In Colonial America, "full majority was reached at the age of 21." Folks who attained that age could "Buy or sell land without restriction ... Vote or hold public office ... [even] Act as a guardian."
Oh, how far we've come:
"Seventeen million young Americans would lose promised access to health insurance if the Supreme Court strikes down [ObamneyCare©]"
And how, pray tell, does "consumer advocacy group Young Invincibles" define a "young adult?"
Why, that would be folks "between the ages of 18 and 34."
Could we cast a wider net?
Didn't think so.
And of course, these Young "Invincibles" [ed: now there's an oxymoron!] continue the grand tradition of conflating health care with health insurance .
And then there's this little legerdemain:
"The law has already allowed 2.5 million young people to gain coverage thanks to a provision that requires health plans to allow them to remain on their parents' family plans through age 25"
So which is it? Age 26, or age 34? Or some other (arbitrary) number?
And in case you think that this doesn't affect you, because you're a 35-year old fogey, think again:
"When [ObamneyCare© kicks] in in 2014, about 8 million young adults will qualify for Medicaid and another 9 million will become eligible for federal subsidies to buy private insurance"
Translation: you'll be on the hook for health insurance for another 17 million "young people."
Finally, gotta love this howler:
"The group's amicus brief argues that the requirement that everyone have insurance ... "does not impose a significant burden on young adults."
Well first, no one seriously argues that this is a question of finances. It's about the government forcing us to buy something we may not want or need. And second, if it's not a "significant burden," then what's their beef in the first place?
Sheesh.
Oh, how far we've come:
"Seventeen million young Americans would lose promised access to health insurance if the Supreme Court strikes down [ObamneyCare©]"
And how, pray tell, does "consumer advocacy group Young Invincibles" define a "young adult?"
Why, that would be folks "between the ages of 18 and 34."
Could we cast a wider net?
Didn't think so.
And of course, these Young "Invincibles" [ed: now there's an oxymoron!] continue the grand tradition of conflating health care with health insurance .
And then there's this little legerdemain:
"The law has already allowed 2.5 million young people to gain coverage thanks to a provision that requires health plans to allow them to remain on their parents' family plans through age 25"
So which is it? Age 26, or age 34? Or some other (arbitrary) number?
And in case you think that this doesn't affect you, because you're a 35-year old fogey, think again:
"When [ObamneyCare© kicks] in in 2014, about 8 million young adults will qualify for Medicaid and another 9 million will become eligible for federal subsidies to buy private insurance"
Translation: you'll be on the hook for health insurance for another 17 million "young people."
Finally, gotta love this howler:
"The group's amicus brief argues that the requirement that everyone have insurance ... "does not impose a significant burden on young adults."
Well first, no one seriously argues that this is a question of finances. It's about the government forcing us to buy something we may not want or need. And second, if it's not a "significant burden," then what's their beef in the first place?
Sheesh.
0 nhận xét:
Post a Comment