Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

AOC Laments Choosing Between 66 Healthcare Plans While Americans Struggle With Little Choice & High Premium

Written by:

Published on: December 18, 2019

Like most everyone this time of year, my family and I are preparing to celebrate Christmas.  As such, the household is being packed, along with the cat terrorizer and the cats, to spend time with relatives.  During this time of year when citizens should be grateful to live in a nation founded upon freedom and liberty and Christians are grateful to receive the gift from God through His Son, Jesus Christ, and the mercy and grace provided through faith, there are many in the US who cannot be happy no matter what.  Why?  It’s because those individuals do not embrace freedom, liberty or faith in God and Jesus Christ.  Their faith is placed in something else – secular humanism and all-controlling government.

An example of someone like that is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  The New York Democrat self-describing as a communist-socialist complained about having too many choices regarding health care insurance plans, when others have limited choices, resulting in her urging for more government control and fewer choices.

The Political Insider reports:

Flexing her Soviet-style communist credentials, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez complained about being provided government-run healthcare that presented her with too many “complex financial products.”

Trending: German Doctor Who Was Arrested For Speaking Truth In UK Exposes Why They Are Arresting Those Exposing COVID Lies & Lockdown Tyranny

The New York Democrat’s point of contention seemed to be the many numerous options provided to members of Congress, prompting her to call for even more government control and fewer choices.

“Members of Congress also have to buy their plans off the exchange. They are Gold plans that are partially subsidized,” Ocasio-Cortez explained to her followers. “That means I get to ‘choose’ [between] 66 complex financial products. This is absurd. No person should go without healthcare, [and] no one should go through this, either.”

Members of Congress also have to buy their plans off the exchange. They are Gold plans that are partially subsidized.

That means I get to “choose” btwn 66 complex financial products.

This is absurd. No person should go without healthcare, &no one should go through this, either. pic.twitter.com/bIeD71CD5g

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 16, 2019

There are many American citizens who would welcome choices when it comes to health care insurance plans and many more who would welcome some type of assistance, particularly retirees who are paying for their health care insurance plans as part of their pension/retirement package.  Some individuals are paying as much as $600 or more per month for family plans to cover self and spouse.  That amounts to a minimum of $7,200 per year not including deductibles and copays.  AOC gets a hefty salary as a member of the House of Representatives — $174,000 per year, which is approximately $14,500 per month before taxes (if she pays any).  She can afford to pay all her health care insurance premiums, plus other costs related to health care and insurance.  Moreover, it speaks to her level of intelligence if she cannot navigate “66 health care insurance plans” after attending Boston University.

It really isn’t a matter of intelligence;  it’s a matter of not wanting to make choices and wanting government to do it for her.  Plus, AOC is a miserable person because she places her trust and faith in something other than God and Jesus Christ.

The Political Insider continued:

Ocasio-Cortez continued her rant about government healthcare by pushing the socialist dream program, Medicare For All.

“While I am VERY thankful to finally have health insurance, it is a moral outrage that it took me *getting elected to Congress* for that to happen,” Ocasio-Cortez claimed. “The US needs to become an advanced society. That includes establishing healthcare as a right to all people.”

First of all, health care is not a right and cannot be considered as such because one has to rely on the skill of others to provide something they cannot provide for self or something that was not bestowed upon the individual by God.  Second, The Political Insider indicated she worked as a bartender and then, an intern for Ted Kennedy, yet opted not to purchase health care insurance, which not purchasing insurance is everyone’s right.

“As someone who has now experienced many parts of the insurance spectrum (being uninsured, underinsured, and adequately insured) I don’t see how anyone can think our current healthcare system only needs a 10% improvement or a just few tweaks,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “We need #MedicareForAll.”

This speaks volumes about her mentality – she would rather relinquish the freedom of choice and free will to government than exercise those rights.  Many Americans have been in the position of being uninsured, “underinsured” and adequately insured.  But, some Americans do not expect the government to foot the bill for them in any position.   These same Americans would not relinquish their freedom of choice and free will to government.  Bottom line, health care and health care insurance is a privilege, not a right.

Of course, she has the support of a “public citizen”.

.@AOC: I’m tired of this idea that #MedicareForAll and tuition free public colleges are some hand out from somebody else. Nobody else is giving us a damn thing. We build this on our own. pic.twitter.com/k8IL6Gfq8I

— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) December 10, 2019

Somehow, these individuals seem to think that Medicare For All and tuition-free public college are not handouts.  Just because you may not be paying for it yourself, someone else is;  therefore, it is someone giving something without the receiving individual contributing anything, aka you are not building anything independently.

The Political Insider concluded:

As The Hill reports, socialized medicine in the form of ‘Medicare For All’ is “a deliberate effort to eliminate choice.”

They go on to explain why more choices, not less, are better financially for the people:

States are best positioned to establish platforms that promote all legal and viable coverage options. That’s because health care is local and best delivered in states, counties, and cities, where people reside. And innovation in coverage must adapt to the needs of a community. This is why federally mandated programs — such as “Medicare for all” — that are invariably one-size-fits-all regularly fail and become so expensive.

Even former President Barack Obama, an architect of the “Affordable” Care Act that limited choice, warned about the costs of a program that would eliminate them even further.

“Democrats should be ready to answer questions about how they will pay for an idea while making big promises to constituents,” he warned.

Medicare for All, meanwhile, has seen proposals cost anywhere between $28 and $32 trillion according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Let me make this disclaimer – the last individual anyone should quote on removal of choices is the individual who along with his party decimated the health care system and health care insurance industry in the united States, namely one Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah.  Health care insurance premiums and costs for health care have increased exponentially and placed unintended consequences upon the American public because of unconstitutional Soebarkah-care.   Government involvement in any area not authorized it by the Constitution is unconstitutional and every individual in Congress, the executive and judicial branches who is responsible for unconstitutional actions, legislation, programs, agencies and pseudo-regulations and laws should be impeached, then place on trial for criminal actions.

And, The Hill is wrong in claiming States are in a better position for health care insurance program coverage options.  It is still placing some form/level of government in control of health care insurance.  The individual is in the best position to determine health care insurance needs and coverage, meaning health care insurance should be provided through private entities through individually purchased plans or through an employer.  Who knows their health better than the individual?  Who knows their family’s needs for health care insurance based upon their health than the family?

Health care insurance plans should be able to be tailored to the individual and not “one-size-fits-all” plans.  Couples who are past child-bearing age and have grown children should be able to exclude maternal/pre-natal care and pediatric coverage from their plan.  If an individual does not regularly visit a physician, the individual might want to only include catastrophic care, aka emergency and hospital care, in the health care insurance plan.  Single men certainly do not need pregnancy care or pediatric coverage so why pay for it?

Inevitably, someone comes up with the argument that this “cafeteria” type plan for health care insurance would not work because singles get married.  Well, any major life change, such as marriage, warrants a change outside the enrollment period that health care insurance companies provide.  They would also argue it would be more expensive;  yet, no health care insurance company has even worked that out because costs are spread across everyone for coverage not everyone uses.  And, should not other alternatives for health care be explored, such as medical co-ops?

More choice is always better than less choice.  Unfortunately, some individuals would rather give up that freedom and allow others to decide for them.  When that happens and government gets involved, the people see the implementation of actions they may not like – rationed care, government “forced” human euthanasia, murder of babies in the womb for certain diseases/illnesses, promotion of designer babies through genetic intervention, and infanticide.  When government can decide who can and cannot receive health care through government-run health care insurance programs, then government can arbitrarily use that as a weapon against those government considers “threats” or those holding unapproved government opinions or those who are not members of the party in control of government.

The simplicity sounds good until one begins to think of the pitfalls.  And, the simplicity sounds good until individuals or their family members become a victim of it.  That is, if they know it.  And, when the cost is factored in, it means more taxes to support an unconstitutional tenet that will ultimately produce the end goal of democide through health care rationing.  But, those who would be paying nothing, or think they are paying nothing, will support government-controlled health care through government health care insurance plans until they have to start paying for it or discover they will not receive care when it is needed based on a pre-determined set of “rules” by an unelected bureaucracy whose only job is to fleece money without paying out any.

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media

Send this to a friend