Your list evokes all of the toooools of the trade, of my old days of contract negotiations, of cobbling together coalitions of 50 percent plus one to get the lowest possible number of votes necessary to get a contract or a candidate passed.
That's what Obama and the DLC-Democrats did -- AMONG THEIR OWN KIND.
And once you get it passed (based on false claims, by the way -- based on a sales pitch that was greatly exaggerated or just a plain outright Iie), the truth of the spin and the hyperbole becomes known.
For instance, when you say that "Insurers are prohibited from dropping policyholders when they get si/ck", or what? $100 a day fine. When you're dealing with a catastrophic iIIness, that $100 a day is a pretty sweet deal.
There are also many other out-clauses for insurers for insurers not having to provide treatment.
The 26-year old provision is one of my favorite little 'danglers' in this legislation. How many (and who are these) parents with jobs, with children up to age 26 without jobs, without insurance? These 'parents' are at an age where companies are notorious for firing them, hiring younger workers for less, with less (or no) benefits. In this economy, yet, where that practice has increased since it began in earnest under Reagan.
As these 'parents' are nearing retirement themselves, they're not going to have money to pay for their own insurance policies, much less their adult children (living at home yet, without work).
You're a kick, billy -- You're a true blue Iobbyist.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
0 comments:
Post a Comment