|Posted on October 1, 2013 at 9:35 PM|
"The money that patients' rights advocates have to spend trying to convince the Obama administration that Americans should have decent health care benefits pales in comparison to the boatloads of cash insurers and their corporate allies have on hand to do largely the opposite. But at least the advocates are now in the game. ... If people find out that the coverage they have to buy is of limited value to them when they get sick, _____________ ..."
If the opening paragraph doesn't make you want to read further, I figure you'll at least want to know how the blank is filled out.
So … now the bickering is about "junk insurance" versus "quality insurance" that covers the "essentials" and if THE LAW is going to force Americans to pay for crap!
Uh huh. Right.
Surely that was Obama's intent. Surely that is the legislative intent. TO FORCE AMERICANS TO PAY FOR CRAP!
We the people who are citizens of the land of liberty and equality??!!
The MANDATE seems to be worded plainly enough.
WHY CAN'T THE LAWMAKERS "GOOD INTENTIONS" BE CLEAR AND PLAIN?
RE-POSTING. Posted this on IMIS April 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM. Now that people are looking into the health insurance exchange this article may be worth a revisit.
* * *
SOURCE: "PRWatch". Submitted by Wendell Potter on December 12, 2011 - 12:29pm