Ed Schultz Shrugs Off Cost of ObamaCare Mandate: 'Who Cares About the Money?!'
Something tells me this isn't an argument that Supreme Court justices will hear this week.
Unhinged MSNBC circus clown Ed Schultz continues to unintentionally help conservatives, making a claim to a caller on his radio show Monday that was inane even by the epic standards for inanity established by Schultz. (audio clip after page break)
The caller was criticizing a specific mandate of the dishonestly named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, that of allowing adult children to remain on a parent's health insurance policy until age 26. (audio) --
SCHULTZ: Let's go back to the last caller if we can, Billy. Did you hear what Jeff had to say about his son being covered? This was one of the provisions in the health care bill, that, you know, under 26 you can get on your parents' policy. I mean, he didn't have the money as a student to get, go out and get health insurance after the age of 21, so this extension helped him. How, why would you be against that?
CALLER: Somebody's still paying for that. His parents are still paying ...
SCHULTZ: Who cares about the money?! ... His parents are paying for it through the policy!
CALLER: They're paying for it through their policy and if they bought him an individual policy too, Ed. It's just ...
SCHULTZ (lamely): No.
Uh, yeah, Ed. Just saying a caller is wrong is feeble defense against the accuracy of what the caller said -- this specific mandate increases the cost of the parents' insurance coverage just as surely as if they extended coverage to their adult children before the health law took effect.
Beyond that, Schultz's retort -- "who cares about the money?!" -- is inherently laughable and hence entirely in character for Schultz. It also neatly encapsulates liberal economics. Utopian scheme too costly? Print more money! It's nothing more than paper anyway, right? Angered by rising food and gas prices, tax hikes to fund ObamaCare, property taxes that invariably go higher -- take comfort, it's only money. This I know because Ed Schultz says so.
Given the affluent Schultz's cavalier attitude toward currency, I humbly ask that he send me a check, for whatever large amount he deems sufficient, to help pay for my children to attend college. Seeing how Schultz is indifferent to money, he undoubtedly won't miss it.
Then again, was Schultz actually referring to other people's money, those with opinions he abhors, as liberals are robotically inclined to do?