Posted on 02/22/2016 4:07:34 AM PST by rootin tootin
American Expectorator has TDS, like so many other Elistist publications.
He's made it abundantly clear that he doesn't.
You know, to be fair, when I listened to that interview, I didn't think he meant the mandate that we all buy insurance (thought that is a fair interpretation). I thought he meant the mandate that the insurance companies must take on a client even if they have a pre-existing condition. Which, of course, will bring about the destruction of the insurance industry and require the institution of single-payer or universal that he has supported all along.
No mandates as to what MUST be included in the health care plans. No pregnancy or birth-control requirements for 70-year-old widows, and no requirement that “children” be kept on the family health plan until age 26. Emancipation should occur at a much earlier age.
No matter how one may try, there is absolutely NO way to “guarantee” 100% health insurance funding capability. Yet the Obamacare objective (as stated, anyway) does embrace this ambitious goal.
By any manner of objective observation, there are a lower percentage of persons now covered by the “mandated” Obamacare coverage, than there were in January 2009, due to people disenrolled in what used to be an employer-provided benefit, or because the premiums have elevated beyond the budgets of the former enrollees, or because of an influx of “undocumented migrants” and “refugees” that have little or no interest in participating, knowing they can go to an emergency room at any time, even for minor complaints.
Of course, all the emergency rooms within a hundred-mile radius may have CLOSED, because of all the “compassionate” care they were forced to provide without reimbursement.
But hey, that is just greedy bean counters.
I agree with your comments, and the fact that Super Tuesday is actually only ONE WEEK from tomorrow, makes it just that much more true.
Good call FlagLady47.
Since he said it four days ago? I must have missed that. Was it around the same time he made it abundantly clear he was against ethanol subsidies?
What he was saying was that under the existing law, the mandate makes sense, because otherwise pre-existing conditions could not be coverable, not unless you have near 100% participation.
However, he reminds us, he has been consistently against the entire law, and wants it ALL gone, INCLUDING mandate.
It's a nuanced set of points, and perhaps one he should not engage in pre-nomination, but I can clearly see what he said, and I don't have too much difference of opinion with him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.