Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
I can't find the link at the moment, but I recently read that most of those people whose existing coverage doesn't meet the minimum requirements of ACA would ultimately end up with better coverage for less money, including possible tax credits.
I don't doubt that there are going to be some people that end up getting less for more, but overall they will be in the vast minority.
Also, on a seperate note, why does the mainstream media always rely on the extreme opposition of an issue for a soundbite and/or quote? For example:
(emphasis added)
^That's like asking a die-hard Flames fan his/her opinion of the Oilers.
|
Not to mention that the same Robert Laszewski later in the article claims that he is getting a cancellation letter for his 'Cadillac' of a policy. This begs the question...
Is he lying about getting a cancellation letter, or lying about having a 'Cadillac' policy, or admitting that 'Cadillac' policies don't even meet the basic government mandate? One of those three things must be true. Two out of three make him less credible if true, while the third being true would just emphasize the need for healthcare reform in the first place.