How To Save Money On Health Care

[Wyatt earp]

How do you do that? Just institute universal health care! It's as simple as that! Also, just for argument's sake, let's say that universal health care cost the average U.S. citizen an extra $200.00 dollars a year in taxes. That comes out to a little over $4.00 a week! Could you live without four extra dollars in your pocket each week? And if it's a problem, just ask your boss for a $4.00 a week raise. Problem solved. I will show you what other countries pay for universal health care as a percentage of their GDP. For those who are against universal health care, read it and weep.View attachment 107192

Remind us again how many NBA and NHL teams are up in Canada..

That tells us a lot about taxes up there.

.

 

[dblack]

Minimize our reliance on insurance.

You have hit on one of the main points. The people who work for insurance companies are useless parasites. They are a pimple on society's ass that need to be squeezed! It wouldn't bother me if most of them were taken out, put against a wall and shot!

Uh, well. - no. The idea here is to avoid violence. I was thinking more along the lines of reducing our reliance on insurance to pay ordinary medical bills. That's where it all went south. Insurance is a scheme for hedging risk, not a lifelong financing mechanism.

The violence has already been committed against me. For what the insurance industry did to me, I would like to see massive piles of heads of those who work in the insurance industry.

There's plenty of blame to around. Naive, or even crooked, politicians gave the insurance corporations the power to fuck us over. Now they're trying to give them more. We don't need revenge. We simply need the freedom to pay for health care as we wish. The power to say "no" is the insurance companies that aren't providing us value for our money.

Words won't dissuade those in power. Thomas Jefferson himself basically said that from time to time, the tree of liberty would need to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. And Mao pointed out that power flows from the barrel of a gun. And after the French Revolution, they knew the way to deal with the diseased ideas about power were best dealt with using guillotines.

Yep, can't deny it. If we're going to make the trains run on time, sacrifices must be made!

 

[overland]

You have hit on one of the main points. The people who work for insurance companies are useless parasites. They are a pimple on society's ass that need to be squeezed! It wouldn't bother me if most of them were taken out, put against a wall and shot!

Uh, well. - no. The idea here is to avoid violence. I was thinking more along the lines of reducing our reliance on insurance to pay ordinary medical bills. That's where it all went south. Insurance is a scheme for hedging risk, not a lifelong financing mechanism.

The violence has already been committed against me. For what the insurance industry did to me, I would like to see massive piles of heads of those who work in the insurance industry.

There's plenty of blame to around. Naive, or even crooked, politicians gave the insurance corporations the power to fuck us over. Now they're trying to give them more. We don't need revenge. We simply need the freedom to pay for health care as we wish. The power to say "no" is the insurance companies that aren't providing us value for our money.

Words won't dissuade those in power. Thomas Jefferson himself basically said that from time to time, the tree of liberty would need to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. And Mao pointed out that power flows from the barrel of a gun. And after the French Revolution, they knew the way to deal with the diseased ideas about power were best dealt with using guillotines.

Yep, can't deny it. If we're going to make the trains run on time, sacrifices must be made!

If "sacrifices" is what it takes. I am also reminded of something funny I saw on the TV show "Adam Ruins Everything." Though all that "trickle down" stuff is just crap, there was some guy on the show pretending to be Ronald Reagan. He was pouring some syrup on a cake to demonstrate his "trickle down" theory. Another person said, "That will never reach the bottom." The Reagan guy said, "Sure it will. Just give it twenty years or so." Leave it to those in power and debate endlessly about it and we will never have universal health care.

 

[dblack]

Uh, well. - no. The idea here is to avoid violence. I was thinking more along the lines of reducing our reliance on insurance to pay ordinary medical bills. That's where it all went south. Insurance is a scheme for hedging risk, not a lifelong financing mechanism.

The violence has already been committed against me. For what the insurance industry did to me, I would like to see massive piles of heads of those who work in the insurance industry.

There's plenty of blame to around. Naive, or even crooked, politicians gave the insurance corporations the power to fuck us over. Now they're trying to give them more. We don't need revenge. We simply need the freedom to pay for health care as we wish. The power to say "no" is the insurance companies that aren't providing us value for our money.

Words won't dissuade those in power. Thomas Jefferson himself basically said that from time to time, the tree of liberty would need to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. And Mao pointed out that power flows from the barrel of a gun. And after the French Revolution, they knew the way to deal with the diseased ideas about power were best dealt with using guillotines.

Yep, can't deny it. If we're going to make the trains run on time, sacrifices must be made!

If "sacrifices" is what it takes. I am also reminded of something funny I saw on the TV show "Adam Ruins Everything." Though all that "trickle down" stuff is just crap, there was some guy on the show pretending to be Ronald Reagan. He was pouring some syrup on a cake to demonstrate his "trickle down" theory. Another person said, "That will never reach the bottom." The Reagan guy said, "Sure it will. Just give it twenty years or so." Leave it to those in power and debate endlessly about it and we will never have universal health care.

Universal Health Care will require broad, grassroots support. But people have to really believe. If we all close our eyes and say "I believe, yes we can!" and wish the awesomest wish we've ever wished - then we can have Universal Health Care!

 

[overland]

The violence has already been committed against me. For what the insurance industry did to me, I would like to see massive piles of heads of those who work in the insurance industry.

There's plenty of blame to around. Naive, or even crooked, politicians gave the insurance corporations the power to fuck us over. Now they're trying to give them more. We don't need revenge. We simply need the freedom to pay for health care as we wish. The power to say "no" is the insurance companies that aren't providing us value for our money.

Words won't dissuade those in power. Thomas Jefferson himself basically said that from time to time, the tree of liberty would need to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. And Mao pointed out that power flows from the barrel of a gun. And after the French Revolution, they knew the way to deal with the diseased ideas about power were best dealt with using guillotines.

Yep, can't deny it. If we're going to make the trains run on time, sacrifices must be made!

If "sacrifices" is what it takes. I am also reminded of something funny I saw on the TV show "Adam Ruins Everything." Though all that "trickle down" stuff is just crap, there was some guy on the show pretending to be Ronald Reagan. He was pouring some syrup on a cake to demonstrate his "trickle down" theory. Another person said, "That will never reach the bottom." The Reagan guy said, "Sure it will. Just give it twenty years or so." Leave it to those in power and debate endlessly about it and we will never have universal health care.

Universal Health Care will require broad, grassroots support. But people have to really believe. If we all close our eyes and say "I believe, yes we can!" and wish the awesomest wish we've ever wished - then we can have Universal Health Care!

That indeed would be difficult to do when the capitalist elitists control what most people think.

 

[Conservative65]

The $4/week isn't a problem. It has nothing to do with the money but you idiots keep making it out as if it is. I don't care if it's a penny. That's one cent too much if one group is forced to fund it for another. Saying that whatever amount it is isn't much makes it out as if those having something owe those that don't. That's not true.

I have a better solution. I'll provide mine and you provide yours and anyone else of your choosing with your money. If you can't, do without.

Who has an employee who pays for his insurance.

That means I provided mine by offering something for which I'm compensated. See how that works. I earned it. Compensation doesn't necessarily mean salary. It includes benefits that one earns by doing something valuable.

I already know how you stand. Those who can't afford health care have no value. But I would be willing to bet that your life would change for the worse if all such people just disappeared.

Since you think those that don't have it should be provided with it, when you don't do what you say should be done, you're saying they have no value because you're unwilling to do for them.

How would my life be worse if those constantly demanding someone else provide for them what they should be providing for themselves disappeared. How could keeping more of the money I'VE earned be worse?

I could reply to the first part. But it isn't necessary. Because you're missing the whole point. Didn't you read the statistics I added in my thread? As a percentage of a countries GDP, those who provide universal health care use less of it to provide health care than the U.S. What would that mean? More money in your pocket! Not less you buffoon.

Next, your life would be worse because if the people you want to shit on disappeared, who would fix your sink, scan your items at a store, flip your burgers, paint your garage or any of a zillion other things.

Your problem is you think the government should have a role in healthcare. Get them out of it and see how much more is in the pockets of those that earned it.

As to all those things for which you ask "who?", the answer is me. When I built my own house, I did the plumbing, electrical, HVAC, framing, siding, insulation, drywall, painting, trim, flooring (wood and tile), and a zillion other things involved in the process. When I go to the store, I go through the self checkout. On the rare occasion I do let the cashier do it, it doesn't matter. A monkey could be trained to do that. So what that means is if they all disappeared, I'd still get the same things done since I'm more than capable of doing them.

 

[Conservative65]

How do you do that? Just institute universal health care! It's as simple as that! Also, just for argument's sake, let's say that universal health care cost the average U.S. citizen an extra $200.00 dollars a year in taxes. That comes out to a little over $4.00 a week! Could you live without four extra dollars in your pocket each week? And if it's a problem, just ask your boss for a $4.00 a week raise. Problem solved. I will show you what other countries pay for universal health care as a percentage of their GDP. For those who are against universal health care, read it and weep.View attachment 107192

The $4/week isn't a problem. It has nothing to do with the money but you idiots keep making it out as if it is. I don't care if it's a penny. That's one cent too much if one group is forced to fund it for another. Saying that whatever amount it is isn't much makes it out as if those having something owe those that don't. That's not true.

I have a better solution. I'll provide mine and you provide yours and anyone else of your choosing with your money. If you can't, do without.

We're all paying for all of it anyway, just horribly ineffectively, inefficiently and more expensively than others.

There's an easy solution to that. If you can't pay, don't have coverage, or find one of you bleeding hearts that thinks someone should get what they don't provide themselves to do so, do without.

May you and your family encounter someone just like that with no coverage who has multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis and a nice forceful cough sir.

So you aren't willing to do for people what YOU think they deserve.

May you and your family directly encounter someone with AIDS.

 

[Conservative65]

How do you do that? Just institute universal health care! It's as simple as that! Also, just for argument's sake, let's say that universal health care cost the average U.S. citizen an extra $200.00 dollars a year in taxes. That comes out to a little over $4.00 a week! Could you live without four extra dollars in your pocket each week? And if it's a problem, just ask your boss for a $4.00 a week raise. Problem solved. I will show you what other countries pay for universal health care as a percentage of their GDP. For those who are against universal health care, read it and weep.View attachment 107192

The $4/week isn't a problem. It has nothing to do with the money but you idiots keep making it out as if it is. I don't care if it's a penny. That's one cent too much if one group is forced to fund it for another. Saying that whatever amount it is isn't much makes it out as if those having something owe those that don't. That's not true.

I have a better solution. I'll provide mine and you provide yours and anyone else of your choosing with your money. If you can't, do without.

I can agree with part of what you say. For example, the idea of paying to keep a negro or mexican healthy repulses me. But the sad fact of the matter is that your way doesn't work.

How do you know my way doesn't work. It hasn't been truly tried to where those saying one person should help provide healthcare coverage to another get the bill and those that don't think it's their responsibility pay nothing toward it.

Because you have insurance son, that's why. You pool resources and take out as needed spreading risk across the larger group. Willingly, eagerly, and your employer kicks in, and you drag your family in and make other premium payers pay for your deadbeatass family who doesn’t even work for your empoyer.

The pooling of those resources is by choice and an offering by an employer that recognizes skills that are worth funding. I don't make other premium payers do anything. Everyone that is part of my group CHOSE to be a part of it.

If you want to see deadbeat families, look to those that offer nothing and who can only get healthcare coverage because someone else was forced to fund the subsidies for them. You try to compare the insurance I have provided to me because I offer something worthwhile to the insurance coverage a freeloader gets through forced subsidized coverage. Nowhere near the same. I get mine and it's excellent because I offer something of value. The freeloaders get it because those of us offering something of value are forced to fund it for them.

 

[Fenton Lum]

How do you do that? Just institute universal health care! It's as simple as that! Also, just for argument's sake, let's say that universal health care cost the average U.S. citizen an extra $200.00 dollars a year in taxes. That comes out to a little over $4.00 a week! Could you live without four extra dollars in your pocket each week? And if it's a problem, just ask your boss for a $4.00 a week raise. Problem solved. I will show you what other countries pay for universal health care as a percentage of their GDP. For those who are against universal health care, read it and weep.View attachment 107192

The $4/week isn't a problem. It has nothing to do with the money but you idiots keep making it out as if it is. I don't care if it's a penny. That's one cent too much if one group is forced to fund it for another. Saying that whatever amount it is isn't much makes it out as if those having something owe those that don't. That's not true.

I have a better solution. I'll provide mine and you provide yours and anyone else of your choosing with your money. If you can't, do without.

We're all paying for all of it anyway, just horribly ineffectively, inefficiently and more expensively than others.

There's an easy solution to that. If you can't pay, don't have coverage, or find one of you bleeding hearts that thinks someone should get what they don't provide themselves to do so, do without.

May you and your family encounter someone just like that with no coverage who has multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis and a nice forceful cough sir.

So you aren't willing to do for people what YOU think they deserve.

May you and your family directly encounter someone with AIDS.

"So you aren't willing to do for people what YOU think they deserve."

Pulled out of your ass and related to nothing at all. See if you can grasp that last concept. Then also see if you can grasp the concept that under our current system you do already pay for everyone; in the world's most costly and inefficient manner.

 

[Fenton Lum]

How do you do that? Just institute universal health care! It's as simple as that! Also, just for argument's sake, let's say that universal health care cost the average U.S. citizen an extra $200.00 dollars a year in taxes. That comes out to a little over $4.00 a week! Could you live without four extra dollars in your pocket each week? And if it's a problem, just ask your boss for a $4.00 a week raise. Problem solved. I will show you what other countries pay for universal health care as a percentage of their GDP. For those who are against universal health care, read it and weep.View attachment 107192

The $4/week isn't a problem. It has nothing to do with the money but you idiots keep making it out as if it is. I don't care if it's a penny. That's one cent too much if one group is forced to fund it for another. Saying that whatever amount it is isn't much makes it out as if those having something owe those that don't. That's not true.

I have a better solution. I'll provide mine and you provide yours and anyone else of your choosing with your money. If you can't, do without.

I can agree with part of what you say. For example, the idea of paying to keep a negro or mexican healthy repulses me. But the sad fact of the matter is that your way doesn't work.

How do you know my way doesn't work. It hasn't been truly tried to where those saying one person should help provide healthcare coverage to another get the bill and those that don't think it's their responsibility pay nothing toward it.

Because you have insurance son, that's why. You pool resources and take out as needed spreading risk across the larger group. Willingly, eagerly, and your employer kicks in, and you drag your family in and make other premium payers pay for your deadbeatass family who doesn’t even work for your empoyer.

The pooling of those resources is by choice and an offering by an employer that recognizes skills that are worth funding. I don't make other premium payers do anything. Everyone that is part of my group CHOSE to be a part of it.

If you want to see deadbeat families, look to those that offer nothing and who can only get healthcare coverage because someone else was forced to fund the subsidies for them. You try to compare the insurance I have provided to me because I offer something worthwhile to the insurance coverage a freeloader gets through forced subsidized coverage. Nowhere near the same. I get mine and it's excellent because I offer something of value. The freeloaders get it because those of us offering something of value are forced to fund it for them.

Your choice is an illusion, you just require someone to look down on, rather american that.

 

[Conservative65]

The $4/week isn't a problem. It has nothing to do with the money but you idiots keep making it out as if it is. I don't care if it's a penny. That's one cent too much if one group is forced to fund it for another. Saying that whatever amount it is isn't much makes it out as if those having something owe those that don't. That's not true.

I have a better solution. I'll provide mine and you provide yours and anyone else of your choosing with your money. If you can't, do without.

We're all paying for all of it anyway, just horribly ineffectively, inefficiently and more expensively than others.

There's an easy solution to that. If you can't pay, don't have coverage, or find one of you bleeding hearts that thinks someone should get what they don't provide themselves to do so, do without.

May you and your family encounter someone just like that with no coverage who has multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis and a nice forceful cough sir.

So you aren't willing to do for people what YOU think they deserve.

May you and your family directly encounter someone with AIDS.

"So you aren't willing to do for people what YOU think they deserve."

Pulled out of your ass and related to nothing at all. See if you can grasp that last concept. Then also see if you can grasp the concept that under our current system you do already pay for everyone; in the world's most costly and inefficient manner.

That's why I proposed what I did. See if you can grasp the concept that if you're unwilling to provide for yourself what you should be providing for yourself, do without unless someone like you is voluntarily willing to give them yours.

What you say is an inefficient system is to stop having those that contribute to society forced to fund those that do nothing but take from it. That's why I proposed what I did. If you see someone you think needs something they don't have, buy it for them with your money. We both get what we want. I don't have to support a freeloader and you get the chance to prove you care.

 

[Conservative65]

The $4/week isn't a problem. It has nothing to do with the money but you idiots keep making it out as if it is. I don't care if it's a penny. That's one cent too much if one group is forced to fund it for another. Saying that whatever amount it is isn't much makes it out as if those having something owe those that don't. That's not true.

I have a better solution. I'll provide mine and you provide yours and anyone else of your choosing with your money. If you can't, do without.

I can agree with part of what you say. For example, the idea of paying to keep a negro or mexican healthy repulses me. But the sad fact of the matter is that your way doesn't work.

How do you know my way doesn't work. It hasn't been truly tried to where those saying one person should help provide healthcare coverage to another get the bill and those that don't think it's their responsibility pay nothing toward it.

Because you have insurance son, that's why. You pool resources and take out as needed spreading risk across the larger group. Willingly, eagerly, and your employer kicks in, and you drag your family in and make other premium payers pay for your deadbeatass family who doesn’t even work for your empoyer.

The pooling of those resources is by choice and an offering by an employer that recognizes skills that are worth funding. I don't make other premium payers do anything. Everyone that is part of my group CHOSE to be a part of it.

If you want to see deadbeat families, look to those that offer nothing and who can only get healthcare coverage because someone else was forced to fund the subsidies for them. You try to compare the insurance I have provided to me because I offer something worthwhile to the insurance coverage a freeloader gets through forced subsidized coverage. Nowhere near the same. I get mine and it's excellent because I offer something of value. The freeloaders get it because those of us offering something of value are forced to fund it for them.

Your choice is an illusion, you just require someone to look down on, rather american that.

My choice allow both of us to get what we want. I no longer am required to provide something to someone that isn't my place to provide them at all and you get a chance to prove you care rather than thinking you say you do means anything.

 

[Slashsnake]

How do you do that? Just institute universal health care! It's as simple as that! Also, just for argument's sake, let's say that universal health care cost the average U.S. citizen an extra $200.00 dollars a year in taxes. That comes out to a little over $4.00 a week! Could you live without four extra dollars in your pocket each week? And if it's a problem, just ask your boss for a $4.00 a week raise. Problem solved. I will show you what other countries pay for universal health care as a percentage of their GDP. For those who are against universal health care, read it and weep.View attachment 107192

The $4/week isn't a problem. It has nothing to do with the money but you idiots keep making it out as if it is. I don't care if it's a penny. That's one cent too much if one group is forced to fund it for another. Saying that whatever amount it is isn't much makes it out as if those having something owe those that don't. That's not true.

I have a better solution. I'll provide mine and you provide yours and anyone else of your choosing with your money. If you can't, do without.

If anyone believes United States universal healthcare will only cost someone $4/week or $200 year, they're clearly delusional and their IQ needs to be checked. I'd like to see where one gets those figures from. Pretty sure the average premium now is well over $200, and even well before Obamacare, the average family premium was well over $200/year, and that's for insurance that didn't cover 100% of everything.

 

[brazen]

How do you do that? Just institute universal health care! It's as simple as that! Also, just for argument's sake, let's say that universal health care cost the average U.S. citizen an extra $200.00 dollars a year in taxes. That comes out to a little over $4.00 a week! Could you live without four extra dollars in your pocket each week? And if it's a problem, just ask your boss for a $4.00 a week raise. Problem solved. I will show you what other countries pay for universal health care as a percentage of their GDP. For those who are against universal health care, read it and weep.View attachment 107192

The $4/week isn't a problem. It has nothing to do with the money but you idiots keep making it out as if it is. I don't care if it's a penny. That's one cent too much if one group is forced to fund it for another. Saying that whatever amount it is isn't much makes it out as if those having something owe those that don't. That's not true.

I have a better solution. I'll provide mine and you provide yours and anyone else of your choosing with your money. If you can't, do without.

If anyone believes United States universal healthcare will only cost someone $4/week or $200 year, they're clearly delusional and their IQ needs to be checked. I'd like to see where one gets those figures from. Pretty sure the average premium now is well over $200, and even well before Obamacare, the average family premium was well over $200/year, and that's for insurance that didn't cover 100% of everything.

I read this thread. Did you? The person who wrote it said "just for argument's sake," then brought up the 200.00 dollar figure. You may not realize this twinkeltits, but not having universal health care costs the average U.S. citizen far more than that. Not directly. But it all comes out in the wash. Also, did you look at the graph? As a parcentage of the U.S. GDP, we pay FAR more than what countries with universal health care do. Just look at GDP as taxes. Or get YOUR IQ checked.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The $4/week isn't a problem. It has nothing to do with the money but you idiots keep making it out as if it is. I don't care if it's a penny. That's one cent too much if one group is forced to fund it for another. Saying that whatever amount it is isn't much makes it out as if those having something owe those that don't. That's not true.

I have a better solution. I'll provide mine and you provide yours and anyone else of your choosing with your money. If you can't, do without.

Who has an employee who pays for his insurance.

That means I provided mine by offering something for which I'm compensated. See how that works. I earned it. Compensation doesn't necessarily mean salary. It includes benefits that one earns by doing something valuable.

I already know how you stand. Those who can't afford health care have no value. But I would be willing to bet that your life would change for the worse if all such people just disappeared.

Since you think those that don't have it should be provided with it, when you don't do what you say should be done, you're saying they have no value because you're unwilling to do for them.

How would my life be worse if those constantly demanding someone else provide for them what they should be providing for themselves disappeared. How could keeping more of the money I'VE earned be worse?

I could reply to the first part. But it isn't necessary. Because you're missing the whole point. Didn't you read the statistics I added in my thread? As a percentage of a countries GDP, those who provide universal health care use less of it to provide health care than the U.S. What would that mean? More money in your pocket! Not less you buffoon.

Next, your life would be worse because if the people you want to shit on disappeared, who would fix your sink, scan your items at a store, flip your burgers, paint your garage or any of a zillion other things.

If we could get rid of all the monkey motions, it would cost much less.

 

[footloose]

How do you do that? Just institute universal health care! It's as simple as that! Also, just for argument's sake, let's say that universal health care cost the average U.S. citizen an extra $200.00 dollars a year in taxes. That comes out to a little over $4.00 a week! Could you live without four extra dollars in your pocket each week? And if it's a problem, just ask your boss for a $4.00 a week raise. Problem solved. I will show you what other countries pay for universal health care as a percentage of their GDP. For those who are against universal health care, read it and weep.View attachment 107192

Somebody needs to send Donald Trump the graph that shows up in this thread.

 

[Political Junky]

What I am is personally responsible for those to whom I owe the responsibility. For what you say to be true would mean I have a responsibility to anyone other than those for which I choose.

What the last part means is if someone suffers, that suffering is the fault of those that think it's their responsibility. Since I have no responsibility to anyone other than those of my choosing, I can't be held accountable if someone doesn't get what you think they should get.

Didn't Jesus say that? I think he did. Meh, fuck society.

No, Jesus didn't say the government should mandate who another person takes care of.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, that was insurance corporations should. So we welcomed it.

No my fault you want to misrepresent the teachings of Jesus then whine when proven wrong.

The point was rather that you insist you have an issue with a government mandating who another person takes care of, but you have no qualms if an insurance corporation does, that's all. And I'm assuming you have or have at some point had health insurance. Perhaps I'm incorrect in that assumption.

The premise of insurance is that the well pay for the sicker, or the good driver pays for the bad. Wake up.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I can agree with part of what you say. For example, the idea of paying to keep a negro or mexican healthy repulses me. But the sad fact of the matter is that your way doesn't work.

How do you know my way doesn't work. It hasn't been truly tried to where those saying one person should help provide healthcare coverage to another get the bill and those that don't think it's their responsibility pay nothing toward it.

Because you have insurance son, that's why. You pool resources and take out as needed spreading risk across the larger group. Willingly, eagerly, and your employer kicks in, and you drag your family in and make other premium payers pay for your deadbeatass family who doesn’t even work for your empoyer.

The pooling of those resources is by choice and an offering by an employer that recognizes skills that are worth funding. I don't make other premium payers do anything. Everyone that is part of my group CHOSE to be a part of it.

If you want to see deadbeat families, look to those that offer nothing and who can only get healthcare coverage because someone else was forced to fund the subsidies for them. You try to compare the insurance I have provided to me because I offer something worthwhile to the insurance coverage a freeloader gets through forced subsidized coverage. Nowhere near the same. I get mine and it's excellent because I offer something of value. The freeloaders get it because those of us offering something of value are forced to fund it for them.

Your choice is an illusion, you just require someone to look down on, rather american that.

My choice allow both of us to get what we want. I no longer am required to provide something to someone that isn't my place to provide them at all and you get a chance to prove you care rather than thinking you say you do means anything.

What is american apparently is to be proud of the shittiest and most expensive healthcare system on the planet amongst advanced post indistrial nations, and trailing them all in healthcare outcomes.

USA!
USA!
USA!

 

[francoHFW]

Didn't Jesus say that? I think he did. Meh, fuck society.

No, Jesus didn't say the government should mandate who another person takes care of.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, that was insurance corporations should. So we welcomed it.

No my fault you want to misrepresent the teachings of Jesus then whine when proven wrong.

The point was rather that you insist you have an issue with a government mandating who another person takes care of, but you have no qualms if an insurance corporation does, that's all. And I'm assuming you have or have at some point had health insurance. Perhaps I'm incorrect in that assumption.

The premise of insurance is that the well pay for the sicker, or the good driver pays for the bad. Wake up.

Or the fortunate and the unfortunate...or the pompous and the realist lol...

 

[dblack]

Didn't Jesus say that? I think he did. Meh, fuck society.

No, Jesus didn't say the government should mandate who another person takes care of.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, that was insurance corporations should. So we welcomed it.

No my fault you want to misrepresent the teachings of Jesus then whine when proven wrong.

The point was rather that you insist you have an issue with a government mandating who another person takes care of, but you have no qualms if an insurance corporation does, that's all. And I'm assuming you have or have at some point had health insurance. Perhaps I'm incorrect in that assumption.

The premise of insurance is that the well pay for the sicker, or the good driver pays for the bad. Wake up.

The various schemes insurance companies use to maintain their bottom line shouldn't be confused with a social safety net. Insurance companies carefully control risk by limiting who is the allowed in the 'pool', and by what is covered when they are allowed in (ie no pre-existing conditions). We're trying to turn insurance companies into some kind of bizarre privatized welfare state - complete with the power to tax customers. All because the socialists won't admit they want socialism.