Ah, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The 28-year-old bartender-turned Democrat is turning out to be an endless fountain of hilariously bad political moments and brilliantly incorrect one-liners.
Since she made her debut on the political scene late June, she has had one blunder after another, demonstrating that she is consistently able to speak authoritatively on anything other than bumper-sticker-slogan paraphrases of “democratic socialism” (don’t ask her to define democratic socialism, though).
Like most weeks since her primary victory, she’s had quite an eventful one this week, from comparing Ben Shapiro’s earnest invitation to a debate to “catcalling” to dismissing her fact-checkers as “sexist.”
Amid all this victim-card-playing, she still found time to give a disaster, fact-devoid interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo (who was no doubt undeterred by her series of idiotic comments).
The Washington Free Beacon’s Alex Griswold, who says he “can never thank enough the Democratic voters of New York’s 14th congressional district for giving us Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” broke down five particularly noteworthy untruths that Ocasio-Cortez spewed in that interview alone:
CUOMO: …If you win and you go to Congress, there will be a leader of your caucus, her name is Nancy Pelosi. Do you recognize her as the leader for the House Democrats?
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Of course. I think absolutely right now…
CUOMO: Go ahead, please.
OCASIO-CORTEZ: She is, she is the leader of, of– no no, she, I mean, um, um, Speaker, or rather Leader Pelosi, hopefully, um, you know, we’ll see, she’s uh, she’s the current leader of the party and I think the party absolutely does have its leadership in the House, we our leadership in the Senate as well.
“Yikes” Griswold reacts. “Even if it were coherently stated, it’s obvious that Ocasio-Cortez was dodging the intended question. Cuomo wasn’t asking whether she recognizes the fact that Nancy Pelosi is currently the leader of the House Democrats; this wasn’t quiz bowl. He wanted to know if she would back Pelosi as leader if elected, and when Cuomo followed up and explicitly asked her that question, Ocasio-Cortez dodged again.”
He says that the rest of the interview was mostly softballs, but that clearly didn’t stop Ocasio-Cortez from continuing to blunder her way through it.
Until she was presented yet again with a question she has, so far, been unable to answer: how exactly will the nation pay for medicare-for-all, the proposal of which has been her wheelhouse.
The thing that we need to realize is people talk about the sticker shock of medicare for all. They do not talk about the sticker shock of the cost of our existing system. You know in a Koch Brothers-funded study–if any study’s going to try to be a little bit slanted, it would be one funded by the Koch brothers–it shows that Medicare for all is actually much more–is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.
The Washington Post Fact-Checker gave this claim Three Pinocchios recently. The Mercatus study only “found” that Medicare-for-All would be cheaper than the current system because the author Charles Blahous was exceedingly generous to claims from Bernie Sanders and others that it would lead to huge savings in administrative costs. The point of the study was to prove that even ifthose savings emerged, the pricetag for Medicare-for-all would be enormous and still require substantial tax increases.
She wasn’t done.
And let’s not forget that the reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday Americans make is a tax. And so while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15th, we pay it every single month, or we do pay it tax season if we don’t buy, you know, these plans off of the exchange.
Again, Griswold points out that Ocasio-Cortez has no idea what she’s talking about:
This is just wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was constitutional because the penalty for those who didn’t get healthcare was effectively a tax. Whether normal monthly premiums were a “tax” in a philosophical sense did not factor into their analysis in the slightest.
She then, as Griswold puts it, went on to utter this doozy:
Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is, and what we’re also not talking about is why aren’t we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can’t afford access to healthcare? That is part of the cost of our system.
She’s wrong yet again. Griswold explains:
I can’t believe I have to spell this out, but funeral costs are usually discounted when discussing healthcare costs because they’re baked in no matter what. Pete could receive excellent healthcare and live to 100 or poor healthcare and die at 20, but either way at some point someone’s paying for Pete’s coffin, a plot of land, and some bagpipes.
There are no long-term savings to be found in funeral costs no matter what the healthcare system. Even if Medicare-for-all miraculously raised life expectancy in the U.S. by a year, that would only defer funeral costs on average by a year. Unless commentators were being literal when they called Ocasio-Cortez the Democratic messiah, the funeral costs of every living American cannot be eliminated or diminished, merely briefly postponed.
The sad thing is, Ocasio-Cortez continues to be the messiah of the left because they a) don’t care about facts so much as enticing rhetoric that looks good on a protest sign and b) they pretty much have no one else that’s getting any worthwhile attention right now.
Ocasio-Cortez is their dream girl, but if she keeps talking, the dream isn’t going to last long.