|
Mercnbeth -> RE: Has any one heard anything about obama passing a law kids are to be considered kids till 26? (4/16/2010 6:53:25 AM)
|
quote:
I know that in my case, my dad would definitely have sent me the bill for my share.
And I'd have gladly paid it--as you point out, the rate would have been far less than any insurance I could have bought at that age and employment situation.
LOL - I 'bill' my son too, except in his case, I'm not as good a collector as I am with my other debtors. He's run up quite a tab!
quote:
Coddling children is a separate issue. One where I agree with you, incidentally--children at 18-21 are less mature than they were even a few decades ago. I'm pretty sure that's not Obama's fault either I think this is where the two side have the biggest miscommunication. Nowhere did I assign "blame" to Obama. I don't even find fault with his complicity to the bigger problem of using 'good intent' and 'for the children' to facilitate a result that isn't 'good' for the children or society at large.
I'll adjust my 'tin hat' and point to a conspiracy of using the public, and issues such as this, to benefit corporate interests and generate acceptance of yet another government corporate welfare program. This time for the health industry. They are the major beneficiary of the programs in this law. I've been looking at health industry investment perspectives and their manipulation of the content of this Law far outweighs the benefit to the individuals. Sure, I'm going to invest in some of these and profit; but that doesn't mean I like what's being done to this country and the general public as a result of the merger of corporate interests to the politics of BOTH parties.
I know it's difficult to belief my agenda, when pointing these things out, isn't selfish. I know whether it's this health care law or the food assistance program that allows for the purchase of oxtail for soup, the 'good intent' and individual getting a small stipend shouldn't bother me. It really doesn't. What does bother me isn't the $100 going for oxtail, or the 26 year olds access to insurance; it's the pragmatic result of the bigger benefit and payout going to corporate interests in both cases.
You have to, as I do, admire the business strategy. Giving a direct payoff to corporate interests for food or health care would be condemned by the exact same people who champion the effort when the same result is generated by ploys such as this one concerning 26 year olds.
|
|
|
|
