RSS

The Freak Show

24 Sep

Steve Schmidt, senior advisor to the 2008 John McCain presidential campaign, was on “Hardball” yesterday, responding to Sarah Palin’s Breitbart op-ed supporting Senator Rafael Edward Cruz, in which she announced, “it’s time for the Senate to put itself on Cruz Control!” She’s soooo clever! Do you think she thought of that one all on her own?!

Schmidt seems pretty disgusted with his own party, particular the clownish behavior unleashed with the selection of Palin as McCain’s 2008 running mate.

“Hardball” host Chris Matthews asked Schmidt what he thought of the “Frankenstein monster” he created in Palin and Cruz. “You finally you saw it with Ted Cruz. Maybe he was the one that who’s got a bridge too far,” Schmidt said. “Maybe we’ll start seeing our elected leaders stop being intimidated by this nonsense, have the nerve, have the guts to stand up and … to fight to take conservatism’s good name back from the freak show that’s been running wild for four years and that I have deep regret in my part, certainly, in initiating.”

The Freak Show. What an apt description. Yes, it was initiated by Sarah, but she’s had plenty of company determined to take their place on the show’s center stage. Republicans like Christine “I am not a witch!” O’Donnell, Sharon Angle (“it won’t be my job as a US senator to develop jobs in my state”), and Todd “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down” Akin. I was once a registered Republican, but good grief… What an embarrassment to be one now.

Now Sarah wants to start a third political party, The Good Guys party.  I am not making this up.

“I dare say we already have a third party. We have the liberal party, the GOP machine, and then we’ve got the good guys,” she told Neil Cavuto on Tuesday on Fox News, while Cruz was crossing the hour and a half mark of speaking on the Senate floor. “That is the third party. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul … Those are the players in the party whom I will support.”

Naturally, only “real Americans” would be allowed in (although they’d take money from anyone). And what would the mascot of The Good Guys party be? The moose, of course. Because, you know, Sarah kills them with her bare hands before going for her morning run. And she has a timely warning for those damnable Rinos: “Oh, and a little reminder to Republican senators up for re-election in 2014: Moose season ends soon, allowing more time on one’s hands. So, we’ll be watching your votes very carefully this week.”

Meanwhile, Rafael Edward Cruz took center stage this afternoon to carry out his fake filibuster. It only took him a few minutes to invoke Hitler, a reliable applause-getter at the Freak Show, right along with Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and the Anti-Christ.

But then Cruz had the audacity to read aloud on the Senate floor the book Green Eggs And Ham. Rafael, we know you’re in love with your own oratory skills, but you’ve got a ways to go to top the reading by Jesse Jackson years ago on “Saturday Night Live.” Here, let a pro show you how to read Seuss.

The complete version can be heard here: Jesse Jackson Reads Green Eggs And Ham, but it can’t be embedded, so here’s the first half.

Advertisements
 
 

Tags: , , , , ,

47 responses to “The Freak Show

  1. mitchethekid

    September 25, 2013 at 3:33 am

    The legacy of Cruz will be Green Eggs and Ham said Sam I am.
    I think we should have a contest. A parody of Cruz as a character from the mind of Seuss. Sort of like a limerick.
    There once was a Cuban from Texas
    Who thought what the United States is
    Though he got it all wrong
    He spoke in Song
    And made everyone laugh at his excesses.

     
  2. mitchethekid

    September 25, 2013 at 9:14 am

    Maybe Ted Cruz is the reincarnation of Andy Kaufman doing an Elvis impersonation. Like $arah, Ted Cruz is all about Ted Cruz. Not only doesn’t he respect the legislative process, he wants to abolish it. He led the Teabaggers down the primrose path and at the end, he declared his efforts are all for not. Except to showboat and promote Ted Cruz.
    They say that one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell into madness was because all of their eating and drinking utensils were made out of lead. Maybe that’s why Teabaggers are called paint-chip eaters.

     
  3. cluster

    September 25, 2013 at 12:27 pm

    Steve Schmidt was the architect of a weak campaign with a muddled message that lost miserably, so remind me again why I should listen to anything he says? I completely understand why liberals like Schmidt though, after all, his advice helps you guys win.

    Rafael Edward Cruz is my hero. The first Hispanic President.

     
    • watsonthethird

      September 25, 2013 at 12:32 pm

      Liberals like Schmidt because he’s one of the few conservatives to utter out loud what most of them are thinking: Sarah Palin was a disaster and the current crop of conservatives is, in Schmidt’s words, “a freak show.”

      Regarding Rafael, what is it about him that makes him your hero?

       
  4. cluster

    September 25, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    Regarding Rafael, what is it about him that makes him your hero? – Watson

    Things like this:

    CRUZ: Well, you know, one of the approaches that those who want to maintain the status quo — who want to make sure Obamacare stays funded, who wanted to avoid any risks, one of the approaches they do — is they try to make this all about people. They try to make it all about personalities. And listen: Most Americans could not care less about any politician in Washington. They don’t care about me; they don’t care about anybody else either. And what is utterly maddening about all of these reporters is what do they write about all day long? They write about the process. They write about the horse race. They write about this personality or the other. They act like Hollywood gossip columnists writing about bickering. I mean, how many times have you and I both read the words “Republican civil war” in the past week? ‘Cause that’s what they like to write about.

     
    • watsonthethird

      September 25, 2013 at 1:22 pm

      CRUZ: Well, you know, one of the approaches that those who want to maintain the status quo — who want to make sure Obamacare stays funded, who wanted to avoid any risks, one of the approaches they do — is they try to make this all about people. They try to make it all about personalities.

      That’s an incredibly rich statement coming from someone who just wasted the United States Senate’s time giving a 21-hour speech. It was all about him, cluster.

       
      • cluster

        September 25, 2013 at 1:34 pm

        Yet when Bernie Sanders filibustered in 2010, and of course liberal darling Wendy Davis’s filibuster earlier this year – they were all about principle right?

        You crack me up. Long live Rafael!!

         
      • cluster

        September 25, 2013 at 1:36 pm

        ….they try to make this all about people. They try to make it all about personalities.

        And that is exactly what you are doing Watson. Attacking Cruz. Pretty boring.

         
      • watsonthethird

        September 25, 2013 at 1:49 pm

        Well, first of all Wendy Davis’ filibuster was an actual filibuster. Cruz’ was not. That aside, I have never had any comment about Wendy Davis or Bernie Sanders. You just make stuff up as usual.

        And yes, this is a thread about the absurdity of what the Republican party has become–a freak show, in Schmidt’s words. And it is sad.

         
      • cluster

        September 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm

        I am really sorry that conservatives are not more accommodating to Democrats. This would be a better country if just had more republicans like McCain wouldn’t it? No messy arguments, compromise all day long on spending tax payer money, and the cocktail parties!! Just think of the cocktail parties! How fun would that be?

        Consider me a FREAK!!!!

         
      • cluster

        September 25, 2013 at 2:06 pm

        I just don’t ever recall you saying that Wendy Davis was grandstanding and/or all about her – correct me if I am wrong. And her filibuster was about women keeping the option to kill their 8 month old child. Not exactly morally strong in my opinion.

         
      • watsonthethird

        September 25, 2013 at 2:16 pm

        And I’m not even a Democrat, nor have I ever been. But no matter, anyone who thinks Cruz is a grandstander just has to be a liberal and a Democrat in your mind.

         
      • cluster

        September 25, 2013 at 2:28 pm

        No – anyone who thinks Cruz is grandstanding, doesn’t really understand the issue.

         
  5. cluster

    September 25, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    And this:

    CRUZ: Now, a number of Republicans are going to maintain that, no, no, no, no, no, their vote to cut off debate is in support of the House bill. And, Rush, that’s simply not the case. It’s a show vote. Now, if Harry Reid gets 60 votes, every Republican then will vote against his amendment to fund Obamacare, and so all 46 Republicans want to go home to their districts and say, “Gosh, I voted to defund Obamacare, and marvel of marvels, we lost,” which to be honest is the outcome that I think more than a few of them affirmatively desire. And part of what’s so problematic with Washington is how many Republicans want a show vote to pretend to their constituents they’re fighting for what they say they’re fighting for, rather than actually fighting for it and actually winning.

     
    • meursault1942

      September 25, 2013 at 1:54 pm

      “how many Republicans want a show vote to pretend to their constituents they’re fighting for what they say they’re fighting for”

      That’s exactly what he’s doing–putting on a show, though not so much for his constituents but for people who might give him money for his 2016 presidential run. Besides being delightfully absurd–he’s opposing a bill he supports!–his pseudo-filibuster is nothing but a bit of political performing arts. It’s an utterly futile effort vis a vis its stated goal (“defunding Obamacare,” which every non-crazy person knows is simply not going to happen), but as far as his goal for 2016, it’s probably working pretty well.

       
      • cluster

        September 25, 2013 at 2:01 pm

        It is firing up the base of conservatives, I can tell you that. Obamacare will be funded, unfortunately for the American people. Special interests and big corporations were given a one year delay, but not for average Americans, and that is who Cruz was defending. We should delay the implementation by at least a year considering that that privilege was given to others whom the President singled out, and the fact that the HHS is not ready. But if you think raising premiums on young Americans while giving corporations and high paid federal employees a pass is good policy – then so be it.

         
  6. cluster

    September 25, 2013 at 12:48 pm

    And this:

    CRUZ: I will tell you the single biggest surprise in arriving to the Senate is the defeatist attitude here. I mean, we don’t even talk about how to win a fight. There’s no discussion. We talk about, “Hey, let’s get a show vote so we can go tell our constituents we’re doing something.” But I promise you, if you had to sit through one Senate lunch, you’d be in therapy for a month.

    And that is who spineless POS’s like Steve Schmidt are – defeatists; people who are afraid to fight. Tell Steve to keep his job on MSNBC, he belongs there, and so does McCain, McConell, etc. You can have them all.

     
    • watsonthethird

      September 25, 2013 at 1:23 pm

      And that is just another idiotic, ignorant statement by Rafael. I’m really surprised you buy into this guy.

       
      • cluster

        September 25, 2013 at 1:31 pm

        Maybe you can show me the errors of my ways. Or perhaps prove the ignorance of the statement. Unless of course you think people like McConnell are fighters.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 25, 2013 at 2:45 pm

        I must say, it’s highly amusing to see the rubes buy into this phony, like Sarah before him. Cruz’s presidential aspirations will wither on the vine, like Sarah’s, because the majority of Americans can see through this brand of hucksterism. But he sure fires up the lunatic fringe and thus continues to marginalize them, and for that – I love him!

         
  7. cluster

    September 25, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    I also might take this moment and thank the younger generation for paying for my healthcare, that is assuming Obamacare goes into effect, which I suspect it will. As evidenced by this chart:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303983904579095731139251304.html?mod=djemalertNEWS#project%3DEXCHANGES0924%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

    the younger generation is going to get financially soaked, what’s also not being mentioned is that these “bronze” plans are high co pays, so not only are the monthly premiums going up, but so is their annual out of pocket expenses. What’s particularly delightful is that this is the generation that supports Obama in large numbers.

    So, thanks again. Remember – si se puede!!!

     
    • meursault1942

      September 25, 2013 at 2:31 pm

      At a quick glance, I can see two ways the WSJ is messing with the numbers a bit there:

      1) This little line above the graph: “Some people may be eligible for subsidies towards the cost of coverage.” That’s a very big deal–subsidies will drop the bronze plan costs, in some cases quite a bit. This calculator is a pretty handy reference tool. So they aren’t using figures a lot of people would actually pay for the bronze plan.

      2) They’re comparing actual coverage to the absolute cheapest thing they can find, which frequently covers catastrophic and nothing else (i.e. nothing that people actually would use). It’s sort of a retread of Avik Roy’s extremely dishonest piece in Forbes a few months ago in that regard.

      I’m guessing they very deliberately picked those cities in those states, too, for maximum effect. And there is, of course, no mention of how red states are seeing higher prices because of their refusal to actually set up the exchanges. That’s their own fault, though I’m sure they’ll blame Obama for it (and I’m sure a lot of their constituents will go along with blaming Obama and not even realize that their GOP-led state governments are deliberately fucking them over in order to make a ham-fisted and futile political point).

       
      • cluster

        September 25, 2013 at 2:49 pm

        Actually, they are complying with the law. The law says that states can defer to the federal government to operate the exchange, which some states have done. So, if Obama didn’t want that provision in the law, then they shouldn’t have written it in. Whether the exchange is operated by state officials, or federal officials, the exchange is still in place – everywhere.

        Also, not everyone gets subsidies. In fact a minority of people will actually get a subsidy, because subsidies have to be paid for, from other tax payers. So you have to have more people paying retail for their insurance, in order to subsidize those who can not afford the retail price. You get that, right? The biggest increases in insurance costs will be exacted on self employed people, people who buy private individual insurance, and the younger generation who for the most part, don’t need it.

         
      • meursault1942

        September 25, 2013 at 3:06 pm

        “The law says that states can defer to the federal government to operate the exchange, which some states have done.”

        Well, they’re doing a lot more than just deferring. They’re also passing laws to keep people from enrolling, to say nothing of doing things like decreeing that state employees are not allowed to even tell constituents that exchanges exist, much less provide any assistance whatsoever in enrolling them. Again: Fucking over constituents in order to make a ham-fisted and futile political point.

        Also, here’s an easy prediction for you: The states that have declined to set up exchanges will be full of rhetoric about “tyranny” and “federal overreach” and such over the exchanges set up by the federal government. That strategy can be seen from 100 miles away.

        Again, my prediction: The exchanges will work well in states that actually set them up; in red states where GOPers will do everything they can to make implementation a failure, implementation will go poorly–and those exact same GOPers will blame Obama for it.

         
      • cluster

        September 25, 2013 at 3:25 pm

        The exchanges will work just as they are designed to work in every state – higher costs for most people, and fewer choices of providers. But this is what you wanted.

         
      • meursault1942

        September 25, 2013 at 4:50 pm

        “higher costs for most people”

        I suppose this might be true for the subset of previously uninsured people who are now going to have insurance for which they will be paying, as paying anything is a higher cost than paying nothing. But for “most people,” higher costs don’t appear to be the case.

        “fewer choices of providers”

        Interesting thing about this: It’s not necessarily true that you will have fewer choices of providers, but in most of the cases where it is true, that drives costs down, not up.

        Richard Mayhew, a self-described “bureaucrat at a health insurance company which most of you have never and will never hear about” whose job is “to be a subject matter expert on a fairly arcane set of knowledge,” has been writing an excellent and informative series of posts about the insurance industry, why insurance companies do what they do, and the ACA at Balloon Juice. This post in particular touches on provider choice in reference to costs. First, he notes that:

        reported premiums are coming in significantly below CBO projections. That means two things. The first is that more people will be able to afford coverage as the sticker price is lower, and the subsidy should drop out of pocket coverage costs even more. The second is that the subsidy cost is lower which means the total cost of the program should be lower than anticipated.

        Then he digs into the reasons why costs are lower than expected. There are a couple of immediate causes, but the root cause, he says narrow networks (“Narrow networks offer only a percentage of the total providers an insurer has contracted with to members in a particular plan.”). In California, for example, Cedars-Sinai and the UCLA Medical Center were excluded from the exchanges because they simply are too expensive. Leave them out of the exchanges, and overall costs go down because the exchanges never have to worry about paying the extremely high rates those two providers charge.

        Here, Mayhew gets into why the traditional concept of having as wide a provider network as possible actually works to drive costs up in ACA exchanges and why going narrow increases affordability:

        Narrow networks for Exchanges are a significant cultural shift for insurance carriers that had previously been focused on the commercial employer group market. There, the network imperative has been to build as broad of a network as possible. The logic behind this drive is that cost is a component of the buy/no buy decision for an employer group. A bid has to be within the ballpark of the other bids to be considered. However cost is not the only driver of the buy/no buy decision. A group whose CEO has a particular cardiologist and chiropracter that she likes to go to is far more likely to go for a plan that includes those two providers than a plan that is 1.7% cheaper but does not include those providers. A group whose employees are concentrated within 10 minutes of a community hospital is far more likely to choose a plan that gives in-network access to that hospital rather than a slightly cheaper plan that does not contract with that hospital. This drive for expansive networks is expensive as commercial carriers don’t want to say no to a provider. They can pass on the costs of any high cost provider that was key in winning a major contract across several thousand groups.

        This does not work on the Exchange. The primary modeling assumption has been the Exchanges are offering basically identical products within a metal band and consumers are highly price sensitive because they don’t have a ton of money to begin with, those consumers will be looking for cost as a primary buy/no buy decision point. Networks will be adequate or better, but they will be narrower to drive down costs.

         
      • Cluster

        September 26, 2013 at 7:44 am

        ….for example, Cedars-Sinai and the UCLA Medical Center were excluded from the exchanges because they simply are too expensive. Leave them out of the exchanges, and overall costs go down because the exchanges never have to worry about paying the extremely high rates those two providers charge.

        Exactly. And if I choose to stay at discount hotels, and eat at McDonalds, my family vacations could be cheaper. Better yet, if I can convince my family that Top Ramen and Macaroni and Cheese are excellent dinner choices, my food bill would be cheaper.

        Don’t you think that it’s a little frightening to think that Democrats and liberals are fine with subjecting our health care to the lowest bidder?

         
      • meursault1942

        September 26, 2013 at 8:06 am

        “Don’t you think that it’s a little frightening to think that Democrats and liberals are fine with subjecting our health care to the lowest bidder?”

        Not the lowest bidder, all bidders within an acceptable price range. If you can afford a coverage plan that would include Cedars-Sinai, that option is still open to you. Cedars-Sinai is in no risk of going out of business. But for the vast majority of people buying coverage via an exchange, cost is the most important issue. They aren’t going to have a need to go to Cedars-Sinai (very, very few people do, really, but that’s a whole separate issue), but they are going to have a need for good care at a good price. The exchanges offer them that in part by not paying the exorbitant fees of Cedars-Sinai. You act as though by not including incredibly high-priced (i.e. overpriced) hospitals, the exchanges are stiffing people on health care. That simply is not true.

        All that said, I do find it curious that you’re using “subjecting to the lowest bidder” as a denigration here. Isn’t that one of the vaunted Forces of the Free Market? Competition drives down prices and all that? And on the flip side, if the exchanges did include Cedars-Sinai and therefore had much higher prices, wouldn’t you be claiming that the prices are too high and all that high-end stuff isn’t necessary and essentially present the health care version of “welfare queens driving Cadillacs”?

         
      • cluster

        September 26, 2013 at 9:53 am

        But for the vast majority of people buying coverage via an exchange, cost is the most important issue.

        Well then you should be taking exception with the fact that for the vast majority of Americans, premium costs are going up, even with low end providers. What joy!

        Well except for our highly paid federal employees who will have their plans subsidized. Nice gig if you can get it.

         
  8. cluster

    September 25, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Everyone needs to read the linked article, below is an excerpt:

    “We needed something to say,” recalled one of the advisers involved in the discussion. “I can’t tell you how little thought was given to that thought other than it sounded good. So they just kind of hatched it on their own. It just happened. It wasn’t like a deep strategic conversation.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obama-health-care-conversion-obamacare-97185.html#ixzz2fwPAGTcd

    So Obamacare was an off the cuff statement because they “needed something to say”, and then Pelosi told us “we need to pass it to find out what’s in it”. And this is what you support???

    I like all of you – but all of your liberal elected officials have SHIT for brains.

     
  9. cluster

    September 25, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    Remember this little gem from your friend Barack Obama in 2008?

    “The problem is that the way Bush has done it in the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion from the first 42 presidents. No. 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome. So we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back. $30,000 for every man woman and child. That’s irresponsible, that’s unpatriotic,”

    Anyone want to guess what the debt is now?

    Si Se Puede!

     
  10. Jake Goldblum

    September 25, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    the debt is actually decreasing with Obama in office and it was a horrible financial crash.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/The-Deficit-Is-Plunging-And-Nobody-Cares/279752/
    Also all i am reading lately about obama care is that it is not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be. I can’t find the article right now but the rates are reasonable. I dont get the fuss over obama care anyway- i can keep my health plan and most people can keep their health plan. Here is the article

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/obamacare-premium-federal-exchange

     
    • Cluster

      September 25, 2013 at 4:18 pm

      Jake,

      Good to have you on board, how did you find us?

      Re: the debt – on January 20, 2009, the debt was approximately $9 trillion. Today, there is nearly $17 trillion dollars in debt. It’s really easy math. Deficits under Bush averaged $500 billion annually, with the largest being $1 trillion in 2008 primarily due to TARP I which was mandated to be paid back, and of which most has been paid back, but never attributed to decreasing that deficit. Obama as averaged $1 trillion deficits every year since he took office, with the exception of this year. So four solid straight years of $1 trillion + deficits.

      And the effects of Obamacare really won’t be known, or felt until Octover 1st. As it is right now, new information is coming out everyday, and most of it is bad.

       
      • mitchethekid

        September 25, 2013 at 7:12 pm

        He found us because of me!

         
  11. Jake Goldblum

    September 25, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    glad to be on board- i was kind of sick listening to neocon say racist crap and amazona go on a soliloquy and not really want to talk. I found the rebut blogsforvictory site and was turned to this. I like talking about things and not really debating or insulting.

    However, the debt is coming down and will be under control in a couple of years. I think it had more to do with the financial collapse than anything else and the bail outs under bush and obama. Like you said nobody knows the effect of obama care yet which is a true statement. Look all health insurance is terrible right now. My health insurance is the crappy blue cross blue shield high deducible plan. Health care cost are a huge problem. Obama care is trying to make everyone insured. I gotta say my wife and i had a big laugh over this commercial the kock brothers made about obama care. the fear and mongering is incredible. Did anyone else see this commercial. The bottom line is nobody knows the affect but something had to be done with health care. talk about freak show

    i give them credit- this was very well done

     
    • Cluster

      September 25, 2013 at 4:52 pm

      Jake,

      In 2008, nearly 80% of Americans had health insurance and of those, 70%+ were happy with it. I have a high deductible, no co pay plan, which I like a lot but my premiums have gone 20%, with a note from my provider stating that more “changes” are ahead. These poll numbers don’t suggest huge problems, but instead of solving the issue for the 20% minority, Democrats decided to change the entire industry for everybody, and so far it’s not very popular. For most of us, costs will go up, but the younger generation will pay the most for this plan as the entire plan is dependent on healthy people paying in for those in poor health, and the healthiest amongst us are those in the younger generation who are now forced into the system. The group most effected after them will be seniors, who gave up $500 billion in Medicare to shore up Medicaid.

      It’s a poorly thought out plan, and that’s being kind.

       
  12. Cluster

    September 26, 2013 at 5:07 am

    I think what I like most about this issue is that it takes a Canadian born son of Cuban immigrants to remind Americans that our freedoms are slipping away. Priceless.

     
  13. bardolf2

    September 26, 2013 at 7:44 am

     
    • bardolf2

      September 26, 2013 at 7:45 am

      Whatever happened to freak shows?

       
      • rustybrown2012

        September 26, 2013 at 10:08 am

        I know of an obscure one. It’s called “Blogs for Victory”.

         
  14. watsonthethird

    September 26, 2013 at 9:32 am

    cluster said, “The biggest increases in insurance costs will be exacted on self employed people, people who buy private individual insurance, and the younger generation who for the most part, don’t need it.”

    So cluster, you’re a father. I believe you have daughters who are twenty-somethings. Do you advise your children that they don’t need health insurance and should just go without?

     
    • cluster

      September 26, 2013 at 9:50 am

      Great opening for me to make another comment before answering the question. Don’t you think it’s a little odd to think that a girl is old enough to decide to abort her baby or not, but not old enough to have her own insurance and allowed to be on her parents insurance?

      To answer your question, my kids are old enough to make that decision on their own, they are in their 20’s, and each of them have coverage and didn’t ask my counsel. They learned self sufficiency when they were in their teens.

       
      • watsonthethird

        September 26, 2013 at 11:01 am

        Okay, so they don’t ask for dad’s advice. Fair enough. But obviously in teaching them “self sufficiency,” they learned that it would be wise to have health insurance in their twenties. Imagine that. But nice dodge.

        My son is in his early twenties and he does have health care. Actually he’s on my plan because thanks to the ACA he can be insured on my plan until age 26.

        This idea–promulgated by conservatives, including you, cluster–that young people shouldn’t carry health insurance (except for your own) is just rubbish. Yes, young people are far less likely to have serious illnesses, but would you really suggest to your own children that they just roll the dice?

        My brother had appendicitis in his twenties and underwent an appendectomy. He was probably happy he had insurance. I used to play a lot of basketball and I tore up my ankle and had to have surgery. I was glad I had insurance. Things happen.

         
      • cluster

        September 26, 2013 at 1:54 pm

        Yes, young people are far less likely to have serious illnesses, but would you really suggest to your own children that they just roll the dice?

        Not in this day and age. Big insurance and government regulations have ruined that, and now Obamacare will kill it off entirely. I didn’t have insurance until I was 26 and got married. Until then, whatever medical need I had, which were few thankfully, I went down the local doctor and they billed me. Only once did I have to make payment arrangements. Health care costs even in the early 80’s were very affordable.

         
      • watsonthethird

        September 26, 2013 at 4:05 pm

        Right. I wouldn’t suggest that my children go without either. So why is it that Republican leaders are urging that everyone else’s children do exactly that? You better believe they aren’t recommending it for their own children.

         
 
%d bloggers like this: