|
|
 Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Still though, this is a terrible. Approaching this as "You're just dumb and spouting off talking points," is going to fail you.
Again, you're not even helping yourself. You're basically saying Obama care is good. Your in-laws could, with equal validity, say you're just drinking the kool-aid.
I hear ya and I understand that those approaches will never win in a serious discussion. I'm spouting off on FTR, not directly saying these things to them. I quickly shut up when my in-laws started raising their voices and saying random shit. I know I started it by saying that they shouldn't have signed the petition. That's my fault. Keep mouth shut at all times around in-laws is good advice. Also, I thought I knew enough to argue the point and clearly I wasn't prepared.
I did send these questions to factcheck.org and here is what they said:
Everybody is entitled to an opinion, of course.
But as for wait times -- 85% of Americans have health insurance of some sort now. Do you think it is likely that adding 15% more, enabling them to pay for doctor visits, will somehow swamp doctor's offices? There's certainly no government rules in the law that would restrict anybody's ability to see a doctor -- quite the contrary. So what's the problem? Perhaps your friend can explain.
As for the self-employed, the law sets up state-run insurance "exchanges" where private insurance companies are supposed to compete for the business of individuals who buy their own insurance, or small businesses. So in theory, as least, the law should drive down prices in the individual market for policies that cover the same things. There are a lot of cheap policies (that don't really cover much) that will no longer be allowed, because all policies must meet minimum gov't standards. So if your in-laws have a cheap policy now (doesn't sound like it) they could end up paying more, but they also would have a policy that would pay for more stuff.
|
Reply With Quote