Your ignoring of my post #236 is noted.
The irony! It burns! It burns!
The public will draw their own conclusions based on their own experiences. Of course, it will then be the Republicans’ fault, since President Obama may never be held accountable for anything.
I am sure people whose family premiums triple will just blame Republicans.
The affect of the ACA on people who prefer to self-insure for most things and use high deductible plans for catastrophic costs, and who are actually prepared to pay those costs instead of pawning them off on the public, is a limited but nevertheless unfortunate consequence.
You know what would be great? A Congress that had any interest at all in finding solutions to those issues, like creating a class of high-deductible insurance that was exempted from the coverage requirements if the purchasers hold a health care bond to prove their ability to pay for the areas the requirements would otherwise cover.
Instead, of course, we have Ted Cruz rambling about tyranny and the government making your medical choices. :rolleyes:
That’s not the only cost. Some people will see premiums go up. The whole reason it’s so important for the young to be in the exchanges is so they can subsidize the old. It’s a generational wealth transfer program by design.
Oh good, three new points to rebut as we breeze merrily by the deconstruction of the last ten. I’ll pass.
From our good friends at Daily Kos:
The crucial details overlooked are included in the story. But I bet you can guess…
Mud and leeches were good enough for the Founding Fathers!
Every insurance policy in history is a wealth transfer program whereby folks with lower risk “subsidize” people with higher risk. That’s the whole fucking point of insurance.
Right, the best thing they could come up with in response to the man’s premium increase by 300% (which they don’t dispute) is character assassination. Perfect little liberals.
Then why the insistence that everyone will see their premiums go down? At least Nancy Pelosi is finally backing off that statement.
Please excuse my lack of tears; his 300% increased premium doesn’t strike me as anything extreme. What strikes me as extreme is that he [del]is[/del]was able to insure a family of 4 for the same amount that I pay for my 2nd tier insurance (BCBS) that covers just me. I pay about $1050 per quarter for my insurance which has a $2000 yearly deductible.
Could it be his deductible is way more than $2000?
Asking me to clarify Nancy Pelosi’s statements when you can’t even get the ABC’s of insurance right is the very definition of a red herring.
I agreed with you that this is the nature of insurance. In that case, there is nothing wrong with pointing out to voters what the nature of insurance is. Democrats get very defensive when these simple truths are pointed out.
Its not that simple truths are pointed out, but that simple truths are *selectively *pointed out.
Could it be that it isn’t?
Did you read it? Point out to me any remarks therein that disparage Mr. Mangione’s character, or that of any member of his family.
The point is made clear in the text, the complaint is that Fox News offered this heart-wrenching story without any mention of the fact that Mr. Mangione has “a dog in the fight”. It was worthy of mention for a news outlet that wants to protect what shreds of integrity might remain.
But nevermind, just show us in the text where “character assassination” is practiced, that will do nicely for now.
There is nothing in the article other than “revealing” to us where the man works.
And of course that negates the fact that his premium went up 300%, right?
Ah - I missed the part of your post where you wrote in invisible ink and agreed with me.