Feds forgoing 13.9 billion from ACA insurance tax

[dblack]

What could it possibly mean to say someone can't be denied healthcare?

You should know. It's what your side always says about how the PPACA is "unnecessary" because "Reagan fixed all that with the EMTALA."

You're clearly confused about "my side". I never support Reagan, and I think EMTALA should be repealed.

Anyway, do YOU know what it means? You keep using the phrase. I thought you might have some idea what it meant.

 

[Arianrhod]

What could it possibly mean to say someone can't be denied healthcare?

You should know. It's what your side always says about how the PPACA is "unnecessary" because "Reagan fixed all that with the EMTALA."

You're clearly confused about "my side". I never support Reagan, and I think EMTALA should be repealed.

Anyway, do YOU know what it means? You keep using the phrase. I thought you might have some idea what it meant.

Do I know what your side means? According to the USMB RW dictate, "yer either with us or yer with the terraists."

Given those two choices, since you don't consider yourself a liberal (which USMB RWers define as "anyone and anything I DON'T LIKE!"), you're left with only one other option.

 

[dblack]

What could it possibly mean to say someone can't be denied healthcare?

You should know. It's what your side always says about how the PPACA is "unnecessary" because "Reagan fixed all that with the EMTALA."

You're clearly confused about "my side". I never support Reagan, and I think EMTALA should be repealed.

Anyway, do YOU know what it means? You keep using the phrase. I thought you might have some idea what it meant.

Do I know what your side means?

I certainly do. We were as opposed to Reagan and the Bushes as we are to Obama and the Clintons. Is that so hard for you to imagine?

 

[Arianrhod]

What could it possibly mean to say someone can't be denied healthcare?

You should know. It's what your side always says about how the PPACA is "unnecessary" because "Reagan fixed all that with the EMTALA."

You're clearly confused about "my side". I never support Reagan, and I think EMTALA should be repealed.

Anyway, do YOU know what it means? You keep using the phrase. I thought you might have some idea what it meant.

Do I know what your side means?

I certainly do. We were as opposed to Reagan and the Bushes as we are to Obama and the Clintons. Is that so hard for you to imagine?

You, individually, seem to be from the part of For Nothing/Against Everything. But given the venue, I'm not sure the RWers will allow that. If you don't worship Reagan and Bush 41 (only the really hardcore RWs are still defending Bush 43), they consider you at least a liberal, probably a socialist.

On topic, in being against the EMTALA, you do seem to be for one thing: Death to anyone who can't pay thousands of dollars in medical bills upfront and preferably in cash.

 

[dblack]

What could it possibly mean to say someone can't be denied healthcare?

You should know. It's what your side always says about how the PPACA is "unnecessary" because "Reagan fixed all that with the EMTALA."

You're clearly confused about "my side". I never support Reagan, and I think EMTALA should be repealed.

Anyway, do YOU know what it means? You keep using the phrase. I thought you might have some idea what it meant.

Do I know what your side means?

I certainly do. We were as opposed to Reagan and the Bushes as we are to Obama and the Clintons. Is that so hard for you to imagine?

You, individually, seem to be from the part of For Nothing/Against Everything.

That's a copout, and not at all true. I'm opposed to most of what mainstream Democrats and Republicans want to do with government, but, despite your limited imagination, their respective agendas aren't the only options.

But given the venue, I'm not sure the RWers will allow that. If you don't worship Reagan and Bush 41 (only the really hardcore RWs are still defending Bush 43), they consider you at least a liberal, probably a socialist.

That's quite true. During the Bush administration I was hearing the same guilt-by-association from Republicans who saw libertarians marching in the streets along side (a few) Democrats and assumed we were 'leftists'. Whatever. I'm not really interested in the opinions of the wingnuts on either side. The partisan nonsense is for people who can't be bothered to think for themselves.

On topic, in being against the EMTALA, you do seem to be for one thing: Death to anyone who can't pay thousands of dollars in medical bills upfront and preferably in cash.

Blow me. That's a completely bullshit accusation. That's like saying anyone who supports laws against stealing food is for mass starvation.

 

[Arianrhod]

That's a copout, and not at all true. I'm opposed to most of what mainstream Democrats and Republicans want to do with government, but, despite your limited imagination, their respective agendas aren't the only options.

And you've presented so many of them in so much detail in so many threads here.

But given the venue, I'm not sure the RWers will allow that. If you don't worship Reagan and Bush 41 (only the really hardcore RWs are still defending Bush 43), they consider you at least a liberal, probably a socialist.

That's quite true. During the Bush administration I was hearing the same guilt-by-association from Republicans who saw libertarians marching in the streets along side (a few) Democrats and assumed we were 'leftists'. Whatever. I'm not really interested in the opinions of the wingnuts on either side. The partisan nonsense is for people who can't be bothered to think for themselves.

And then there's the "I'm above it all so I don't have to go into detail" nonsense of those whose main philosophy seems to be "I'm NOT a [fill in the blank]."

On topic, in being against the EMTALA, you do seem to be for one thing: Death to anyone who can't pay thousands of dollars in medical bills upfront and preferably in cash.

Blow me. That's a completely bullshit accusation. That's like saying anyone who supports laws against stealing food is for mass starvation.

Figured you couldn't manage your temper for more than a few posts. Anyway, bad analogy. Not everyone needs emergency medical care, but everyone does need food. Then again, what are your feelings about SNAP and soup kitchens?

Meanwhile, a snippet from Ayn Rand's Libertopian view of "the way things should be" (as long as she could con one of her lovers into paying for her immunizations):

 

[dblack]

That's a copout, and not at all true. I'm opposed to most of what mainstream Democrats and Republicans want to do with government, but, despite your limited imagination, their respective agendas aren't the only options.

And you've presented so many of them in so much detail in so many threads here.

I actually have. You just dismiss them outright because they don't follow statist orthodoxy.

On topic, in being against the EMTALA, you do seem to be for one thing: Death to anyone who can't pay thousands of dollars in medical bills upfront and preferably in cash.

Blow me. That's a completely bullshit accusation. That's like saying anyone who supports laws against stealing food is for mass starvation.

Figured you couldn't manage your temper for more than a few posts.

And I figured you'd resort to bullshit accusations as soon as your arguments fell apart.

Anyway, bad analogy. Not everyone needs emergency medical care, but everyone does need food. Then again, what are your feelings about SNAP and soup kitchens?

SNAP and soup kitchens are legitimate welfare programs. They're paid for via taxes. Unfunded mandates like EMTALA are far worse. And, come to think of it, you're right. My analogy wasn't very good. A better analogy would be a law that required grocery stores to give people food regardless of whether they could pay or not.

I know you're not much for subtle thinking, but I challenge you to understand the difference between tax funded safety nets like SNAP or other welfare, and unfunded mandates like EMTALA. In one case, everyone votes and their taxes are used to fund programs to help the poor. EMTALA simply points a finger at service at service providers and say "You do it, we can't be bothered".

 

[Sun Devil 92]

dblack

Take Arianhead to the Bullring.

That would be great to watch !!!

I can't read her posts (or won't). But you are correct that she isn't much for subtle thinking....or any other kind for that matter.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Come on dblack......

Bullring....

Bullring.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Good to see the program being improved.

Lol what a clusterfuck!!!

 

[dblack]

Come on dblack......

Bullring....

Bullring.....

I'm not sure what the "bullring" is, but I'm not really interested in personal feuds. It's the policies and ideas I want to talk about. There are profound changes taking place right under our noses and they're mostly going on unnoticed. The transition from liberal democracy to corporatism is the one that I think is the most dangerous.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

medical care should not be a commodity

Riiiiiight. Because doctors grow on trees, right moonbat?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Come on dblack......

Bullring....

Bullring.....

I'm not sure what the "bullring" is, but I'm not really interested in personal feuds. It's the policies and ideas I want to talk about. There are profound changes taking place right under our noses and they're mostly going on unnoticed. The transition from liberal democracy to corporatism is the one that I think is the most dangerous.

The bullring is where you challenge someone to debate instead of dropping the stupid turds Air-ion-head does.

You challenge on a focused topic, and chose three judges. At the end they pick the winner.

It's just what you need to stop telling her to "F**k off" like you seem prone to do.

She has to produce her so-called "primary sources".

Challenge her and put the data out there. Isn't a personal feud at all.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

C'mon dblack ...bullring.