What do the conservative supporters of Mitt Romney and the Wicked Witch of the West have in common? Throw a little water on them, and The Great Meltdown Begins!
Let’s face it, the meltdown is going to be fun. I don’t know about you, but The Pink Flamingo began to notice that the Great Conservative Meltdown began a few days ago. Ann Coulter is making a laughing-stock of himself. The Trump endorsement makes no sense, considering the things he once had to say about Romney.
“…It may be worse than that. As Goldberg also noted, “[t]he frustrating problem with Romney is that his flubs and gaffes either share liberal assumptions or are caricatures of conservative ones.” I would argue the problem is more specific. Romney’s gaffes are rooted in his wealth problem. He alternatively makes comments that feed the narrative of an out-of-touch fatcat or irritate the GOP base with faux populism designed to counter that narrative. Indeed, yesterday Romney said that he was not concerned about the very poor or the very rich, when his concern should be whatever benefits America without regard to class issues. Instead, his sensitivity to the wealth issue causes him to not only disregard the affluent and the poor rhetorically, but to produce a mediocre tax plan and to back indexing the minimum wage for inflation, which ironically hurts the poor….”
Can we just admit that Coulter is bat-shit crazy?
Take Romneycare, please! In order for Coulter to defend Romneycare, she must betray her dislike of Obamacare. In order for the right to defend Romney, David Frum, who was not a fan of Coulter, is making a fool of himself to defend Coulter, defending Romney. To support Romney, Frum endorses an encroachment of socialism in this country.
“…Because of the Affordable Care Act, near-universal health coverage is coming at last to the United States. That’s not a clock that can or should be turned back. The conservative task ahead is to reform that new social commitment so that it is affordable and sustainable, so that it is financed in ways that do not discourage work, saving and investment.
It’s unexpected but welcome to see Ann Coulter enroll among those who favor that kind of pragmatic conservative reform. Could the ideological fever that has gripped the right over the past three years at last be breaking?…”
This is just a tremendous amount of fun. As mentioned by Dan Riehl, the individual mandate, now endorsed by Coulter, is not just not kosher. Doesn’t matter. What Mitt wants, Mitt gets. If it were not such a serious moment in time, it would begin to be hilarious.
“...As soon as President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2010 into law, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed suit against the federal government, arguing that the legislation is unconstitutional.
Cuccinelli highlights the individual mandate as particularly offensive to the Constitution, emphasizing that “at no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service.”
Some disagree with Cuccinelli, pointing to the Second Militia Act of 1792 as evidence that the individual mandate is not unprecedented and furthermore that the Founders would have supported the recent health care bill. This argument is analytically defective. The Second Militia Act of 1972 neither sanctions nor foreshadows the individual mandate in the recently passed health care legislation….”
The real problem here is that Coulter is being terribly intellectually dishonest about the “Heritage Foundation” endorsement. She mentioned Bob Moffit of the Heritage Foundation as being for it. Well, now he appears to be again it? She’s not being quite honest about how Moffit feels about Romney care. Mark Levin went for the jugular.
“…Romney’s successor, Gov. Deval Patrick, has announced a few tweaks here and there to address this problem, but nothing like the kind of enforcement that would be required to make the system work. That’s because, as Moffit noted in his Harvard esssay, “Politically, the pursuit of an individual mandate would require an insistence on a level of public coercion by unspecified means that does not yet enjoy anything close to a public consensus.” The enforcement mechanisms in Obamacare also vindicate Moffit’s view: The penalty for evading its individual mandate is relatively small; its constitutionality is suspect; and it might not even be enforceable.
I spoke with Moffit on the phone after the publication of his op-ed, and I asked him to elaborate on his observations about the individual mandate, particularly in the light of the problems Massachusetts has experienced. Moffit says that Romneycare was addressing a real problem – the nearly $50 billion in annual uncompensated-care costs that accumulate as a result of free emergency-room care for the uninsured – but that it has proved to be a “mixed bag.” Romneycare “reduced the uncompensated-care costs for hospitals,” he says, but Romney’s successor has failed to cut uncompensated-care subsidies. “Even though hospitals’ uncompensated-care costs went down, Patrick continued to funnel taxpayers’ money to them anyway,” Moffit says. …Nor can Romney simply blame his health-care plan’s inadequacies on poor implementation: Conservatives will correctly counter that bureaucracies do not have the proper incentives to implement such programs well. Heritage and Moffit have provided Romney with a graceful path for admitting that, in hindsight and with the benefit of empirical evidence, the individual mandate is not a workable solution to the problem of the uninsured. It’s a path he should take….”
There is more:
“...Although there are undoubtedly many factors behind the cost increase, one reason is that the new bureaucracy that the legislation created-the “Connector”-has not been allowing Massachusetts citizens to buy insurance that “fits their needs.”
Although it has received less media attention than other aspects of the bill, one of the most significant features of the legislation is the creation of the Massachusetts Health Care Connector to combine the current small-group and individual markets under a single unified set of regulations. Supporters such as Robert E. Moffit and Nina Owcharenko of the Heritage Foundation consider the Connector to be the single most important change made by the legislation, calling it “the cornerstone of the new plan” and “a major innovation and a model for other states.”
The Connector is not actually an insurer. Rather, it is designed to allow individuals and workers in small companies to take advantage of the economies of scale, both in terms of administration and risk pooling, which are currently enjoyed by large employers. Multiple employers are able to pay into the Connector on behalf of a single employee. And, most importantly, the Connector would allow workers to use pretax dollars to purchase individual insurance. That would make insurance personal and portable, rather than tied to an employer-all very desirable things.
However, many people were concerned that the Connector was being granted too much regulatory authority. It was given the power to decide what products it would offer and to designate which types of insurance offered “high quality and good value.” This phrase in particular worried many observers because it is the same language frequently included in legislation mandating insurance benefits.
At the time the legislation passed, Ed Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation reassured critics that “the Connector will neither design the insurance products being offered nor regulate the insurers offering the plans.” In reality, however, the Connector’s board has seen itself as a combination of the state legislature and the insurance commissioner, adding a host of new regulations and mandates.
For example, the Connector’s governing board has decreed that by January 2009, no one in the state will be allowed to have insurance with more than a $2,000 deductible or total out-of-pocket costs of more than $5,000. In addition, every policy in the state will be required to phase in coverage of prescription drugs, a move that could add 5–15 percent to the cost of insurance plans. A move to require dental coverage barely failed to pass the board, and the dentists-along with several other provider groups-have not given up the effort to force their inclusion. This comes on top of the 40 mandated benefits that the state had previously required, ranging from in vitro fertilization to chiropractic services.
Thus, it appears that the Connector offers quite a bit of pain for relatively little gain. Although the ability to use pretax dollars to purchase personal and portable insurance should be appealing in theory, only about 7,500 nonsubsidized workers have purchased insurance through the Connector so far. On the other hand, rather than insurance that “fits their needs,” Massachusetts residents find themselves forced to buy expensive “Cadillac” policies that offer many benefits that they may not want.
Governor Romney now says that he cannot be held responsible for the actions of the Connector board, because it’s “an independent body separate from the governor’s office.” However, many critics of the Massachusetts plan warned him precisely against the dangers of giving regulatory authority to a bureaucracy that would last long beyond his administration….”
Then there is the idea that Romney wants to increase of the minimum wage in such a way that would be catastrophic for the economy and inflation. I guess this is okay since Mitt is proposing it. He gets what he wants.
“...Newt says that with the way the Fed is printing money, Romney’s proposal for an automatic minimum wage increase based on inflation could be potentially catastrophic. Newt remembers the Carter years and how inflation was rampant by 1980, setting the nation toward collapse. He says with the Fed printing so much money, inflation could potentially soar if the economy begins to recover which could send minimum wage soaring with it…”
Can we just sit back and laugh at Jennifer Rubin?
William Jocobson has been playing Rubin for laughs, all day.
One wonders how long they can keep this up before ruining their careers?