taxes to pay for services I have never used and will never need. With the advent of bookstores, amazon and second-hand bookstores I definitely shouldn't be forced to pay for libraries, they are a luxury and only people who can't afford a 25 cent book or want to surf the web on my dime are using them. What about those poor folks that can't read that pay taxes that pay for those unnecessary libraries?

I think that if only some people buy medical insurance then no people should buy health insurance. It's the insurance payouts that have hyper-inflated medical costs and the scent of that money has brought that human swine known as ambulance chasers sniffing around and eating from the insurance trough. Eliminate insurance altogether and let the free market really work in the health field. Whoa, what a concept!! Nobody who smokes cigarettes and eats red meat their whole life should get their chest reworked on my dime. Doctors and hospitals should charge what people can afford and people should only go in for services they need and can afford. However, if we are going to have an insurance scam, er, system then absolutely everybody should ante up whether through taxes for a government plan or premiums with a carrier.

Also, I'm sick and tired of paying for state troopers that do nothing but stop people and force upon them a velocity tax. See there? The government is mandating that we pay for two things and how is it fair for a citizen to pay state taxes to pay for state troopers if that citizen has no driver's license? Highways should all be toll roads and individual county's roads should be paid for by the county's inhabitants. If a road can't pay for itself and if a county can't afford all of its roads then those roads need to be eliminated along with the people who maintain them. I'm sick of being mandated to pay for roads I don't drive on.

What a sick world!!

The problem with government mandates is that the government then determines what exactly you are allowed to purchase. For example, govt mandates you buy insurance, then mandates you must buy ins that covers abortions, pap smears, and c-sections, even though you are a male of the species and never in a million years will you avail yourself of said coverage. Why? Because "to be fair to everyone, everyone must buy the same kind of insurance. That way women are not unfairly burdened by the healthcare mandate." Which is EXACTLY the type of government meddling in the market that leads to violations of the equal protections clause. Government needs to BUTT OUT.

Ann is now a shill for Romney. Independent thought in her is a thing of the past. She would NEVER have written such silliness before her hatred of Gingrich drove her to Romney.

I, for one, will never buy another Ann Coulter book. My MINIMUM requirement for a conservative pundit is to not become a shill for non-conservative ideas. And, she is one.

First, Rod - You say that Ann had some "good points differentiating between Romneycare and Obamacare." That may be the case, but it isn't relative. Apparently she believes that state government has the right to make you do that, and she is correct. That can be remedied most easily on the state level with the ballot box.

Second, you stated that "the $1.2 billion that the state was already spending on medical care for the uninsured to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance for those who couldn't afford it."

Just where do you think that money came from? Just because it was money being wasted on one program doesn't mean that it should be wasted on another.

Just because Ann had one accurate point doesn't mean that the rest was drivel.

>"Nothing good has ever come of a 2,000-page bill."<

In 2007 Bush sent a democrat majority Congress a three (3) page letter directing them to come up with something to aid underwater homeowners.

They came up with nearly 2,100 pages of pork and tax-the-wealthy official government greed.

Another article adoring the Republican "establishment" by Ann Coulter. Just what we needed. I'm about ready to "throw you under the bus", Ann.

I have read some pretty valid - and some pretty quirky - comments here. What Ms. Coulter is trying to get at here is reality. And the Constitution does reserve powers to the states that are not granted to the federal government. You, I, Nobody is going to have a government - whether national, state or local - that we think is ideal. The most efficient and expeditious way to get health care costs down is - as mentioned already - to eliminate health insurance altogether. How likely is that to happen? Lacking that option, the better way to "reform health care" would be to let the states design systems that best fit their needs. If it isn't working as planned (hoped), it can more easily be reformed or, as someone else mentioned, the conspirators can more easily be replaced. Or we can sit on our hands, cry holy malfeasance of Obamacare, and get it shoved down our throats again and again. If Obama is re-elected that is the long and short of it, barring a Supreme Court miracle. But even if the Supremes quash Obamacare's mandate, we are still left with a disfunctional health care system running amok. When we run out of market-based ideas, we will no longer resemble a democratic republic. If nothing else Romneycare made an attempt at just that. Are there better ideas? Undoubtedly, but what does it matter if no one tries them? If Mitt Romney's attempt at making a dire situation better rubs you so wrong that you will consider voting for Obama or a 3rd party candidate, please give more consideration to what this election is really all about.

So, according to Ann, Romney's great accomplishment was taking a bad situation and making it worse.

After pondering this column all day, I'm still baffled.

While Ms. Coulter's unwavering support for Romney tends to baffle me (considering how conservative she has always seemed to be), I prefer to think that she has simply realized that the single, most important thing in the upcoming election is to rid our country of the liberal, nausea-inducing fool who is occupying the White House. Taken into such consideration, perhaps she has thrown her lot in with the candidate which she believes is most likely to achieve this goal, and is simply devoting the full measure of her support.

To be fair, Gingrich is hardly a true conservative (sadly far from it, it would seem), but the 'true' conservatives, like Bachmann and Santorum, face the difficult prospect of bringing the moderates into the fold, and, even the slightest chance of an Obama victory should be enough to cause any of us to step back and evaluate our positions.

Likewise, Ms. Coulter does not support Dr. Paul, who, despite his strict fiscal conservatism, has a wide range of questionable social and foreign policy positions. Even though many support at least some of those positions, it still puts him at a disadvantage when trying to appeal to the broadest possible base of voters. Principle is good, but making a stand on principle simply to make a point, but having it cost the country its very existence as we know it (which will be the outcome if the Occupier-in-Chief gets re-elected) is a disservice to us all.

In any case, I prefer to think that it isn't that she's completely lost her objectivity... Or that she's fallen in love with Romney's hair...

While I agree that I, personally, don't want the government regulating any aspect of my life, I do, however, acknowledge that there are places where my STATE government does so, and has every right to do so.

Do they not require me to have a license to drive?

Do they not require me to have insurance to get a license to drive?

Do they not require me to pay taxes (state, local, sales, etc.)?

Do they not issue me citations or arrest me when I break the law? (By extension, do they not, under penalty of punishment, expect me to follow established laws?)

Do they not permit me to vote for the officials who make the decisions affecting all of the above (and more)?

While this is a very simplistic view of the situation, the Constitution is very specific in granting the states all powers which are not enumerated to the Federal government (despite the Left's brutal assault on this reality, it remains a fact that the Founders intent was for a limited Federal government).

Therefore, just as much as a state has the power to license drivers, it equally has the right to establish a mandate for its citizens to purchase health insurance. If, like myself, you do not want to be forced to do so, you have two options: vote the bums out and replace them for leaders who agree with you, or move to a state where the requirement does not exist.

The problem with a mandate on a national level, is the same as there is a problem with most Federal regulation, wherein the Federal government has greatly over-reached and insinuated itself into positions where it has no Constitutional authority; this treads directly upon the limited enumeration of powers that are granted to the Federal government, and imposes itself into the position where state governments are Constitutionally supposed to exercise final authority.

We see this same sort of problem with states that are enforcing laws that deal with illegal immigration, the Federal government should have the authority to affect citizenship status, but the actual act of immigration should be covered by each state's laws, without Federal interference.

In the end, while I am somewhat nonplussed by Ann's support for the most 'moderate' candidate, she is correct that Romneycare is entirely acceptable, for the citizens of Massachusetts, but there is nothing that permits or encourages such a program to be enforced nation-wide.

Ann,

"Romneycare used the $1.2 billion that the state was already spending on medical care for the uninsured to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance for those who couldn't afford it."

Worked out well for MA tax payers?

extracted from

"The Boston Globe"

By Michael Levenson

Globe Staff / January 3, 2011

Medicaid cost crisis looms for Bay State

Governor Deval Patrick approved a record $9.6 billion last July for the state’s health insurance program for the poor — sufficient, he assumed, to last a year. But the program’s costs quickly outpaced expectations, forcing the governor to approve an additional $329 million in October and then seek $258 million more, which lawmakers approved last week.

And even that may not last, with six months remaining in the budget year.

The ballooning cost of Medicaid is one of the biggest challenges facing Massachusetts and other states, which have seen demand for the program jump during the recession as increasing numbers of unemployed residents enroll in the subsidized insurance plan.

With Massachusetts confronting an estimated $1.5 billion shortfall in the coming budget year, Patrick has said he is committed to financing the program, known as MassHealth. But he has acknowledged that it cannot continue to grow at this rate.

“Containing growth in our health care costs, particularly MassHealth, is something we absolutely need to do, because it is unsustainable at the rate that it’s been growing,’’ said Jay Gonzalez, Patrick’s budget chief.

The choices confronting the governor, however, are hard.

Massachusetts last summer slashed dental benefits for MassHealth recipients, forcing hundreds of thousands of poor, elderly, and disabled residents to visit community health centers, instead of their regular dentists, for fillings, root canals, dentures, and other routine procedures. Bigger cuts or restrictions loom.

Arizona recently made national headlines when it stopped financing certain organ transplant operations under its Medicaid program. Wisconsin stopped paying for caesarean sections unless they were deemed medically necessary. In Texas, Governor Rick Perry has entertained the idea of abolishing the state’s Medicaid program entirely.

Patrick, who is set to unveil his latest budget plan later this month, has not said what steps he will take to control Medicaid costs, but further cuts are all but certain.

“We need to do some things differently,’’ Gonzalez said, declining to elaborate. “There are going to be some hard decisions.’’

MassHealth is open to a range of people who meet certain criteria, including some individuals 65 and over, disabled residents, and those with low or moderate income — generally defined as earnings below 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or less than about $29,327 a year for a family of four.

Big Red,

You wrote, "the Constitution is very specific in granting the states all powers which are not enumerated to the Federal government..."

Would you mind citing the section of the Constitution that says that? The one I'm familiar with does not contain that clause. I do seem to remember something about the federal Constitution containing a requirement for each state to have a republican form of government, though (Article 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution).

@ Army Officer (Ret): "You wrote, 'the Constitution is very specific in granting the states all powers which are not enumerated to the Federal government...'

Would you mind citing the section of the Constitution that says that?"

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that all powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States are retained by the States.

After the years of reading Ann's books and being entertained by her on various talk radio shows and television shows I have always felt she spoke for many of us out here in Teaxs and elsewhere. Now I am confused and finding myself with a sinking feeling that if one of the sharpest minds in Conservative thought even utters the phrases "make do" or "RomneyCare" in an accepting way all may be lost. We just might lose this Nation to the Hounds of Hell now howling in the kennels in the White House compound waiting to be turned loose on the population. God help us all!