Kettle? Hold on, it's pot.
Name calling? check
Leftist propaganda? check
Affinity for the truth? Not so much
I am Libertarian NOT leftist. Thank you.
So you aren't a fiscal conservative then.
Because you are saying that fiscal conservatives do not believe the government should require insurance companies to cover sick people.
Your last paragraph is non-sensical. If people are on their own plan or their parents plan, someone is paying for coverage.
So you aren't a fiscal conservative then.
Because you are saying that fiscal conservatives do not believe the government should require insurance companies to cover sick people.
Your last paragraph is non-sensical. If people are on their own plan or their parents plan, someone is paying for coverage.
So you aren't a fiscal conservative then.
Because you are saying that fiscal conservatives do not believe the government should require insurance companies to cover sick people.
Your last paragraph is non-sensical. If people are on their own plan or their parents plan, someone is paying for coverage.
So you aren't a fiscal conservative then.
Because you are saying that fiscal conservatives do not believe the government should require insurance companies to cover sick people.
Your last paragraph is non-sensical. If people are on their own plan or their parents plan, someone is paying for coverage.
Ummm, no. What you have just described is what existed before the ACA. People that had insurance paid for the health care of those that did not. Google EMTALA and learn something today.
Ummm, no. What you have just described is what existed before the ACA. People that had insurance paid for the health care of those that did not. Google EMTALA and learn something today.
Are you saying there should be no laws, regulations, restrictions, etc. at all? I guess I'm confused because someone above said this:
There is one aspect I do like. That is insurance companies not being able to kick you out when you do get sick. If someone has a contract with that insurance company they should be allowed to stay on.
That seems to be counterintuitive to what you are saying. You should debate these person that said the above because clearly they are wrong according to you.
Are you saying there should be no laws, regulations, restrictions, etc. at all? I guess I'm confused because someone above said this:
There is one aspect I do like. That is insurance companies not being able to kick you out when you do get sick. If someone has a contract with that insurance company they should be allowed to stay on.
That seems to be counterintuitive to what you are saying. You should debate these person that said the above because clearly they are wrong according to you.
Ummm, no. What you have just described is what existed before the ACA. People that had insurance paid for the health care of those that did not. Google EMTALA and learn something today.
Ummm, no. What you have just described is what existed before the ACA. People that had insurance paid for the health care of those that did not. Google EMTALA and learn something today.
Are you saying there should be no laws, regulations, restrictions, etc. at all? I guess I'm confused because someone above said this:
There is one aspect I do like. That is insurance companies not being able to kick you out when you do get sick. If someone has a contract with that insurance company they should be allowed to stay on.
That seems to be counterintuitive to what you are saying. You should debate these person that said the above because clearly they are wrong according to you.
Are you saying there should be no laws, regulations, restrictions, etc. at all? I guess I'm confused because someone above said this:
There is one aspect I do like. That is insurance companies not being able to kick you out when you do get sick. If someone has a contract with that insurance company they should be allowed to stay on.
That seems to be counterintuitive to what you are saying. You should debate these person that said the above because clearly they are wrong according to you.
Hospitals have a 50% return on billable medical costs. Think about that for a moment.
Take your newspaper delivery job for a moment. Lets say you expend the costs of buying the papers, gas, vehicle, a bag, and yet, you only receive 50% of your bills? How much would you charge those that paid.
That is the current state of our health care system. Insurance is only expensive because the medical bills it covers are.
You keep saying hospitals/doctors, etc. are opposed and I will link 1000 google stories to show that isn't the case. They, as most intelligent people understand, realize it is a long term solution. The concept is right...if it works remains to be seen.
And millions were happy with coverage but that coverage doesn't help the problem if it leaves millions in unpaid medical expenses that everyone else has to pay for.
I realize you are a big spending liberal who wants the government and everyone else to pay those costs, but you should think like the fiscal conservatives who want people to be responsible, you know those that designed the mandate.
Hospitals have a 50% return on billable medical costs. Think about that for a moment.
Take your newspaper delivery job for a moment. Lets say you expend the costs of buying the papers, gas, vehicle, a bag, and yet, you only receive 50% of your bills? How much would you charge those that paid.
That is the current state of our health care system. Insurance is only expensive because the medical bills it covers are.
You keep saying hospitals/doctors, etc. are opposed and I will link 1000 google stories to show that isn't the case. They, as most intelligent people understand, realize it is a long term solution. The concept is right...if it works remains to be seen.
And millions were happy with coverage but that coverage doesn't help the problem if it leaves millions in unpaid medical expenses that everyone else has to pay for.
I realize you are a big spending liberal who wants the government and everyone else to pay those costs, but you should think like the fiscal conservatives who want people to be responsible, you know those that designed the mandate.
Who enforces that contract? And how is it enforced? And what new law allows its enforcement.
Who enforces that contract? And how is it enforced? And what new law allows its enforcement.
Hospitals have a 50% return on billable medical costs. Think about that for a moment.
Take your newspaper delivery job for a moment. Lets say you expend the costs of buying the papers, gas, vehicle, a bag, and yet, you only receive 50% of your bills? How much would you charge those that paid.
That is the current state of our health care system. Insurance is only expensive because the medical bills it covers are.
You keep saying hospitals/doctors, etc. are opposed and I will link 1000 google stories to show that isn't the case. They, as most intelligent people understand, realize it is a long term solution. The concept is right...if it works remains to be seen.
And millions were happy with coverage but that coverage doesn't help the problem if it leaves millions in unpaid medical expenses that everyone else has to pay for.
I realize you are a big spending liberal who wants the government and everyone else to pay those costs, but you should think like the fiscal conservatives who want people to be responsible, you know those that designed the mandate.
Hospitals have a 50% return on billable medical costs. Think about that for a moment.
Take your newspaper delivery job for a moment. Lets say you expend the costs of buying the papers, gas, vehicle, a bag, and yet, you only receive 50% of your bills? How much would you charge those that paid.
That is the current state of our health care system. Insurance is only expensive because the medical bills it covers are.
You keep saying hospitals/doctors, etc. are opposed and I will link 1000 google stories to show that isn't the case. They, as most intelligent people understand, realize it is a long term solution. The concept is right...if it works remains to be seen.
And millions were happy with coverage but that coverage doesn't help the problem if it leaves millions in unpaid medical expenses that everyone else has to pay for.
I realize you are a big spending liberal who wants the government and everyone else to pay those costs, but you should think like the fiscal conservatives who want people to be responsible, you know those that designed the mandate.
Who enforces that contract? And how is it enforced? And what new law allows its enforcement.
Who enforces that contract? And how is it enforced? And what new law allows its enforcement.
Buying across state lines-already happens.
Tort Reform-already happened
Medical Savings Accounts- already happened
Didn't solve the underlying problem.
So in other words, you are a big spending liberal rely on government Republican who doesn't want to any changes.
I'll side with the conservatives who want the mandate.
Buying across state lines-already happens.
Tort Reform-already happened
Medical Savings Accounts- already happened
Didn't solve the underlying problem.
So in other words, you are a big spending liberal rely on government Republican who doesn't want to any changes.
I'll side with the conservatives who want the mandate.
Republican rule of debate #1:
If at a loss for facts and articulable points, stick to hyperbole.
Republican rule of debate #1:
If at a loss for facts and articulable points, stick to hyperbole.
Tort reform has always been a strawman...
Of course there have been numerous frivolous suits brought- the way to stop that (and IMO has been done and is the reason fewer and fewer cases without merit are filed) is to defend them and win- costing the plaintiffs attorney to pursue the frivolous case-
Despite a decline in meritless suits- malpractice premiums continue to remain at their already high levels...
Tort reform has always been a strawman...
Of course there have been numerous frivolous suits brought- the way to stop that (and IMO has been done and is the reason fewer and fewer cases without merit are filed) is to defend them and win- costing the plaintiffs attorney to pursue the frivolous case-
Despite a decline in meritless suits- malpractice premiums continue to remain at their already high levels...
You keep saying hospitals/doctors, etc. are opposed and I will link 1000 google stories to show that isn't the case. They, as most intelligent people understand, realize it is a long term solution. The concept is right...if it works remains to be seen.
And millions were happy with coverage but that coverage doesn't help the problem if it leaves millions in unpaid medical expenses that everyone else has to pay for.
I think rather than being for or against the ACA-most are just frustrated, because at present there are too many unknowns in a system that will ultimately dictate their means of salary / employment-
Couple that with subjective changing of rules-and no one really knows what the future holds...
I'm not sure any profession would be happy with those circumstances- even if they agreed with the plan in principle-
You keep saying hospitals/doctors, etc. are opposed and I will link 1000 google stories to show that isn't the case. They, as most intelligent people understand, realize it is a long term solution. The concept is right...if it works remains to be seen.
And millions were happy with coverage but that coverage doesn't help the problem if it leaves millions in unpaid medical expenses that everyone else has to pay for.
I think rather than being for or against the ACA-most are just frustrated, because at present there are too many unknowns in a system that will ultimately dictate their means of salary / employment-
Couple that with subjective changing of rules-and no one really knows what the future holds...
I'm not sure any profession would be happy with those circumstances- even if they agreed with the plan in principle-
Republican rule of debate #1:
If at a loss for facts and articulable points, stick to hyperbole.
Republican rule of debate #1:
If at a loss for facts and articulable points, stick to hyperbole.
Canovsp rule #2: when you don't have facts, lie
Canovsp rule #3: use exceptions and generalizations to prove the rule.
Canovsp rule #2: when you don't have facts, lie
Canovsp rule #3: use exceptions and generalizations to prove the rule.
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.