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.
I still don't know what your question is. Let me make my position clear. Medicare is a government mandate. Yet, once I became eligible for medicare, I had several options, including several private companies to provide these, and other benefits. if I had my way, everyone in America would be on Medicare.I am with Caremore Advantage health plan. I can switch to United Health or Humana Health Advantage plan any time I want to. If I don't like them,, I can just get my Medicare from the government, instead.
Jukin' and jivin'
If we go single payer, everyone will pay "premiums" (taxes) for government health insurance. Not one private insurance company can force you to buy their product. How do you blind yourself to that difference?
I have paid Medicare taxes all my life, and as I said, in my zip code I have a choice of three insurance companies, or the government for my Medicare.
What does that have to do with my question?
Frankly, I don't understand what your question is.
Do you understand the difference between a private business and government? Namely that government coerces compliance - whereas dealing with a private company is voluntary.
Before Obamacare, there weren't insurers in counties where few people lived. Duh! Do you guys practice stupid?how does Obamacare work without insurers
When you figure this out, let Obama know because he has no idea
No major piece of legislation has ever been perfect the first time. They ALWAYS take tweaks to get them right. Duh! How can you not know that?
It was because of Obamacare that millions had healthcare for the first fucking time. Duh!
If you guys really care, then do something to get insurers into rural areas. Duh!
The right wingers. Determined to be the most ignorant people in the world.
you said:
"It was because of Obamacare that millions had healthcare for the first fucking time."
that statement alone shows the magnitude of your ignorance. before ACA no one in the USA was denied medical care. NO ONE, even those here illegally. Those of us who paid covered the cost of those who could not or would not pay.
having insurance that has a monthly premium of $1000 and a deductible of $5000 means that you pay $17000 out of pocket before the insurance company pays anything. Do you somehow think that is better than what we had before?
the entire left wing argument on this is based on lies.
Before ACA, if you got a diagnosis of cancer, and you had no insurance, you probably died. ER rooms were only obligated to stabilize you, not cure you. Doctors have never been big on operating for free.
that is simply not true. The great cancer treatment centers in this country like MD Anderson, Mayo clinic, Ochsner, Cleveland Clinic, St Judes, etc have always provide treatment to those who were uninsured or could not pay.
the "people died waiting for treatment" lie is left wing propaganda to promote socialized medicine which kills millions in the countries where it is the only system available.
Red, you should write an encyclopedia on misinformation. My daughter is a nurse at Mayo Clinic hospital, and they routinely discharge no paying patients rather than cure them. I have been a health insurance executive for 50 years, and I also worked for Charity hospital before Katrina. You had no insurance, they had some other options. You did not qualify for other options? Make your final arrangements and get out of the bed. We need it for another patient.
I still don't know what your question is. Let me make my position clear. Medicare is a government mandate. Yet, once I became eligible for medicare, I had several options, including several private companies to provide these, and other benefits. if I had my way, everyone in America would be on Medicare.Jukin' and jivin'
If we go single payer, everyone will pay "premiums" (taxes) for government health insurance. Not one private insurance company can force you to buy their product. How do you blind yourself to that difference?
I have paid Medicare taxes all my life, and as I said, in my zip code I have a choice of three insurance companies, or the government for my Medicare.
What does that have to do with my question?
Frankly, I don't understand what your question is.
Do you understand the difference between a private business and government? Namely that government coerces compliance - whereas dealing with a private company is voluntary.
People are not turned away from care for not being able to pay for cancer care. There are several non profit organizations that step in and help patients not only financially but also with transportation to and from appointments and treatments.Before Obamacare, there weren't insurers in counties where few people lived. Duh! Do you guys practice stupid?
No major piece of legislation has ever been perfect the first time. They ALWAYS take tweaks to get them right. Duh! How can you not know that?
It was because of Obamacare that millions had healthcare for the first fucking time. Duh!
If you guys really care, then do something to get insurers into rural areas. Duh!
The right wingers. Determined to be the most ignorant people in the world.
you said:
"It was because of Obamacare that millions had healthcare for the first fucking time."
that statement alone shows the magnitude of your ignorance. before ACA no one in the USA was denied medical care. NO ONE, even those here illegally. Those of us who paid covered the cost of those who could not or would not pay.
having insurance that has a monthly premium of $1000 and a deductible of $5000 means that you pay $17000 out of pocket before the insurance company pays anything. Do you somehow think that is better than what we had before?
the entire left wing argument on this is based on lies.
Before ACA, if you got a diagnosis of cancer, and you had no insurance, you probably died. ER rooms were only obligated to stabilize you, not cure you. Doctors have never been big on operating for free.
that is simply not true. The great cancer treatment centers in this country like MD Anderson, Mayo clinic, Ochsner, Cleveland Clinic, St Judes, etc have always provide treatment to those who were uninsured or could not pay.
the "people died waiting for treatment" lie is left wing propaganda to promote socialized medicine which kills millions in the countries where it is the only system available.
Red, you should write an encyclopedia on misinformation. My daughter is a nurse at Mayo Clinic hospital, and they routinely discharge no paying patients rather than cure them. I have been a health insurance executive for 50 years, and I also worked for Charity hospital before Katrina. You had no insurance, they had some other options. You did not qualify for other options? Make your final arrangements and get out of the bed. We need it for another patient.
Well, my friends and relatives in healthcare tell a completely different story. One relative is guy in his 40s, he has never held a job for more than a week, is an alcoholic and a druggie. I few years ago he had colon cancer. Had surgery to remove it, was on a colostomy for 2 years, then had the colostomy reversed. He never paid a dime, had zero insurance. But received outstanding treatment.
You may be telling the truth about your experiences, but the experiences of others are quite different. I do not believe that Mayo puts people on the street to die if they cant pay.
Anyone else care to weigh in on this?
I still don't know what your question is.Frankly, I don't understand what your question is.
Do you understand the difference between a private business and government? Namely that government coerces compliance - whereas dealing with a private company is voluntary.
If I had my way, everyone in America would be on Medicare.
If I had my way, everyone in America would be on Medicare.
Even if they didn't want to be? Would you feel justified in forcing your preference on everyone else?
I still don't know what your question is. Let me make my position clear. Medicare is a government mandate. Yet, once I became eligible for medicare, I had several options, including several private companies to provide these, and other benefits. if I had my way, everyone in America would be on Medicare.I have paid Medicare taxes all my life, and as I said, in my zip code I have a choice of three insurance companies, or the government for my Medicare.
What does that have to do with my question?
Frankly, I don't understand what your question is.
Do you understand the difference between a private business and government? Namely that government coerces compliance - whereas dealing with a private company is voluntary.
there isn't enough money in the country to put everyone on a medicare like program. Unless you want to tax every working person, rich or poor, at 60% or so.
People are not turned away from care for not being able to pay for cancer care. There are several non profit organizations that step in and help patients not only financially but also with transportation to and from appointments and treatments.you said:
"It was because of Obamacare that millions had healthcare for the first fucking time."
that statement alone shows the magnitude of your ignorance. before ACA no one in the USA was denied medical care. NO ONE, even those here illegally. Those of us who paid covered the cost of those who could not or would not pay.
having insurance that has a monthly premium of $1000 and a deductible of $5000 means that you pay $17000 out of pocket before the insurance company pays anything. Do you somehow think that is better than what we had before?
the entire left wing argument on this is based on lies.
Before ACA, if you got a diagnosis of cancer, and you had no insurance, you probably died. ER rooms were only obligated to stabilize you, not cure you. Doctors have never been big on operating for free.
that is simply not true. The great cancer treatment centers in this country like MD Anderson, Mayo clinic, Ochsner, Cleveland Clinic, St Judes, etc have always provide treatment to those who were uninsured or could not pay.
the "people died waiting for treatment" lie is left wing propaganda to promote socialized medicine which kills millions in the countries where it is the only system available.
Red, you should write an encyclopedia on misinformation. My daughter is a nurse at Mayo Clinic hospital, and they routinely discharge no paying patients rather than cure them. I have been a health insurance executive for 50 years, and I also worked for Charity hospital before Katrina. You had no insurance, they had some other options. You did not qualify for other options? Make your final arrangements and get out of the bed. We need it for another patient.
Well, my friends and relatives in healthcare tell a completely different story. One relative is guy in his 40s, he has never held a job for more than a week, is an alcoholic and a druggie. I few years ago he had colon cancer. Had surgery to remove it, was on a colostomy for 2 years, then had the colostomy reversed. He never paid a dime, had zero insurance. But received outstanding treatment.
You may be telling the truth about your experiences, but the experiences of others are quite different. I do not believe that Mayo puts people on the street to die if they cant pay.
Anyone else care to weigh in on this?
Help with cancer bills
Before Obamacare, there weren't insurers in counties where few people lived. Duh! Do you guys practice stupid?
No major piece of legislation has ever been perfect the first time. They ALWAYS take tweaks to get them right. Duh! How can you not know that?
It was because of Obamacare that millions had healthcare for the first fucking time. Duh!
If you guys really care, then do something to get insurers into rural areas. Duh!
The right wingers. Determined to be the most ignorant people in the world.
you said:
"It was because of Obamacare that millions had healthcare for the first fucking time."
that statement alone shows the magnitude of your ignorance. before ACA no one in the USA was denied medical care. NO ONE, even those here illegally. Those of us who paid covered the cost of those who could not or would not pay.
having insurance that has a monthly premium of $1000 and a deductible of $5000 means that you pay $17000 out of pocket before the insurance company pays anything. Do you somehow think that is better than what we had before?
the entire left wing argument on this is based on lies.
Before ACA, if you got a diagnosis of cancer, and you had no insurance, you probably died. ER rooms were only obligated to stabilize you, not cure you. Doctors have never been big on operating for free.
that is simply not true. The great cancer treatment centers in this country like MD Anderson, Mayo clinic, Ochsner, Cleveland Clinic, St Judes, etc have always provide treatment to those who were uninsured or could not pay.
the "people died waiting for treatment" lie is left wing propaganda to promote socialized medicine which kills millions in the countries where it is the only system available.
Red, you should write an encyclopedia on misinformation. My daughter is a nurse at Mayo Clinic hospital, and they routinely discharge no paying patients rather than cure them. I have been a health insurance executive for 50 years, and I also worked for Charity hospital before Katrina. You had no insurance, they had some other options. You did not qualify for other options? Make your final arrangements and get out of the bed. We need it for another patient.
Well, my friends and relatives in healthcare tell a completely different story. One relative is guy in his 40s, he has never held a job for more than a week, is an alcoholic and a druggie. I few years ago he had colon cancer. Had surgery to remove it, was on a colostomy for 2 years, then had the colostomy reversed. He never paid a dime, had zero insurance. But received outstanding treatment.
You may be telling the truth about your experiences, but the experiences of others are quite different. I do not believe that Mayo puts people on the street to die if they cant pay.
Anyone else care to weigh in on this?
If I had my way, everyone in America would be on Medicare.
Even if they didn't want to be? Would you feel justified in forcing your preference on everyone else?
If I had my way, everyone in America would be on Medicare.
Even if they didn't want to be? Would you feel justified in forcing your preference on everyone else?
don't you understand? liberals know how we all should live. They are so brilliant that they should decide everything for us.
actually they are so f"n dumb they don't even understand that they are requesting that they lose their own freedoms.
I suggest that you protest your loss of freedom by refusing to accept medicare benefits when you are 65.
This is why people feel justified in fighting back. It's exactly this kind of attitude that has created such a caustic political climate. Some people have concluded that the purpose of government is to bully your neighbors. We can do better.If I had my way, everyone in America would be on Medicare.
Even if they didn't want to be? Would you feel justified in forcing your preference on everyone else?
Yes I would.
There would be no difference between you being forced to pay for Medicare all your life, and you being forced to pay for universal health care all of your life.
I suggest that you protest your loss of freedom by refusing to accept medicare benefits when you are 65.
After being forced to fund the program for so many years? What would that prove?
This is why people feel justified in fighting back. It's exactly this kind of attitude that has created such a caustic political climate. Some people have concluded that the purpose of government is to bully your neighbors. We can do better.If I had my way, everyone in America would be on Medicare.
Even if they didn't want to be? Would you feel justified in forcing your preference on everyone else?
Yes I would.
There would be no difference between you being forced to pay for Medicare all your life, and you being forced to pay for universal health care all of your life.
Only in scope - single payer would take over the whole market, rather than just for seniors. But you're right, it's the same principle. This is why some conservatives, and most libertarians, are leary about safety nets programs in the first place. Especially those that 'partner' with 'private' industry. Even when they are, initially, narrowly target at helping the poor, they're almost always used as a wedge to socialize more and more of our economy.
I suggest that you protest your loss of freedom by refusing to accept medicare benefits when you are 65.
After being forced to fund the program for so many years? What would that prove?
This is why people feel justified in fighting back. It's exactly this kind of attitude that has created such a caustic political climate. Some people have concluded that the purpose of government is to bully your neighbors. We can do better.If I had my way, everyone in America would be on Medicare.
Even if they didn't want to be? Would you feel justified in forcing your preference on everyone else?
Yes I would.
There would be no difference between you being forced to pay for Medicare all your life, and you being forced to pay for universal health care all of your life.
Only in scope - single payer would take over the whole market, rather than just for seniors. But you're right, it's the same principle. This is why some conservatives, and most libertarians, are leary about safety nets programs in the first place. Especially those that 'partner' with 'private' industry. Even when they are, initially, narrowly target at helping the poor, they're almost always used as a wedge to socialize more and more of our economy.
Yes, it is a slippery slope. Today, we keep the elderly alive. Tomorrow, we in-crouch on your granddaughter's freedom by repairing the hole in her heart, with which she was born.
I suggest that you protest your loss of freedom by refusing to accept medicare benefits when you are 65.
After being forced to fund the program for so many years? What would that prove?
This is why people feel justified in fighting back. It's exactly this kind of attitude that has created such a caustic political climate. Some people have concluded that the purpose of government is to bully your neighbors. We can do better.If I had my way, everyone in America would be on Medicare.
Even if they didn't want to be? Would you feel justified in forcing your preference on everyone else?
Yes I would.
There would be no difference between you being forced to pay for Medicare all your life, and you being forced to pay for universal health care all of your life.
Only in scope - single payer would take over the whole market, rather than just for seniors. But you're right, it's the same principle. This is why some conservatives, and most libertarians, are leary about safety nets programs in the first place. Especially those that 'partner' with 'private' industry. Even when they are, initially, narrowly target at helping the poor, they're almost always used as a wedge to socialize more and more of our economy.
Yes, it is a slippery slope. Today, we keep the elderly alive. Tomorrow, we in-crouch on your granddaughter's freedom by repairing the hole in her heart, with which she was born.
To write off an argument as a "slippery slope" fallacy, you have to show that the concerns are unwarranted. When people opposed Medicare, on the grounds that it would be used to justify socializing the whole market, they were accused of fearmongering and "slippery slope". But here you are, doing exactly what the 'fearmongers' predicted. Seems the slope is pretty slippery after all, eh?
I suggest that you protest your loss of freedom by refusing to accept medicare benefits when you are 65.
After being forced to fund the program for so many years? What would that prove?
This is why people feel justified in fighting back. It's exactly this kind of attitude that has created such a caustic political climate. Some people have concluded that the purpose of government is to bully your neighbors. We can do better.Even if they didn't want to be? Would you feel justified in forcing your preference on everyone else?
Yes I would.
There would be no difference between you being forced to pay for Medicare all your life, and you being forced to pay for universal health care all of your life.
Only in scope - single payer would take over the whole market, rather than just for seniors. But you're right, it's the same principle. This is why some conservatives, and most libertarians, are leary about safety nets programs in the first place. Especially those that 'partner' with 'private' industry. Even when they are, initially, narrowly target at helping the poor, they're almost always used as a wedge to socialize more and more of our economy.
Yes, it is a slippery slope. Today, we keep the elderly alive. Tomorrow, we in-crouch on your granddaughter's freedom by repairing the hole in her heart, with which she was born.
To write off an argument as a "slippery slope" fallacy, you have to show that the concerns are unwarranted. When people opposed Medicare, on the grounds that it would be used to justify socializing the whole market, they were accused of fearmongering and "slippery slope". But here you are, doing exactly what the 'fearmongers' predicted. Seems the slope is pretty slippery after all, eh?
My health insurance career started in june, 1966, one month before Medicare took effect. It took over 15 years for the Right to quite ranting about how we are all going to live in a communist world, and that it would go broke within 12 months.
i am prepared to hear the same song and dance for another 15 years under universal health coverage.
I suggest that you protest your loss of freedom by refusing to accept medicare benefits when you are 65.
After being forced to fund the program for so many years? What would that prove?
This is why people feel justified in fighting back. It's exactly this kind of attitude that has created such a caustic political climate. Some people have concluded that the purpose of government is to bully your neighbors. We can do better.Yes I would.
There would be no difference between you being forced to pay for Medicare all your life, and you being forced to pay for universal health care all of your life.
Only in scope - single payer would take over the whole market, rather than just for seniors. But you're right, it's the same principle. This is why some conservatives, and most libertarians, are leary about safety nets programs in the first place. Especially those that 'partner' with 'private' industry. Even when they are, initially, narrowly target at helping the poor, they're almost always used as a wedge to socialize more and more of our economy.
Yes, it is a slippery slope. Today, we keep the elderly alive. Tomorrow, we in-crouch on your granddaughter's freedom by repairing the hole in her heart, with which she was born.
To write off an argument as a "slippery slope" fallacy, you have to show that the concerns are unwarranted. When people opposed Medicare, on the grounds that it would be used to justify socializing the whole market, they were accused of fearmongering and "slippery slope". But here you are, doing exactly what the 'fearmongers' predicted. Seems the slope is pretty slippery after all, eh?
My health insurance career started in june, 1966, one month before Medicare took effect. It took over 15 years for the Right to quite ranting about how we are all going to live in a communist world, and that it would go broke within 12 months.
i am prepared to hear the same song and dance for another 15 years under universal health coverage.
So, what's next, after health care?
