Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're not really this stupid, are ya? There's nothing unconstitutional about allowing states to opt-out of federal programs. No ones being "let off the hook" with our version of health care reform.
In fact, Vermont has opted-out of the traditional Medicaid program for about five years now.
Do you ever have a friggin' clue?heres your problem rigthies.
These systems do work and they have worked better than the system we have now in this country.
The facts are that the US spends more than anyone and gets a much lower level of care than other countries who have single payer.
Its not a matter of IF it will work better , It will and has proven over and over again to work better.
Here's your problem:.....A cracking Massachusetts bill.
Massachusetts' Obama-like Reforms Increase Health Costs, Wait Times | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
No - waivers granted as laid out by the specific criteria in the legislation is an example of states rights
LOL. So clueless. Go back to sleep.
Do you even know what single payer means? It''s the same thing as an individual mandate, it means I would have to pay for it, even if I don't use it. It also means that my tax dollars would pay for some lazy welfare recipients healthcare, regardless if he/she can work and pay for their own. It's taking tax payer money and redistributing it to those too lazy to do anything for themselves. Noone has a right to my labor, sorry for your luck, like I said, glad it's not my state, and Vermont....like Massachusetts will suffer for it.
Well, here's your first problem. You think single-payer and an individual mandate are the same thing.
No one is being let off the hook. Learn what the waivers do.
And they are allowed to opt out.You're not really this stupid, are ya? There's nothing unconstitutional about allowing states to opt-out of federal programs. No ones being "let off the hook" with our version of health care reform.
In fact, Vermont has opted-out of the traditional Medicaid program for about five years now.
It would only be constitutional if every state that wanted to opt out was allowed to do so.
No - waivers granted as laid out by the specific criteria in the legislation is an example of states rights
ROFL! What "criteria" is that?
No - waivers granted as laid out by the specific criteria in the legislation is an example of states rights
ROFL! What "criteria" is that?
It's laid out clearly in the legislation. Primarily, states may opt out if they produce a plan that achieves the coverage rates and covered activities that the federal plan achieves.
Not sure why you find that funny.
But grunt11b's basic assertion is correct, the Vermont system will force every employee to pay for healthcare, which means in effect the unemployed are getting redistributed wealth inthe form of free healthcare insurance. My question: who pays for the co-pays for those under the poverty line?
Less than 1% of Canadians come across the border for health insurance. On the other hand, 80%-90% of Canadians are happy with their medical system, according to different polls.
Less than 1% of Canadians come across the border for health insurance. On the other hand, 80%-90% of Canadians are happy with their medical system, according to different polls.
yeah, everyone who doesn't really need it is happy with it. It's when you get really sick and really need healthcare that you learn to despise the Canadian system.
You're not really this stupid, are ya? There's nothing unconstitutional about allowing states to opt-out of federal programs. No ones being "let off the hook" with our version of health care reform.
In fact, Vermont has opted-out of the traditional Medicaid program for about five years now.
It would only be constitutional if every state that wanted to opt out was allowed to do so. In this case, the whim of some bureaucrat determines who gets a waiver. That's preferential treatment of those that have pull with the current administration.
Nothing could be more unconstitutional than that.
I find it amusing that liberals are defending a system we fought a monarchy to escape from.
No one is being let off the hook. Learn what the waivers do.
I think the definition of "waiver" is to be left off the hook.
The entire state of Nevada is off the hook. So are most of Nancy Pelosi's favorite restaurants in San Francisco.
Does anything you post have any connection with facts whatsoever?
It appears to me that you just blurt whatever sounds good. You haven't got the slightest clue as to whether the stuff you posting is true, do you?
No - waivers granted as laid out by the specific criteria in the legislation is an example of states rights
ROFL! What "criteria" is that? The administration won't even reveal the reason some were granted waivers and others were not. In fact, it will not reveal who was denied a waiver.
The only criteria is that you kiss Obama's ass. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
It's laid out clearly in the legislation. Primarily, states may opt out if they produce a plan that achieves the coverage rates and covered activities that the federal plan achieves.
Not sure why you find that funny.
ROFL! What "criteria" is that? The administration won't even reveal the reason some were granted waivers and others were not. In fact, it will not reveal who was denied a waiver.
The only criteria is that you kiss Obama's ass. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Prove otherwise? You mean like this?
Waiver Denials List
May 26, 2011
"Last month, the Vermont Senate passed legislation, approved earlier by the House, that would establish a single payer health care system in the state. The legislation would make Vermont the first state in the nation to, as Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) said, make health care a right and not a privilege.
The governors office just confirmed for ThinkProgress that Shumlin signed the legislation into law this morning, making the state the first in American history to pass legislation that will establish a single payer health care system to provide care to all citizens."
How long are the waivers good for?
What will the right do when this system proves a great success?
Really? Canadians despise it when they get really sick, do they? How do you come to that conclusion?
