.> When you go to the appropriate web site, punch in their relevant data, and find out that their premiums would actually be lower than they were paying before if they would do the same, means what? They are fully informed?
Premiums aren't the only issue. These are intensely personal matters that can be influenced by other things. For example, in one woman who was bashed by the Left last week, she had cancer, had lost her policy and got a new policy. The total out of pocket expense was roughly the same and she was destroyed in the media for complaining.
But when interviewed she explained her problem clearly: Yes, the total out of pocket in a year is the same but my old policy allowed me to pay that monthly while this new policy hits me with it all at the beginning of the year, and I can't budget for that. Which totally makes sense to someone who has a difficult time making ends meet. There is a very substantial difference between $7,200/year and $600/month for many people.
The point being that it should not be government's call. It is a personal decision and what my be important to you or the Washington Post may not be important to someone else, and vice-versa.
Still, there are much more substantial differences at stake. For example, this wsj op-ed that came out yesterday. That man's mom has been seriously harmed by Obamacare and could well end up losing her life as a result of it. The liberal response to it in LATimes last night was nothing short of outrageous.
online.wsj.com
The LaTimes article is just embarrassing. Incompetently researched, totally defensive, and at the end of the day, a misrepresentation of the facts.
latimes.com
Just stop it. Be honest. Is it so fucking hard to admit you're wrong? |
