Scott Brown: Obamacare beneficiary

[Zioneer]

This is a much bigger issue than the silly furor over Warren and Native Americans. I mean, wasn't Scott Brown elected on part because he said he'd be a vote against Obamacare? That would be like my state's own Orrin Hatch getting elected (and re-elected for six terms) on the idea that the other guy has been in Washington too long. Oh wait...

[crypto-fascist superhero]

This is a much bigger issue than the silly furor over Warren and Native Americans. I mean, wasn't Scott Brown elected on part because he said he'd be a vote against Obamacare? That would be like my state's own Orrin Hatch getting elected (and re-elected for six terms) on the idea that the other guy has been in Washington too long. Oh wait...

How is this any different than Obama paying the 35% tax rate instead of voluntarily applying the 39.6% rate (and the "Buffett rule") to himself?  Even if this story were true (pretty sure the congressional health care plan offered extended coverage to children beforehand), it doesn't imply actual dishonesty the way Warren acted.

[Ogre Mage]

This is a much bigger issue than the silly furor over Warren and Native Americans. I mean, wasn't Scott Brown elected on part because he said he'd be a vote against Obamacare? That would be like my state's own Orrin Hatch getting elected (and re-elected for six terms) on the idea that the other guy has been in Washington too long. Oh wait...

How is this any different than Obama paying the 35% tax rate instead of voluntarily applying the 39.6% rate (and the "Buffett rule") to himself?  Even if this story were true (pretty sure the congressional health care plan offered extended coverage to children beforehand), it doesn't imply actual dishonesty the way Warren acted.

So it is fine for Scott Brown's adult daughter to have her health insurance covered on the government dime, but not for most Americans?  And you see no hypocrisy in this?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

This is a much bigger issue than the silly furor over Warren and Native Americans. I mean, wasn't Scott Brown elected on part because he said he'd be a vote against Obamacare? That would be like my state's own Orrin Hatch getting elected (and re-elected for six terms) on the idea that the other guy has been in Washington too long. Oh wait...

How is this any different than Obama paying the 35% tax rate instead of voluntarily applying the 39.6% rate (and the "Buffett rule") to himself?  Even if this story were true (pretty sure the congressional health care plan offered extended coverage to children beforehand), it doesn't imply actual dishonesty the way Warren acted.

So it is fine for Scott Brown's adult daughter to have her health insurance covered on the government dime, but not for most Americans?

No, I don't believe that Ayla Brown should be covered under the government or anyone else who does not want to pay's dime, but that isn't the issue here.

And you see no hypocrisy in this?

Nope, no more than someone who opposes tax cuts taking advantage of them (like I suggested) or someone who thinks the post office should be privatized mailing a letter.

[Former Moderate]

For reference: For a person of Ayla's age, Romneycare mandates she buy a policy which costs, at a minimum, $250 a month. I'm currently paying $305 for insurance I had to buy through the state. Add 30 years to my age, and the minimum price jumps to $470.

That's monthly, and for just one person. I wouldn't call any of that "bargain priced."

[Gravis Marketing]

For reference: For a person of Ayla's age, Romneycare mandates she buy a policy which costs, at a minimum, $250 a month. I'm currently paying $305 for insurance I had to buy through the state. Add 30 years to my age, and the minimum price jumps to $470.

That's monthly, and for just one person. I wouldn't call any of that "bargain priced."

It's a reasonable price, and there are subsidies for people who can't afford it, though.

[Gravis Marketing]

So it is fine for Scott Brown's adult daughter to have her health insurance covered on the government dime, but not for most Americans?  And you see no hypocrisy in this?

I don't see hypocrisy. Brown in theory has voted to take away his daughter's insurance as well as that of other Americans. But as long as it's the law, she can take part in it. (Also, she's not him and isn't responsible for his politics, even though it's not like she hasn't benefited from the association.)

[Invisible Obama]

But, it is his insurance and he has to be the one to keep or add her on to his insurance, so he does have some say in it. To me, it demonstrates that some Republicans don't believe the law is that bad, but only rail against it for partisan reasons and opportunism.

[Former Moderate]

It's a reasonable price, and there are subsidies for people who can't afford it, though.

But it's not any cheaper than going out and buying insurance on the open market in, say, California. That's what I don't get — Romneycare was supposed to make insurance cheaper. But instead of making insurance cheaper, it just made it mandatory.

[Gravis Marketing]

It's a reasonable price, and there are subsidies for people who can't afford it, though.

But it's not any cheaper than going out and buying insurance on the open market in, say, California. That's what I don't get — Romneycare was supposed to make insurance cheaper. But instead of making insurance cheaper, it just made it mandatory.

I thought individual insurance in Mass. was way more than $300 before. It's been a long time since I was freelance but I thought it was essentially unaffordable because of the adverse selection problem and the lack of group discounting.

My knowledge of individual insurance in CA is limited to Torie's experience with his nephew. I don't know how robust the individual market is there. I did know the individual market in NY was basically destroyed by AIDS.

[Gravis Marketing]

To me, it demonstrates that some Republicans don't believe the law is that bad, but only rail against it for partisan reasons and opportunism.

Now this I can agree with.

[Ogre Mage]

So it is fine for Scott Brown's adult daughter to have her health insurance covered on the government dime, but not for most Americans?  And you see no hypocrisy in this?

I don't see hypocrisy. Brown in theory has voted to take away his daughter's insurance as well as that of other Americans. But as long as it's the law, she can take part in it. (Also, she's not him and isn't responsible for his politics, even though it's not like she hasn't benefited from the association.)

Well, you could say that but railing against a law while at the same time choosing to participate in its programs for personal benefit looks two-faced.  As Dr. Scholl pointed out, it was Brown's choice to have his daughter covered on his insurance.  I am not blaming Ayla for her father's actions.  The hypocrisy is his, not hers.

[shua]

Has Scott Brown ever come out against this aspect of the law?  My guess is that if the Republicans ever get together a "repeal and replace" bill, this aspect is something that will be retained.