So, in order to help less than 5% of the entire population we will take away the personal sovereignty of 100% of the country, mandate the purchase of a good through penalty, raise EVERYONE'S premiums, and bills, while essentially imploding the system in on itself?
Sorry, the pre-existing conditions clause is a good aspect (at least in theory), nobody wants anyone to die in the streets. It is disingenuous at best to claim that the Tea Bag----- (whatever asinine pejorative you made up) want people to die. It stinks of the anti Romney (pushing the grandma off the cliff ad).
So what you are telling me is that we had to surrender our personal liberty, and have more of our money coerced from us for pre-existing conditions to be covered in a ridiculously inefficient way?
Sorry I don't buy it.
put down the kool aid bro.
So, in order to help less than 5% of the entire population we will take away the personal sovereignty of 100% of the country, mandate the purchase of a good through penalty, raise EVERYONE'S premiums, and bills, while essentially imploding the system in on itself?
Sorry, the pre-existing conditions clause is a good aspect (at least in theory), nobody wants anyone to die in the streets. It is disingenuous at best to claim that the Tea Bag----- (whatever asinine pejorative you made up) want people to die. It stinks of the anti Romney (pushing the grandma off the cliff ad).
So what you are telling me is that we had to surrender our personal liberty, and have more of our money coerced from us for pre-existing conditions to be covered in a ridiculously inefficient way?
Sorry I don't buy it.
put down the kool aid bro.
So, in order to help less than 5% of the entire population we will take away the personal sovereignty of 100% of the country, mandate the purchase of a good through penalty, raise EVERYONE'S premiums, and bills, while essentially imploding the system in on itself?
Sorry, the pre-existing conditions clause is a good aspect (at least in theory), nobody wants anyone to die in the streets. It is disingenuous at best to claim that the Tea Bag----- (whatever asinine pejorative you made up) want people to die. It stinks of the anti Romney (pushing the grandma off the cliff ad).
So what you are telling me is that we had to surrender our personal liberty, and have more of our money coerced from us for pre-existing conditions to be covered in a ridiculously inefficient way?
Sorry I don't buy it.
put down the kool aid bro.
Since this is all Faux News hyperbole, I'll simply summarize by saying that none of the above has any factual basis and those of us with courage will fight for you and your kids right to not die in the street and by denied insurance coverage or admission to a hospital.
Its interesting, people support EMTALA which requires care for those who are sick by private agencies, but are opposed to private agencies providing coverage to those who are sick.
Strange beings, this mythical tea party.
So, in order to help less than 5% of the entire population we will take away the personal sovereignty of 100% of the country, mandate the purchase of a good through penalty, raise EVERYONE'S premiums, and bills, while essentially imploding the system in on itself?
Sorry, the pre-existing conditions clause is a good aspect (at least in theory), nobody wants anyone to die in the streets. It is disingenuous at best to claim that the Tea Bag----- (whatever asinine pejorative you made up) want people to die. It stinks of the anti Romney (pushing the grandma off the cliff ad).
So what you are telling me is that we had to surrender our personal liberty, and have more of our money coerced from us for pre-existing conditions to be covered in a ridiculously inefficient way?
Sorry I don't buy it.
put down the kool aid bro.
Since this is all Faux News hyperbole, I'll simply summarize by saying that none of the above has any factual basis and those of us with courage will fight for you and your kids right to not die in the street and by denied insurance coverage or admission to a hospital.
Its interesting, people support EMTALA which requires care for those who are sick by private agencies, but are opposed to private agencies providing coverage to those who are sick.
Strange beings, this mythical tea party.
I support provisions to care for the "lesser of us", and the ideals behind charity care, and could even go as far as to support laws that force private insurers to meet a quota of pre-existing people in their pools. Say 5-7% have to have pre-existing conditions. Maybe hospitals have to perform 5% of their surgeries for free. Maybe doctors are encouraged to donate 5-10% of their time for charity care. This used to take place.
That is a pretty heavy handed mandate, but it comes nowhere close to the impact of the ACA.
I just disagree with the idea that the only way you could cover pre-existing conditions, is to force the entire population of our country into medical tyranny.
I support provisions to care for the "lesser of us", and the ideals behind charity care, and could even go as far as to support laws that force private insurers to meet a quota of pre-existing people in their pools. Say 5-7% have to have pre-existing conditions. Maybe hospitals have to perform 5% of their surgeries for free. Maybe doctors are encouraged to donate 5-10% of their time for charity care. This used to take place.
That is a pretty heavy handed mandate, but it comes nowhere close to the impact of the ACA.
I just disagree with the idea that the only way you could cover pre-existing conditions, is to force the entire population of our country into medical tyranny.
Since this is all Faux News hyperbole, I'll simply summarize by saying that none of the above has any factual basis and those of us with courage will fight for you and your kids right to not die in the street and by denied insurance coverage or admission to a hospital.
Its interesting, people support EMTALA which requires care for those who are sick by private agencies, but are opposed to private agencies providing coverage to those who are sick.
Strange beings, this mythical tea party.
Since this is all Faux News hyperbole, I'll simply summarize by saying that none of the above has any factual basis and those of us with courage will fight for you and your kids right to not die in the street and by denied insurance coverage or admission to a hospital.
Its interesting, people support EMTALA which requires care for those who are sick by private agencies, but are opposed to private agencies providing coverage to those who are sick.
Strange beings, this mythical tea party.
I support provisions to care for the "lesser of us", and the ideals behind charity care, and could even go as far as to support laws that force private insurers to meet a quota of pre-existing people in their pools. Say 5-7% have to have pre-existing conditions. Maybe hospitals have to perform 5% of their surgeries for free. Maybe doctors are encouraged to donate 5-10% of their time for charity care. This used to take place.
That is a pretty heavy handed mandate, but it comes nowhere close to the impact of the ACA.
I just disagree with the idea that the only way you could cover pre-existing conditions, is to force the entire population of our country into medical tyranny.
Well, hospitals are already providing 50% of their work for free, so I am not sure where you are going with that. Perhaps you need to read up on EMTALA and understand what this number was prior to the early 80s. All doctors I know provide charity work.
The preexisting condition mandate sounds wonderful. It is just ashame if you aren't among those first 5-7%. Sorry kid, your parents didn't get it in time. Cancer is not curable, and you aren't covered so either 1) you die a horrible and painful death, 2) we put you to sleep like we do animals or 3) you have the procedure and everyone else pays for it.
Oh, and the idea of having insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions but dont' require coverage Im sure will help address the cost of insurance. I'll let that ridiculous idea stand on its own without further comment.
I support provisions to care for the "lesser of us", and the ideals behind charity care, and could even go as far as to support laws that force private insurers to meet a quota of pre-existing people in their pools. Say 5-7% have to have pre-existing conditions. Maybe hospitals have to perform 5% of their surgeries for free. Maybe doctors are encouraged to donate 5-10% of their time for charity care. This used to take place.
That is a pretty heavy handed mandate, but it comes nowhere close to the impact of the ACA.
I just disagree with the idea that the only way you could cover pre-existing conditions, is to force the entire population of our country into medical tyranny.
Well, hospitals are already providing 50% of their work for free, so I am not sure where you are going with that. Perhaps you need to read up on EMTALA and understand what this number was prior to the early 80s. All doctors I know provide charity work.
The preexisting condition mandate sounds wonderful. It is just ashame if you aren't among those first 5-7%. Sorry kid, your parents didn't get it in time. Cancer is not curable, and you aren't covered so either 1) you die a horrible and painful death, 2) we put you to sleep like we do animals or 3) you have the procedure and everyone else pays for it.
Oh, and the idea of having insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions but dont' require coverage Im sure will help address the cost of insurance. I'll let that ridiculous idea stand on its own without further comment.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.