Obamacare is not about health care it's about wealth distribution and expanding the role of the health insurance industry.
Most currently insured people their premiums will rise...people will be getting Ins.plans they don't need,don't want and can't afford ...remember the objective of any Ins.Companys is not to pay out...
With the high deductions, co-pays, annual limits,exclusions and out of pocket expenses. Most people will find out that there new Obamcare Ins.will be too expensive to actually take advantage of..
Anyway you look at it ...Obamacare is no more than a massive socialist redistribution of wealth plan..
The health care reform we need is to reduce the role of government and the insurance company's not expand it....
Obamacare is not about health care it's about wealth distribution and expanding the role of the health insurance industry.
Most currently insured people their premiums will rise...people will be getting Ins.plans they don't need,don't want and can't afford ...remember the objective of any Ins.Companys is not to pay out...
With the high deductions, co-pays, annual limits,exclusions and out of pocket expenses. Most people will find out that there new Obamcare Ins.will be too expensive to actually take advantage of..
Anyway you look at it ...Obamacare is no more than a massive socialist redistribution of wealth plan..
The health care reform we need is to reduce the role of government and the insurance company's not expand it....
Once the concept of third party payors became accepted- many, many years before the ACA - government and insurance companies became entrenched in healthcare delivery-
Currently, I see no way to remove either-
And, unfortunately, neither hold patients' best interests as a priority-
IMO once patients became comfortable with an outside party being responsible for the "bill"- cost was no longer an issue-just pay your monthly premium and go on-
Only when premiums began to increase to cover the exorbitant costs did anyone really start to care-
Obviously those without any type of coverage cared- but by the time a bill was actually calculated and charged, it was laughable so for many/most the final tab was in essence irrelevant- not likely to be paid anyway-
So, here we are....
Hence the redistribution of healthcare resources- those that can....pay more- to subsidize those that can't-
Once the concept of third party payors became accepted- many, many years before the ACA - government and insurance companies became entrenched in healthcare delivery-
Currently, I see no way to remove either-
And, unfortunately, neither hold patients' best interests as a priority-
IMO once patients became comfortable with an outside party being responsible for the "bill"- cost was no longer an issue-just pay your monthly premium and go on-
Only when premiums began to increase to cover the exorbitant costs did anyone really start to care-
Obviously those without any type of coverage cared- but by the time a bill was actually calculated and charged, it was laughable so for many/most the final tab was in essence irrelevant- not likely to be paid anyway-
So, here we are....
Hence the redistribution of healthcare resources- those that can....pay more- to subsidize those that can't-
How would you do this and how as the private sector showed its ability to function without the government heavy hands watching closely?
Where has the private sector shown the ability to outperform the basket CPI and the ability to take on medicare and medicaid which the government currently handles?
How do you reduce the role of insurance companies? Elaborate please..
What does this mean..how do you cover the ever climbing costs of medical services by reducing the role of government and insurance companies?
You have not even remotely began to discuss the real underlying issues..just more Obama finger pointing and no solution but to place blame.
The underlying issues are the multi-decade cost increase of health coverage, how do you address this, by placing blame on the government? Or are you going to say that if the government was out then companies can make more profits?
Where is your plan outside weak generalities? I'd love to hear a GOP plan outside of hating Obamacare.. I seem to recall a GOP president for 8 years which did absolutely nothing to address the issue..but he did go to whimsical war and waste a few trillion.
So lets see what plans the GOP has and how you suggest we deal with the underlying issues which we never fail to address...
How would you do this and how as the private sector showed its ability to function without the government heavy hands watching closely?
Where has the private sector shown the ability to outperform the basket CPI and the ability to take on medicare and medicaid which the government currently handles?
How do you reduce the role of insurance companies? Elaborate please..
What does this mean..how do you cover the ever climbing costs of medical services by reducing the role of government and insurance companies?
You have not even remotely began to discuss the real underlying issues..just more Obama finger pointing and no solution but to place blame.
The underlying issues are the multi-decade cost increase of health coverage, how do you address this, by placing blame on the government? Or are you going to say that if the government was out then companies can make more profits?
Where is your plan outside weak generalities? I'd love to hear a GOP plan outside of hating Obamacare.. I seem to recall a GOP president for 8 years which did absolutely nothing to address the issue..but he did go to whimsical war and waste a few trillion.
So lets see what plans the GOP has and how you suggest we deal with the underlying issues which we never fail to address...
Most people with health insurance would get BIGGER premium increases without the ACA than with it, Sarasota Slim! Since it was passed.................increase in rates have flattened out...............increased at A SLOWER RATE than before the ACA was passed! That is a FACT, not my opinion! Why do you deny the FACTS??? The American health care system has ALWAYS been based on PROFIT..............so there has always been a re-distribution of "wealth"...................UP TO THE INSURANCE THIEVES...........and AWAY FROM the people paying through the nose for crappy coverage!! NOTHING NEW HERE!! MORE "TRICKLE-UP" REAGANOMICS, SLIM!!
Most people with health insurance would get BIGGER premium increases without the ACA than with it, Sarasota Slim! Since it was passed.................increase in rates have flattened out...............increased at A SLOWER RATE than before the ACA was passed! That is a FACT, not my opinion! Why do you deny the FACTS??? The American health care system has ALWAYS been based on PROFIT..............so there has always been a re-distribution of "wealth"...................UP TO THE INSURANCE THIEVES...........and AWAY FROM the people paying through the nose for crappy coverage!! NOTHING NEW HERE!! MORE "TRICKLE-UP" REAGANOMICS, SLIM!!
WALLSTREETCAPERS......................there IS no GOP health care plan! NONE! NOTHING! Their battle cry of..............."RESCIND THEN REPLACE" OBAMACARE was a friggin LIE....................like most of what they say!!
WALLSTREETCAPERS......................there IS no GOP health care plan! NONE! NOTHING! Their battle cry of..............."RESCIND THEN REPLACE" OBAMACARE was a friggin LIE....................like most of what they say!!
Soon people will be getting their entire genome for 10 bucks in about ten years time. Then people can start paying for their future conditions. You will know what you will get and what you are at risk for.
The new rules may be a good thing if you have poor genetic predispositions. They will be damning and impossible to hide in the future. People will need consumer protections for insurance, otherwise they will be looking at death sentences and we will truly have out death panels.
Soon people will be getting their entire genome for 10 bucks in about ten years time. Then people can start paying for their future conditions. You will know what you will get and what you are at risk for.
The new rules may be a good thing if you have poor genetic predispositions. They will be damning and impossible to hide in the future. People will need consumer protections for insurance, otherwise they will be looking at death sentences and we will truly have out death panels.
Dsn150...........it's a known fact! I don't care if you or the other baggers don't believe it! GO look it up yourself. Stop being lazy! There is no need to have to write a term paper with footnoting to repeat common knowledge you rubes should have heard or read about or known just by being alive!! Try turning off FOX OPINION CHANNEL and hate-filled right wing propaganda for a few days...........and get some common facts for a change!! Perhaps YOU could provide some facts to prove me wrong!
Dsn150...........it's a known fact! I don't care if you or the other baggers don't believe it! GO look it up yourself. Stop being lazy! There is no need to have to write a term paper with footnoting to repeat common knowledge you rubes should have heard or read about or known just by being alive!! Try turning off FOX OPINION CHANNEL and hate-filled right wing propaganda for a few days...........and get some common facts for a change!! Perhaps YOU could provide some facts to prove me wrong!
To have any universal healthcare system, some people must pay more so that others pay less. Reforms are fair and necessary to help the poor and sick. The rich and healthy don't need any help.
Under the old system, the uninsured and unpaid medical bills increase costs for everyone. According to Health Affairs, cost of the uninsured drops by 50% if they are insured because of increased use of cheap primary care and decrease in costly emergency care.
Besides, countries that succeeded in constraining healthcare costs are those with greater government intervention and not less. In the long term, Congressional Budget Office forecasts that more people will pay less than those who pay more because of subsidies. According to Kaiser Foundation, Obamacare has already saved over $3 billion for over 2 million Americans in 2011-12 because of reduced drug and insurance costs.
To have any universal healthcare system, some people must pay more so that others pay less. Reforms are fair and necessary to help the poor and sick. The rich and healthy don't need any help.
Under the old system, the uninsured and unpaid medical bills increase costs for everyone. According to Health Affairs, cost of the uninsured drops by 50% if they are insured because of increased use of cheap primary care and decrease in costly emergency care.
Besides, countries that succeeded in constraining healthcare costs are those with greater government intervention and not less. In the long term, Congressional Budget Office forecasts that more people will pay less than those who pay more because of subsidies. According to Kaiser Foundation, Obamacare has already saved over $3 billion for over 2 million Americans in 2011-12 because of reduced drug and insurance costs.
The Left is as goofy now as it has ever been. The losers in this redistribution scheme are hard working Americans who have lost their health insurance and their doctor. They are "forced" to go to an exchange that does not work and will not be working by 30 November. These people are finding out that their premiums have tripled along with their deductibles in order to redistribute their wealth to somebody who does not contribute to the "state". Does anybody talk about the delivery of health care under these conditions and who will be left to take care of our health care?
The Left is as goofy now as it has ever been. The losers in this redistribution scheme are hard working Americans who have lost their health insurance and their doctor. They are "forced" to go to an exchange that does not work and will not be working by 30 November. These people are finding out that their premiums have tripled along with their deductibles in order to redistribute their wealth to somebody who does not contribute to the "state". Does anybody talk about the delivery of health care under these conditions and who will be left to take care of our health care?
After the full implementation of Obamcare the CBO earlier this year calculated that by 2023, 31 million people will still lack health insurance ...
So,, we are going to up-end the health insurance of over a 120 million people ..increase the base premium by 25 to 40%, triple insurance deductibles and tax people to pay for government subsidies.. just to insure only 40% of the presently uninsured..?
The entire premise of Obamacare is based upon wealth distribution It's a program that uses health care as its excuse for redistributing..
Even the NYTimes with it's liberal bias is saying Obamacare is a giant wealth redistribution scheme ..https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/us/dont-dare-call-the-health-law-redistribution.html?_r=0
After the full implementation of Obamcare the CBO earlier this year calculated that by 2023, 31 million people will still lack health insurance ...
So,, we are going to up-end the health insurance of over a 120 million people ..increase the base premium by 25 to 40%, triple insurance deductibles and tax people to pay for government subsidies.. just to insure only 40% of the presently uninsured..?
The entire premise of Obamacare is based upon wealth distribution It's a program that uses health care as its excuse for redistributing..
Even the NYTimes with it's liberal bias is saying Obamacare is a giant wealth redistribution scheme ..https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/us/dont-dare-call-the-health-law-redistribution.html?_r=0
The Lefties love the collective. I love working for people who wait for their ebt card to be filled up and wait to go to to the mailbox once a month to pick up their check from the goverment. Now I have to subsidize their health insurance! What am I missing here?
The Lefties love the collective. I love working for people who wait for their ebt card to be filled up and wait to go to to the mailbox once a month to pick up their check from the goverment. Now I have to subsidize their health insurance! What am I missing here?
After the full implementation of Obamcare the CBO earlier this year calculated that by 2023, 31 million people will still lack health insurance ...
So,, we are going to up-end the health insurance of over a 120 million people ..increase the base premium by 25 to 40%, triple insurance deductibles and tax people to pay for government subsidies.. just to insure only 40% of the presently uninsured..?
The entire premise of Obamacare is based upon wealth distribution It's a program that uses health care as its excuse for redistributing..
Even the NYTimes with it's liberal bias is saying Obamacare is a giant wealth redistribution scheme ..https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/us/dont-dare-call-the-health-law-redistribution.html?_r=0
The problem with this argument is it ignores the inherent issues with our current health care system....it is already based upon wealth distribution. The insured pay for those without or with poor insurance because they use the health care system, thereby increasing rates.
I've said all along that if people understood this principle, they would be for many of the changes under ACA, including the Republican proposes mandate. But as usual, the Democrats cannot sell a man dying of thrist water, and Americans are misled by words like socialism and wealth redistriubution.
After the full implementation of Obamcare the CBO earlier this year calculated that by 2023, 31 million people will still lack health insurance ...
So,, we are going to up-end the health insurance of over a 120 million people ..increase the base premium by 25 to 40%, triple insurance deductibles and tax people to pay for government subsidies.. just to insure only 40% of the presently uninsured..?
The entire premise of Obamacare is based upon wealth distribution It's a program that uses health care as its excuse for redistributing..
Even the NYTimes with it's liberal bias is saying Obamacare is a giant wealth redistribution scheme ..https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/us/dont-dare-call-the-health-law-redistribution.html?_r=0
The problem with this argument is it ignores the inherent issues with our current health care system....it is already based upon wealth distribution. The insured pay for those without or with poor insurance because they use the health care system, thereby increasing rates.
I've said all along that if people understood this principle, they would be for many of the changes under ACA, including the Republican proposes mandate. But as usual, the Democrats cannot sell a man dying of thrist water, and Americans are misled by words like socialism and wealth redistriubution.
Once the concept of third party payors became accepted- many, many years before the ACA - government and insurance companies became entrenched in healthcare delivery-
Currently, I see no way to remove either-
And, unfortunately, neither hold patients' best interests as a priority-
IMO once patients became comfortable with an outside party being responsible for the "bill"- cost was no longer an issue-just pay your monthly premium and go on-
Only when premiums began to increase to cover the exorbitant costs did anyone really start to care-
Obviously those without any type of coverage cared- but by the time a bill was actually calculated and charged, it was laughable so for many/most the final tab was in essence irrelevant- not likely to be paid anyway-
So, here we are....
Hence the redistribution of healthcare resources- those that can....pay more- to subsidize those that can't-
At least that how it appears to me-
Good post, and it goes to exactly what I am saying in the post preceeding this.
Once the concept of third party payors became accepted- many, many years before the ACA - government and insurance companies became entrenched in healthcare delivery-
Currently, I see no way to remove either-
And, unfortunately, neither hold patients' best interests as a priority-
IMO once patients became comfortable with an outside party being responsible for the "bill"- cost was no longer an issue-just pay your monthly premium and go on-
Only when premiums began to increase to cover the exorbitant costs did anyone really start to care-
Obviously those without any type of coverage cared- but by the time a bill was actually calculated and charged, it was laughable so for many/most the final tab was in essence irrelevant- not likely to be paid anyway-
So, here we are....
Hence the redistribution of healthcare resources- those that can....pay more- to subsidize those that can't-
At least that how it appears to me-
Good post, and it goes to exactly what I am saying in the post preceeding this.
The problem with this argument is it ignores the inherent issues with our current health care system....it is already based upon wealth distribution. The insured pay for those without or with poor insurance because they use the health care system, thereby increasing rates.
I've said all along that if people understood this principle, they would be for many of the changes under ACA, including the Republican proposes mandate. But as usual, the Democrats cannot sell a man dying of thrist water, and Americans are misled by words like socialism and wealth redistriubution.
Yes,,under the current health system people did have to pay for people without Ins,but they could also keep their health care plans if they preferred them...
Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys have calculated, that the use of emergency rooms for front-line care only adds around 2% to the total health care expenditures.. .Obamacare will far exceed that number ..and you can't keep your doctor or your plan in the process.
So,, using the emergency rooms by uninsured Americans as an argument hardly makes for good reason for passing Obamacare ..
Obamacare is a wealth transfer plan ...plain and simple.
The problem with this argument is it ignores the inherent issues with our current health care system....it is already based upon wealth distribution. The insured pay for those without or with poor insurance because they use the health care system, thereby increasing rates.
I've said all along that if people understood this principle, they would be for many of the changes under ACA, including the Republican proposes mandate. But as usual, the Democrats cannot sell a man dying of thrist water, and Americans are misled by words like socialism and wealth redistriubution.
Yes,,under the current health system people did have to pay for people without Ins,but they could also keep their health care plans if they preferred them...
Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys have calculated, that the use of emergency rooms for front-line care only adds around 2% to the total health care expenditures.. .Obamacare will far exceed that number ..and you can't keep your doctor or your plan in the process.
So,, using the emergency rooms by uninsured Americans as an argument hardly makes for good reason for passing Obamacare ..
Obamacare is a wealth transfer plan ...plain and simple.
Yes,,under the current health system people did have to pay for people without Ins,but they could also keep their health care plans if they preferred them...
Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys have calculated, that the use of emergency rooms for front-line care only adds around 2% to the total health care expenditures.. .Obamacare will far exceed that number ..and you can't keep your doctor or your plan in the process.
So,, using the emergency rooms by uninsured Americans as an argument hardly makes for good reason for passing Obamacare ..
Obamacare is a wealth transfer plan ...plain and simple.
If ObamaCare is wealth transfer, it is in reaction to a current system that is as well...those that have insurance paying for those that do not.
For the last few days, you've been bringing up the fact that very small percentages of the population are affected, so why the changes. According to Families USA, less than 1% will lose insurance, so I guess I can use your argument here.
The reality as well is that those plans are the ones that cost of all us, because they inadequately cover the recipient.
Yes,,under the current health system people did have to pay for people without Ins,but they could also keep their health care plans if they preferred them...
Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys have calculated, that the use of emergency rooms for front-line care only adds around 2% to the total health care expenditures.. .Obamacare will far exceed that number ..and you can't keep your doctor or your plan in the process.
So,, using the emergency rooms by uninsured Americans as an argument hardly makes for good reason for passing Obamacare ..
Obamacare is a wealth transfer plan ...plain and simple.
If ObamaCare is wealth transfer, it is in reaction to a current system that is as well...those that have insurance paying for those that do not.
For the last few days, you've been bringing up the fact that very small percentages of the population are affected, so why the changes. According to Families USA, less than 1% will lose insurance, so I guess I can use your argument here.
The reality as well is that those plans are the ones that cost of all us, because they inadequately cover the recipient.
Families USA huh ..Families USA the health-care liberal-leaning lobbyist in Washington, D.C..and the one's who just last month received a $1 million grant to tell Pro-Obamacare stories ...is that the Families USA you are putting up to support your arguement ?
If it is ..it figures, because it was founded by an attorney ..
...and heres a good vid of the socialist director of Families USA a few weeks ago ..failing in his defense of the Obamacare subsidies lie.
Families USA huh ..Families USA the health-care liberal-leaning lobbyist in Washington, D.C..and the one's who just last month received a $1 million grant to tell Pro-Obamacare stories ...is that the Families USA you are putting up to support your arguement ?
If it is ..it figures, because it was founded by an attorney ..
...and heres a good vid of the socialist director of Families USA a few weeks ago ..failing in his defense of the Obamacare subsidies lie.
Families USA huh ..Families USA the health-care liberal-leaning lobbyist in Washington, D.C..and the one's who just last month received a $1 million grant to tell Pro-Obamacare stories ...is that the Families USA you are putting up to support your arguement ?
If it is ..it figures, because it was founded by an attorney ..
...and heres a good vid of the socialist director of Families USA a few weeks ago ..failing in his defense of the Obamacare subsidies lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkWXpRKPgGo
You know what they say when you don't like the message....
I'm sure you offer different statistics from Faux, the Heritage Foundation, Breitbart, or John Birch.
Families USA huh ..Families USA the health-care liberal-leaning lobbyist in Washington, D.C..and the one's who just last month received a $1 million grant to tell Pro-Obamacare stories ...is that the Families USA you are putting up to support your arguement ?
If it is ..it figures, because it was founded by an attorney ..
...and heres a good vid of the socialist director of Families USA a few weeks ago ..failing in his defense of the Obamacare subsidies lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkWXpRKPgGo
You know what they say when you don't like the message....
I'm sure you offer different statistics from Faux, the Heritage Foundation, Breitbart, or John Birch.
You know what they say when you don't like the message....
I'm sure you offer different statistics from Faux, the Heritage Foundation, Breitbart, or John Birch.
Actually the only group statistics I messaged was in post # 15... The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Who is commonly the subject of analysis
in articles on health policy and health services in research journals
such asHealth Affairs,JAMA, Health Services Research and the New England Journal of Medicine..
Although, I do watch Fox News at times.. esp. The Five..for the leg shots... something you can never do with the mooses they have on your MSNBC....
You know what they say when you don't like the message....
I'm sure you offer different statistics from Faux, the Heritage Foundation, Breitbart, or John Birch.
Actually the only group statistics I messaged was in post # 15... The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Who is commonly the subject of analysis
in articles on health policy and health services in research journals
such asHealth Affairs,JAMA, Health Services Research and the New England Journal of Medicine..
Although, I do watch Fox News at times.. esp. The Five..for the leg shots... something you can never do with the mooses they have on your MSNBC....
Touche'. My issue is not with Faux News, its with the mindless following they have when reporting crazy things.
In all honesty, I expect the number to be higher than the less than 1% stated above, but it is nearly impossible to quantify because such stats would include those that change their health insurance volunarily.
The statement about keeping your plans has always been idiotic. It is impossible when looked at on the backdrop of the law which makes unqualifying plans improper.
Touche'. My issue is not with Faux News, its with the mindless following they have when reporting crazy things.
In all honesty, I expect the number to be higher than the less than 1% stated above, but it is nearly impossible to quantify because such stats would include those that change their health insurance volunarily.
The statement about keeping your plans has always been idiotic. It is impossible when looked at on the backdrop of the law which makes unqualifying plans improper.
Touche'. My issue is not with Faux News, its with the mindless following they have when reporting crazy things.
In all honesty, I expect the number to be higher than the less than 1% stated above, but it is nearly impossible to quantify because such stats would include those that change their health insurance volunarily.
The statement about keeping your plans has always been idiotic. It is impossible when looked at on the backdrop of the law which makes unqualifying plans improper.
Can't argue with anything you said here. I'm sure both sides will be misrepresenting the numbers as they see fit going forward.
There are many times my wife and I will hit the pause button and ask each other if (insert Fox talking head personality here) really said that. We'll watch Maddow at times, but I cannot stand Lawrence O'Donnell. Cap off the night with some laughs with Jon Stewart. Maybe catch the late showing of the Five just to see what the end cap candy is wearing. lol
Touche'. My issue is not with Faux News, its with the mindless following they have when reporting crazy things.
In all honesty, I expect the number to be higher than the less than 1% stated above, but it is nearly impossible to quantify because such stats would include those that change their health insurance volunarily.
The statement about keeping your plans has always been idiotic. It is impossible when looked at on the backdrop of the law which makes unqualifying plans improper.
Can't argue with anything you said here. I'm sure both sides will be misrepresenting the numbers as they see fit going forward.
There are many times my wife and I will hit the pause button and ask each other if (insert Fox talking head personality here) really said that. We'll watch Maddow at times, but I cannot stand Lawrence O'Donnell. Cap off the night with some laughs with Jon Stewart. Maybe catch the late showing of the Five just to see what the end cap candy is wearing. lol
Can't argue with anything you said here. I'm sure both sides will be misrepresenting the numbers as they see fit going forward.
There are many times my wife and I will hit the pause button and ask each other if (insert Fox talking head personality here) really said that. We'll watch Maddow at times, but I cannot stand Lawrence O'Donnell. Cap off the night with some laughs with Jon Stewart. Maybe catch the late showing of the Five just to see what the end cap candy is wearing. lol
Believe me, I dislike MoreSlantedNewsforBarackChannel as much, and hated them more when Bush was President.
I pretty much only read the news now, sometimes watching the BBC American update.
Can't argue with anything you said here. I'm sure both sides will be misrepresenting the numbers as they see fit going forward.
There are many times my wife and I will hit the pause button and ask each other if (insert Fox talking head personality here) really said that. We'll watch Maddow at times, but I cannot stand Lawrence O'Donnell. Cap off the night with some laughs with Jon Stewart. Maybe catch the late showing of the Five just to see what the end cap candy is wearing. lol
Believe me, I dislike MoreSlantedNewsforBarackChannel as much, and hated them more when Bush was President.
I pretty much only read the news now, sometimes watching the BBC American update.
The health care reform we need is to reduce the role of government....
Other countries are as heavily regulated as the USA. Yet their healthcare costs are lower with higher quality. Insuring 95% of population results in greater efficiency and government intervention with many ways to reduce costs that the U.S. system lacks.
The health care reform we need is to reduce the role of government....
Other countries are as heavily regulated as the USA. Yet their healthcare costs are lower with higher quality. Insuring 95% of population results in greater efficiency and government intervention with many ways to reduce costs that the U.S. system lacks.
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.