Typical moonbat response. You can't handle the truth, so you try to attack the messenger.
From this side, it looks like gullible wingnuts taking misleading op-eds at face value as God's Honest Truth.
There's very good reason to dismiss the OP - unsurprisingly, it's almost completely a lie.
In all but a few cases, what they claim are "reasons" that will prevent people from
keeping their insurance are companies opting not to offer plans in the exchanges.
Since no one (other than members of Congress and their staffs) is forced to purchase their insurance on the exchanges,
there is no reason that Aetna choosing not to offer plans in an exchange will cause anyone who already is insured by Aetna to lose their plans.
The exchanges are for people who currently are NOT insured, not people who already have insurance.
Many of the other examples given are equally misleading. The fact that 54% of Californians
think that they will have to change their insurance isn't evidence that they're right - in fact, your article even says that under their "prediction", only 54,000 Californians could lose their insurance, which is 0.14%.
The foot is in the door and they're already showing how plan offerings will show losses of previous insurances in certain instances.
Those instances show occurrences already and will trend upward, not downward imho.
Dear Ropey and Sallow, Doctor and Boedicca:
You can nitpick and disagree all you want.
That doesn't change the fact that people should not be forced under mandates
who believe federal govt has no Constitutional authority to impose them.
Whether or not X Y Z works or fails
people have an inherent right to "no taxation without representation."
Perception of tyranny goes against our human nature and conscience.
Whatever works can be FREELY CHOSEN and not mandated in ways
that violate Constitutional beliefs and principles.
If you consent to give fed govt that authority, then you fund that yourself.
but don't impose that on people who dissent and claim Constitutional authority.
That offense will get nothing but rejection and rebellion,
right or wrong, solutions or not. By the mere fact you are
going against the free choice or free will of fellow citizens
and human beings who have inherent "free exercise of religion"
that is not being recognized or respected here, but treated as nonexistent.
Of course you will get arguments back.
I don't want anyone signing my name to contracts without
my consent, especially if I'm expected to pay taxes or face fines for not complying.
I don't care how good an idea it is, it should be freely chosen not forced by majority rule or party politics to justify it going through against the will of people dissenting.
If you or other leaders don't understand human nature and democratic process
then you shouldn't be deciding public policy. Go make and fund your own
with other people who agree to your policies and way of making them by coercion.
I don't believe in that, and defend the free choice to fund and support other policies!
