AOC doesn’t think anyone will be ‘heartbroken’ over losing private health insurance

Joe Biden, who was vice president when President Obama reportedly fixed everything wrong with health insurance in America by signing Obamacare into law, just this week dusted off his old boss’s line at an AARP event, telling attendees, “If you like your health care plan, your employer-based plan, you can keep it. If you like your private insurance, you can keep it.”

That same line coming from Obama’s mouth was awarded “Lie of the Year” by PolitiFact, but what’s important is it pits Biden, the alleged moderate, against his socialist competitors who are demanding nothing less than Medicare for All and the elimination of private health insurance.

Of course, America was wondering what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thought of all this, and she replied that no one would be heartbroken to lose their private health insurance. Private health insurance is a for-profit business, which makes it a bad thing … doesn’t it?

.@AOC, asked about warnings from Joe Biden on Medicare for All, says nobody is “heartbroken” at the idea of losing private insurance.

“People like their health care, they like their doctor,” she says. “But I’d be interested in what the public polling on Aetna would look like.”

No, she wouldn’t. She wants to eliminate the entire industry — why would she care what the American people think?

This keeps being passed off as a truism, but the polling on private insurance exists and is surprisingly strong. Similar to people who hate Congress, but liking THEIR member, people tend to like their plans. https://t.co/6veylWs7Zx

WRONG! AND POLITICIANS SHOULD NOT PRESUME TO TELL PEOPLE HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT ANYTHING. Interestingly- support for MFA drops drastically when those being polled are told they would have to give up their private insurance.

For the 842nd time. Y'all really want a second term for @realDonaldTrump, don't you? https://t.co/mx3w3dVPEL

i absolutely love my employee provided insurance and i will take up arms if im forced to go to medicare for all, which is absolute trash https://t.co/j1uw4CGVBu

What right does some bartender from Queens have to take away my family's insurance, or anyone else's?

Eliminating private insurance is an extremist, unpopular position with massive economic and health ramifications.

They get access to top education, live in wealthy cities, and have been surrounded by like-minded individuals their entire lives.

They need to stop proclaiming what society wants and start understanding what society is

IN EVERY. SINGLE. POLL. The public is fine with making Medicare universally available, NOT with eliminating private insurance.

The country is not comprised of college towns. This is a great way to lose the suburbs you just won in 2018.

AOC and Co get (deserved) defenses from most people because the president is a scumbag.

Then they go and say elitist bullshit like this and discount how clear majorities of voters feel because we're "ideologically beneath" them.

Could that be the dumbest one yet? A woman who has never had to face a serious health or insurance crisis is going to tell the rest of America what it needs or wants? https://t.co/yUQYryxSkf

"AOC doesn’t think anyone will be ‘heartbroken’ over losing private health insurance"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Constitutionally clueless AOC is exploiting low-information voters, trying to win their votes with promises of unconstitutional national healthcare imo.

More specifically, regardless what the misguided Roberts Supreme Court wants everybody to think about Obamacare and insurance mandate, the Roberts Court wrongly "overlooked" that previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had clarified the following about so-called national healthcare.

The states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to dictate policy, regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate healthcare. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions made by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"Obviously, direct control of medical practice [emphases added] in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.” —Linder v. United States, 1925.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Regarding healthcare insurance, justices had also clarified that regulating insurance contracts is not within the scope of Congress's limited Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if buyer and seller are domiciled in different states.

"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)

The remedy for unconstitutionally big federal government that misguided AOC is unthinkingly promoting…

Patriots need to finish the job that they started when they elected Trump president by doing the following.

Patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to support PDJT's vision for MAGA, but will also promise to surrender state powers that previous congresses have been stealing from the states back to the states.

And to make such changes permanent, patriots also need to support PDJT in working with the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.

Remember in November 2020!

MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great)

“Catastrophic-only coverage results in catastrophes.”

Catastrophic insurance is created to cover catastrophes. Catastrophic insurance will cover cancer as long as the person buys the insurance before the person gets cancer.

A person without insurance that develops cancer used to be able to qualify for the high risk state pools, but after 0-care they are gone now. If the person is indigent, there is Medicaid coverage.

So what’s the problem. You want crappy federal government insurance that will be paying for all those bureaucrats determining what drugs and treatment you can get? You like the government surveillance on your medical record? Turn in you guns if you have a psych diagnosis or the government doctor doesn’t like you.

Honestly, if you are going to rely on sh**ty government insurance, you should make every effort to stay healthy. You know, people on Medicaid actually had worse outcome than patients without insurance. So you get what you pay for.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.