Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Resolving Independent Thoughts

Yesterday, I posted a link to Malkin's article on ObamaCare's forced coverage of "children" up to twenty-six years of age. Since then, that idea has been weighing on my mind. Always close at hand, too, because it made no sense to me.

It seems like there would be a drop in the age of people that had to buy insurance so MORE folks would become wards of the state. And what does that do to Medicaid, where nearly ALL of those recipients are children. Why would their parents not be required to cover their own DAMN children?

That premise just seemed to be at odds with the whole concept of the Democrat Party of taking more and more people under the government's wing at the expense of the private sector. Today it finally dawned on me why this provision is included.

The perpetual student (on parent's dollar) was who carried Obama to the Barry White House. You must understand, there was virtually no private sector employee that voted for Obama and his idiot minions, his voter base is the riders and the union employees. AND college activists of the idiot nature.

So, instead of normal people being able to point out that the young adult (that really doesn't value medical insurance) is going to have to purchase it anyway at great costs, the Democrats EXEMPTED those folks from the legislation by saddling their parents with the cost.

Why make a big stink about buying Chris Dodd some votes with a 100 million dollar UConn hospital expansion, or Ben Nelson that was bought off with no Medicaid increases for the entire state of Nebraska when there is a WHOLE segment of the population that is getting bought off?

Please take the time to comment.


Roland Hulme said...

Dammit, can't argue with that one!