Yesterday, I heard about the last two-thirds of Sean Hannity’s 164th radio interview with Mitt Romney in the past three years (that’s a guess, and it may be low).
As has frequently been the case in recent months, Hannity was in the midst of giving Romney an open mic to repeatedly fib about the results of state-controlled Commonwealth Care aka RomneyCare in Massachusetts, the state he (Romney) used to govern.
To hear Objectively Unfit Mitt tell it, it’s working out fine, almost everyone is covered, costs are only a little bit higher than expected (even that’s the fault of the rest of the country), and access to care is fine.
In a March Boston Globe op-ed, Susan L. King, whose conclusions and recommendations I don’t agree with, nonetheless put forth these facts:
- “The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.”
- “Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.”
As to access, look at how many days you have to wait to see a doctor in Boston (average of cardiology, dermatology, OB/GYN, orthopedic surgery, and family practice at Page 9 of this PDF; cute related vid is here; HT TNR):
In Atlanta, it’s 11 days. To be fair, it was higher in Boston before RomneyCare, but average wait times have nonetheless increased to their current 50-day level. Oh by the way, the linked video also notes that insurance costs are three times higher in Massachusetts than in Georgia.
Things are working out sooooooo well in Massachusetts that people, especially the potentially and actually more productive, are voting with their feet and leaving the Bay State.
The seemingly daily free passes Hannity gives Mitt Romney have been intolerable for quite a while.
It would be one thing if this only had to do with one politician’s career. But defeating statist health care is about saving America as we know it in so many ways and on so many levels, and Hannity is increasing the risk that the resistance to statism will fail.
Mitt Romney, whether he admits it or not, is the architect of the poorly-working model for ObamaCare. By giving Romney free rein to spread his falsehoods, Hannity muddles the opposition message. Sensible conservatives everywhere should be asking “But what about Massachusetts?” every time Obama and his apparatchiks drone on about competition, cost savings, keeping your insurance, access, and all of the other flat-out lies they are selling as they attempt what Mark Steyn has so perfectly described as “the nationalization of your body.”
By allowing Mitt Romney a national platform to constantly claim that the situation in Massachusetts is really not that bad, or is even okay, Hannity is seriously compromising that effort. As far as I’m concerned, he will be partially to blame if any form of ObamaCare becomes law. Romney’s share of the blame will, of course, be much greater.
RELATED: I didn’t get to hear author, broadcaster, and friend Gregg Jackson’s call to Hannity
shortly after the Romney interview yesterday.
Here, via e-mail, is Gregg’s take on the call. Once again, Hannity on Romney tried to defend the indefensible –
Sean, on your radio show today, I asked you how you could continue to criticize Obama’s proposed government-run healthcare plan when you in fact endorsed Mitt Romney for president of the United States (whose own quasi-socialist healthcare bill established abortion with a $50 co-pay as a “healthcare benefit” (and the same man you continue to support and promote on your show as you shamelessly did today, in fact, right after you rudely cut me off.)
You had no answer to my very simple and straightforward question and could only claim that RomneyCare didn’t fund abortions, and only a few minutes later, totally contradicting yourself, stating that Romney attempted to veto the abortion provision and that it was “the Democrats in the legislature” who forced him to include it in the bill.
Suffice it to say that you are wrong on both counts, Sean.
First, RomneyCare established $50 co-pay abortions as a “healthcare benefit.” And Romney signed it into law AFTER his phony “pro-life conversion” ….. And by the way, Sean, neither Romney nor any of his people have ever disputed that Romneycare established abortion with a $50 co-pay as a “healthcare benefit.” I noticed how you conveniently omitted RomneyCare’s abortion provision from your discussion with Romney today.
Secondly, although Romney did veto at least 8 other provisions in CommonwealthCare, he never vetoed any provision for government funded abortions. In fact, not only did RomneyCare establish abortion as a “healthcare benefit,” Sean, but Romney also appointed a Planned Parenthood member to a permanent position on his healthcare advisory board with no pro-life member (AFTER his supposed “pro-life conversion.”)
When you combine Hannity’s endless softball Romney interviews with his insufferable, enthusiastic support for statism as he personally plugs the “new, lean, green, strong” General Motors, it’s impossible to avoid the fact that Sean has a serious credibility problem — one that is entirely self-created. Even worse, it’s also impossible to avoid the fact that he is selling out the cause of sensible conservatism (which is, of course, a redundant term).