How much should health care cost? Should it cost anything?

[Cecilie1200]

Ummm.....What if they can't? hence why they don't have insurance to begin with.

Right. They cant. BUT they still get the care the need. And that is why costs to the rest of us, who do pay, is skyrocketing.

Exactly. This is what they are not getting. We are already paying for all these people who don't have insurance but are still being treated at ER's and hospitals who can not turn them away. The problem is we are paying for ER costs which are DRASTICALLY higher and is an extremely inefficient way of paying for their care. It would be much more efficient to subsidize these peoples insurance so they can get preventative care and treat their ailments before they get out of control and end up costing us a lot more money when they visit the ER.
In the end we are paying for people who aren't insured no matter what, it's just a question of how do we want to do it. Efficiently or inefficiently?

It would be even more efficient to just stop paying for other people. Why is their health supposed to be more valuable to me than it is to them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

But that's a completely inefficient way of paying for their costs. It ends up costing all of us WAAAAAY more for multiple reasons.

1 - ER's are VERY expensive. You don't have a chance to shop around for costs when you are faced with going to an ER and thus their is no reason to keep costs down for them.

2 - If someone goes to an ER it's probably because their condition has got so bad that they are being forced to finally seek treatment. This means that the condition is much worse then it was if they had it treated when the problem first arose. This means that the problem will now require more attention and in all likelihood more expensive tests, equipment and medicine.

3 - ER's are only there to stabilize, not for long term treatment. If you have no insurance and show up at an ER for a condition that you have that has gotten out of control, they will stabilize you (for alot of $$, see above) and send you out again. This doesn't mean you are healed and are likely to end up right back in the ER again, and the cycle continues.

So to avoid all of this, if people had basic insurance coverage from the start, they could see a doctor to get the care they need before it gets out of control and they end up in the ER. This care would be much cheaper and would actually improve the overall quality of life of these people while keeping the costs down for the rest of us who like it or not are helping to pay for everyone who can't afford their own healthcare costs.

Might have to explain that a little more. If we subsidize inurance for all these people, government/us pays for it. If we just pay for their medical costs government/us pays for it. I would think paying for insurance would be the more expensive of the two options.

Which do you think costs more? A visit to the ER for your heart condition that you left unchecked and insufficiently treated for months or even years or a visit to your private doctor on a regular basis to get the proper medicine and care before your situation gets dire?

Now once you answer that, remember in addition that the ER visit only stabilizes the person and doesn't aim to fix long term, which means a likely repeat visit back to the ER.

So we would be better of paying a few hundred a month to insure people took care of themselves at a much cheaper rate as opposed to still paying for their care but letting them get that care in the expensive and bare minimum ER.

Maybe it would be better if you weren't starting from the falacious assumption that we ARE going to just pay for everyone's health care, that they're somehow entitled to have that from the rest of us, so all that needs to be discussed is how WE are going to pay for our "obligation" to a bunch of sucking leech strangers.

Perhaps you could do us all the courtesy of starting from the assumption that the health and health care of people we've never met is of little to no interest to the rest of us, and therefore that helping them out is optional, and if - IF - we are to give them that aid, it is charitable and voluntary, rather than something they are somehow entitled to just because they happen to be breathing in and out on the same planet at the moment.

I, for one, deeply resent your breezy set of assumptions on this score.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What if they are flat broke or living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford the 100k+ treatment they just racked up?

I know someone that pays a hopital $50 a month for hip replacement.

Stop whining, life aint fair, and no amount of you digging and digging for excuses will give the left a pass on taking more of my independence from me.

You're missing the point entirely.

Let's make it easier.

What if someone runs up a $100,000 bill, then dies in the hospital?

Well, if I die and leave behind a $100,000 debt, my family gets to pay for it. How is that not good enough for other people?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No you spend all the money in the world to save them. To accept your premises that we are a community is based on socialist thought. It IS up to the individual to fund his ow existence. If my work in life doesn't allow me to travel to another country for a certain procedure, that is life. Yep...I could die but it is due to my hand, my work, my own financial situation that was created by my hand. It isn't determined by taking money from you to fix my situation in life. Why is that so hard to understand?

It is the way of natural and very natural. This entitlement situation is a rather new experiment in the history of man and it is going to fail. You will see people in the streets because they are accustomed to living off the benefit of other people hard work. It has thrown nature all out of balance and one thing Darwin was correct about was survival of the fittest.

Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.

How American of you. "Don't have money, f' you & die". Thanks for letting us know what kind of person you are. Be proud of yourself.

Why not? YOU seem to have an attitude of "if you have money, **** you, your problems don't matter". You've got all your concern going to the people who didn't bother to plan and provide for themselves, so they don't need OUR sympathy, too.

For the record, I think YOU are a shitty person for carelessly blowing off the pain and problems you cause productive people in your pursuit of feeling like Mother Theresa among the lepers with their wallets. So while you're sanctimoniously putting people down for daring to disagree with your worldview, just make sure you factor in the fact that you aren't the only one who can judge and insult.

Thanks for letting us know what kind of person YOU are.

 

[syrenn]

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.

And for the record, i am alright with people dying.

There it is, a real "compassionate conservative".

Yeah, because "compassion" is defined as "denying reality". Hey, let's all be really "compassionate" and pretend that people are going to be able to live forever if we just spend enough of other people's money.

You can talk about "compassion" when you're talking out of your OWN wallet.

How sad are you? I hope you never lose your job and have to face the struggles of the real world. You might actually be required to use your brain then.....would go right along with your lack of heart.

You self-righteous prick. Where do you get off with this "only the people who are scraping by paycheck to paycheck, looking for the government to care for them face the 'struggles of the real world'" bullshit? I'd say a pretty big "struggle of the real world" is having less and less of one's paycheck available to care for one's family because some sanctimonious asshole on a sainthood kick is taxing it all away to pay for his warm, fuzzy feeling of godhood.

And if Syrenn isn't having to run around after you cutrate Gandhi wannabes on the left, looking for a handout, I'd say she's ALREADY using her brain. Or maybe you define "using your brain" as "figuring out how to fill out the paperwork for welfare", rather than "figuring out how not to wind up on welfare". That would go right along with your brilliant definition of "compassion" as "spending other people's money".

For the record, are you a religious person?

For the record, **** off. People who try on that whole "if you were really religious, you'd adhere to my political policies" schtick make me want to heave even more than your previous self-righteous smugness does.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There it is, a real "compassionate conservative".

How sad are you? I hope you never lose your job and have to face the struggles of the real world. You might actually be required to use your brain then.....would go right along with your lack of heart.

For the record, are you a religious person?

No, i came from the medical end. Compassion comes in many forms. Letting people die is very compassionate.

Right, if i lose my job i will automatically EXPECT/demand the government feed, house, clothe me and pay my medical bills.

Thanks for making it known what kind of person you are. Uninformed and selfish. Be proud.

Thanks for making it know what kind of person you are: judgemental, self-righteous, and greedy for other people's money to fund your own sense of self-esteem. But don't be proud, because there's nothing about you and your attitude to be proud of.

Just remember: while you're condemning others for not being up to YOUR moral standards, other people are condemning you for not being up to theirs. And you're not even CLOSE to meeting up to mine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Medical insurance is how you get healthcare in this country...unfortunately.

you can have life.

Without health care or insurance.

Not if you get sick, which everyone eventually does. Next ridiculous argument?

So we're supposed to keep people from ever getting sick and dying? "Right to life" now means "right to never die"? Next ridiculous argument.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thanks for making it known what kind of person you are. Uninformed and selfish. Be proud.

Why wait to lose your job? Quit. Why achieve when you are entitled to the fruits of other's labor?

Another person who thinks we aren't already paying for everyones health care.

No, another person who KNOWS we're already paying for other people's health care, and doesn't think it's a good thing, OR that we need to expand it.

Just because you and your ilk have already fucked up our country doesn't actually mean that the rest of us are required to let you extend your ****-up-ery.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Fitz, you seem to have trouble supporting your claims, and need to resort to silly pictures and logical fallacies that don't actually apply. Perhaps you should reverse that tactic.

It was YOU who claimed that these services could be "effectively privatized,"

They can be. Again, redacto in absurdum fail. I never said ALL. Fire Departments, yes. Police Departments yes. I'd even throw in post office even though it's constitutionally mandated, yes. Those were the services you listed and I answered. Nice try to try and make a qualified statement, universal Alinskyite.

Once again, you don't know what logical fallacy you're referring to, and using it incorrectly. You didn't say ALL, you said all the ones I listed, which include the ones I've continued to bring up. Your exact quote was "Every last one of these could be effectively privatized and would probably function better." So you're right, you didn't say "ALL" you said "every last one."

So again I ask: if all schools were privatized to "function better" who would pay for the schools in the poor areas? Who would pay for the interstate highways? This is your claim. Try supporting it with things aside from lolcats.

So is healthcare.

False. Those blessed with good health through luck of the draw or constant effort on their part use it less than those who are born sickly. It is a necessity based service that has no need for government control/administration because individuals can gain access and cure through trade with other individuals trained in the profession. If I don't need treatment or Rosacea, Port Wine Skin, Pregnancy, Hemophilia, Hepatitis B or any of a million other health issues... I don't get it. This is not equivalent to a road or court.

Again. You fail at your attempt at universalizing you own example from two municipal services to a human right. I never heard "life, liberty, fire prevention and the pursuit of happiness."

This is the heart of the matter: how people view healthcare. The fact is, if you don't need to drive, or don't need to sue someone, you similarly don't use a road or court. You're not doing a very good job of distinguishing what makes roads, public schools, and the legal system as necessary shared commodities from healthcare. The fact remains that the use of healthcare, much like "every last one" of the public commodities I've previously listed, is used as needed by everyone at some point.

This has nothing to do with human rights, as your strawman argument claims. It has to do with necessary shared commodities.

Never heard of education vouchers have you? Exemption from taxes so their kids can go to private school. Huh. Whatta surprise. To claim it doesn't happen when I've spent 3 years DRIVING THESE KIDS TO THEIR SCHOOLS is beyond moronic. No... I didn't get those paychecks. I didn't really drive those routes and those kids didn't exist... because it ***** your argument up.

You seem to have a hard time following your own poor reasoning. Let's review. You claimed that public schools would be effectively run if they were all privatized instead of via government and taxation. Your solution as to who would pay for the schools in poor areas when money is no longer coming from taxes is: taxes. Do you not see the blatant contradiction in your own argument?

If all schools are privatized, as you suggested they effectively could be, there would be NO MONEY from taxes to pay for them. So once again I ask: who is paying for the public schools in poor areas, given that taxes aren't doing it?

You're going to make me open another new case of fail for you aren't I?

I've enjoyed watching you suck down the ones you've already opened, so please be my guest and have another.

Sorry, this discussion is not about school district planning. Make a new thread somewhere. But please, keep dodging the OP's question: what should healthcare cost?

Oh I see. You make a ridiculous claim, and then run away whenever you're called on it. Well done.

No, I followed it just fine. It's problem is it's not germane to the topic at hand as you work to get off the uncomfortable position you're stuck in unable to answer the OP.

Once again, ignoring any point you can't actually refute with some hand-waived sidestepping. How pathetic. This central point directly ties to the core topic, being an examination of healthcare costs and who should pay for it.

Would this be the net troll's complex version of saying "I am rubber you are glue..?" Public forum. Butch up Sally Frillypants. Anyone can kibbitz on the conversation, particularly when your point is so full of irrelevance and fail to the topic at hand: what should healthcare cost?

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, as demonstrated several times now. I am not saying you should stay out of other people's points. I'm saying you should figure out what's actually being said before jumping into the conversation half-assed, as you clearly showed yourself to be clueless about those excerpts you quoted and their context.

I believe you implied that right here. I've highlighted it in red for you. Implied, assumed, alluded.

Once again I can only assume you have difficulty with reading comprehension. What you highlighted in red states that physical survival of the fittest applies to a natural system, and not a civilization such as our own where intelligence and technological advancements have since compensated for physical barriers. Perhaps you lack the understanding to differentiate between "immune" and "not applicable." An American can be immune to the flu because they were vaccinated. They are not immune to the black plague, but they will never get it in their life. It's not applicable to modern Americans. Let me know if you're still struggling with the concept, or want to actually address it instead of making ridiculous strawman interpretations.

>cough< FDA >cough< Ever hear of the USDA either? How about the private organizations of consumer protection like the UL, BBB, Chambers of Commerce and Consumer Reports?

Please explain: how are the USDA, FDA, BBB, and Chambers of Commerce protecting consumers from insurance inflation in a market that restricts competition? I know this can be very confusing for some people because the economics are intertwined with the healthcare, but the POINT is about how consumers are not protected against monopolistic insurance companies. This is the very reason for most of the latest healthcare reform that passed.

Let's explain something to you. A government option could exist and compete fairly in certain conditions. The problem is by nature it won't. What are these specific conditions? Simple. They must price themselves at fair market levels without subsidization. That means it can offer products that are valued accordingly to cost to provide. The instant you start pricing your product below it's natural level you affect the market and break the natural balance of the market.

Thanks for directly and completely acknowledging the point I just made as correct. I'm glad you agree.

The problem is, you deadbeat socialists don't want to compete fairly. You want a utopian 'free health care' fantasy that cannot exist in reality.

This is actually completely false, and once again shows that you don't actually understand the concept. No one in this thread has once mentioned such a thing. Looks like another strawman argument for you.

Flat out bullshit. If it wasn't, the government wouldn't be having to spend money on it, and would essentially making a not-for-profit government owned insurance company that received no tax money. It has never been self sustainable. Nothing in the government is.

Which once again shows you are clueless on the goals of the public option. The purpose was to do exactly what you just outlined: non-profit government run insurance company that needed government startup money that would be repayed, to thereafter be self-sustainable. That was the point: to instill a non-profit equal opportunity free market competitor to keep the private sector in check.

Perhaps you should do some reading on the topic before continuing to talk about it while claiming how everyone else fails so much:
Public health insurance option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"government-run health insurance agency"
"financed entirely by premiums without subsidy from the Federal government"
"provide choice where few options exist"

In other words, if 5 people spend a collective $100 on healthcare each year, the pre-established cost would be $20 each, not something artificially lower. It sounds like you don't actually know too much about what the public option was attempting to establish.

I know what the believers want to think that this is true. Problem is you've only established one part of the equation. You're assuming, incorrectly, that 100 dollars total income equals 100 dollars in value as well as 100 dollars in cost. The reality is that the three aspects are independent of each other. A business (at least a successful one) creates a product that has X cost. They then set a profit point for this product at Y because it includes perceived future costs and the necessity to improve over time. The product is perceived by the public to have Z value. If the equation of X+Y>Z, the product will fail. The perceived value must exceed the actual cost and profit point. And just so you know, the profit point is not something that automatically ends up in the pockets of wall street fat cats. It goes into investment funds of their own, inflating the money supply by allowing for lending and profit of it's own. Money works and grows the economy so everyone can benefit. Their profit grows, they can expand, and offer more products and protect themselves against downturns.

It's the exact same concept. Reworded: if the total healthcare associated spending generated by 5 people, including all healthcare, administrative, and other costs equals $100 every single year, the payment for each would be $20. It's amazing how you can pull out completely ridiculous innuendos that are unsupported by my actual text, yet can't discern the simple meaning behind this concept.

Is there any part of that you actually disagree with or are you just typing to complain about minutia because you have reading comprehension problems? At the end of the day, I can act as immature as you by typing "fail" and "you're wrong" in place of content, but SUPPORTING my statements with factual evidence and proving you wrong outright has a much stronger impact. I look forward to more immaturity in place of addressing the actual topics.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Can anyone tell me why smarterthahick posts this "100% of the time there is not a generic, and it is important to realize that older meds can address the same thing with a higher likelihood of side effects. Some of these are to a negligible degree, certainly, but putting others at risk just because you have yet to experience such a side effect is negligent, and thankfully not practiced by physicians. "

And then in post #149 he says he "Perhaps you should try rereading my statement, notice where you couldn't even copy and paste it correctly, and perhaps put some contextual clues into how your interpret it. You will clearly see that I was refuting your point in that THERE IS NOT ALWAYS a generic available for any given drug. The remainder of your argument is thus completely invalid. "

Does anyone know WTF he is saying? He says that 100% of the time there is no generic but for some reason he feels that he said a factual statement. Did he even take time to read what I posted from the FDA? To say that older meds will have more side effects --- here is your quote "older meds can address the same thing with a higher likelihood of side effects." flys in the face of how medicines are even tested.

I know what I'm saying. And I know you're not actually reading the words I'm saying. In fact, you misrepresented what I was saying by misquoting me previously, but changing the word "not" to "no." There is not always a generic for any given drug available on the market. This is fact, which you have yet to disprove. Changing that to "there are no generics on the market" is incorrect, and fallacious on your part. Let me know if you're still having trouble with that.

We also have a toll road in our State. Although it isn't entirely private, the funds collected to maintain the road from the people that use the road. The length of the toll road is 350 miles.

And that toll road is still public, run by the government. Taking in money does not somehow exclude it from government oversight.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why wait to lose your job? Quit. Why achieve when you are entitled to the fruits of other's labor?

Another person who thinks we aren't already paying for everyones health care.

No, another person who KNOWS we're already paying for other people's health care, and doesn't think it's a good thing, OR that we need to expand it.

Just because you and your ilk have already fucked up our country doesn't actually mean that the rest of us are required to let you extend your ****-up-ery.

I'll summarize you're rambling posts and neg rep you sent me.

You - Don't care if other people (working or not) can get access to healthcare. The solution to the problem is work harder.



Another cry baby who only cares about "how does it affect me", yet doesn't realize that healthcare reform is actually helping you, you're just not smart enough to realize it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yep, it's official Dumberthanhick. You're incapable of critical thinking and not worth even responding to anymore. As I said, your denial seems to be a great anodyne for your lack of substance.

I've neither the interest or the time to explain the issue to the witless.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

So after I thoroughly shoot you down, you are responding to my evidence based reasoning by saying I don't know what I'm talking about and tucking tail and running. Have fun.

When you'd like to actually educate yourself on some of these topics, perhaps you should read the wikipedia article I cited. Google works too. Heck, any basic reference on the topic would increase your understanding at this point.

Let me know if you change your mind and want to actually refute something I said. Until then, it's clear to everyone that:

• you are completely clueless about the concept behind the public option
• you think the USDA protects consumers against monopolistic insurance inflation
• if all public schools were privatized, non-existent tax funds will go towards them
• you are incapable of picking up a conversation started by other people

 

[urdrwho]

Smarterthanhick you are a real case. Narcissist comes to mind. It is not that you have won anyone over with reasoning and evidence. People get tired of debating with idiots. It is like trying to debate with children. Children pose such inane ideas that you are presented with nothing to debate, just a lot of words. So have fun if you think you have won points but it isn't true. Just like your reasoning was not true but again in your mind, your emotion trumps all reasoning. Emotion, the base of most liberal views and beliefs.

Obama Care is so good that SEIU has asked for and was granted a waiver. They are now one of the over 700 applicants granted a waiver from Obama Care. So believe what you may, SEIU raised 23 million for Obama's election but don't want anything to do with Obama's flagship program - health care.

Waivers aren&#8217;t meant to protect people from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes.

Now I broke my own rule and replied to you. Last time though because the aphorism of arguing with the pig is true.

So after I thoroughly shoot you down, you are responding to my evidence based reasoning by saying I don't know what I'm talking about and tucking tail and running. Have fun.

When you'd like to actually educate yourself on some of these topics, perhaps you should read the wikipedia article I cited. Google works too. Heck, any basic reference on the topic would increase your understanding at this point.

Let me know if you change your mind and want to actually refute something I said. Until then, it's clear to everyone that:

• you are completely clueless about the concept behind the public option
• you think the USDA protects consumers against monopolistic insurance inflation
• if all public schools were privatized, non-existent tax funds will go towards them
• you are incapable of picking up a conversation started by other people

 

[RDD_1210]

Smarterthanhick you are a real case. Narcissist comes to mind. It is not that you have won anyone over with reasoning and evidence. People get tired of debating with idiots. It is like trying to debate with children. Children pose such inane ideas that you are presented with nothing to debate, just a lot of words. So have fun if you think you have won points but it isn't true. Just like your reasoning was not true but again in your mind, your emotion trumps all reasoning. Emotion, the base of most liberal views and beliefs.

Obama Care is so good that SEIU has asked for and was granted a waiver. They are now one of the over 700 applicants granted a waiver from Obama Care. So believe what you may, SEIU raised 23 million for Obama's election but don't want anything to do with Obama's flagship program - health care.

Waivers aren’t meant to protect people from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes.

Now I broke my own rule and replied to you. Last time though because the aphorism of arguing with the pig is true.

So after I thoroughly shoot you down, you are responding to my evidence based reasoning by saying I don't know what I'm talking about and tucking tail and running. Have fun.

When you'd like to actually educate yourself on some of these topics, perhaps you should read the wikipedia article I cited. Google works too. Heck, any basic reference on the topic would increase your understanding at this point.

Let me know if you change your mind and want to actually refute something I said. Until then, it's clear to everyone that:

• you are completely clueless about the concept behind the public option
• you think the USDA protects consumers against monopolistic insurance inflation
• if all public schools were privatized, non-existent tax funds will go towards them
• you are incapable of picking up a conversation started by other people

Do you even understand what the waivers are for? Who gets them? Why they get them? Or how long they are for. Doesn't look like it.

 

[WillowTree]

Smarterthanhick you are a real case. Narcissist comes to mind. It is not that you have won anyone over with reasoning and evidence. People get tired of debating with idiots. It is like trying to debate with children. Children pose such inane ideas that you are presented with nothing to debate, just a lot of words. So have fun if you think you have won points but it isn't true. Just like your reasoning was not true but again in your mind, your emotion trumps all reasoning. Emotion, the base of most liberal views and beliefs.

Obama Care is so good that SEIU has asked for and was granted a waiver. They are now one of the over 700 applicants granted a waiver from Obama Care. So believe what you may, SEIU raised 23 million for Obama's election but don't want anything to do with Obama's flagship program - health care.

Waivers aren’t meant to protect people from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes.

Now I broke my own rule and replied to you. Last time though because the aphorism of arguing with the pig is true.

So after I thoroughly shoot you down, you are responding to my evidence based reasoning by saying I don't know what I'm talking about and tucking tail and running. Have fun.

When you'd like to actually educate yourself on some of these topics, perhaps you should read the wikipedia article I cited. Google works too. Heck, any basic reference on the topic would increase your understanding at this point.

Let me know if you change your mind and want to actually refute something I said. Until then, it's clear to everyone that:

• you are completely clueless about the concept behind the public option
• you think the USDA protects consumers against monopolistic insurance inflation
• if all public schools were privatized, non-existent tax funds will go towards them
• you are incapable of picking up a conversation started by other people

Do you even understand what the waivers are for? Who gets them? Why they get them? Or how long they are for. Doesn't look like it.

I know what they're for. They let his special buddies opt out of his special health care cause it's too damn expensive.. Next?

 

[RDD_1210]

Smarterthanhick you are a real case. Narcissist comes to mind. It is not that you have won anyone over with reasoning and evidence. People get tired of debating with idiots. It is like trying to debate with children. Children pose such inane ideas that you are presented with nothing to debate, just a lot of words. So have fun if you think you have won points but it isn't true. Just like your reasoning was not true but again in your mind, your emotion trumps all reasoning. Emotion, the base of most liberal views and beliefs.

Obama Care is so good that SEIU has asked for and was granted a waiver. They are now one of the over 700 applicants granted a waiver from Obama Care. So believe what you may, SEIU raised 23 million for Obama's election but don't want anything to do with Obama's flagship program - health care.

Waivers aren&#8217;t meant to protect people from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes.

Now I broke my own rule and replied to you. Last time though because the aphorism of arguing with the pig is true.

Do you even understand what the waivers are for? Who gets them? Why they get them? Or how long they are for. Doesn't look like it.

I know what they're for. They let his special buddies opt out of his special health care cause it's too damn expensive.. Next?

Incorrect

 

[Big Fitz]

So after I thoroughly shoot you down, you are responding to my evidence based reasoning by saying I don't know what I'm talking about and tucking tail and running. Have fun.

When you'd like to actually educate yourself on some of these topics, perhaps you should read the wikipedia article I cited. Google works too. Heck, any basic reference on the topic would increase your understanding at this point.

Let me know if you change your mind and want to actually refute something I said. Until then, it's clear to everyone that:

• you are completely clueless about the concept behind the public option
• you think the USDA protects consumers against monopolistic insurance inflation
• if all public schools were privatized, non-existent tax funds will go towards them
• you are incapable of picking up a conversation started by other people

Shoot me down? LOL

No. You've proven too small to bother with.

I don't debate people who spout lunacy and ignore points, deliberately misconstrue points, peddle intellectually dishonest examples then move the goalposts when busted on it... then claim victory.

Back to the kiddie pool with you, Dumberthanshit. This is why I never comment to you in religion threads either.

 

[WillowTree]

Do you even understand what the waivers are for? Who gets them? Why they get them? Or how long they are for. Doesn't look like it.

I know what they're for. They let his special buddies opt out of his special health care cause it's too damn expensive.. Next?

Incorrect

S'not