|
On January 26 2011 05:32 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:31 Treemonkeys wrote:
Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable. The Patriot Act doesn't allow the federal government to spy on anyone they want. Try again.
This.
|
On January 26 2011 05:32 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:29 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:28 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:27 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:26 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:25 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote:
Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless. What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says? Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Unreasonable search and seizure. Be more specific. What in the Patriot Act allows "unreasonable" searches and seizures? What is the definition of "unreasonable"? Don't ask that question, you don't know what you're getting yourself into. Answering that question takes too long because there are too many scenarios and court cases that define it. I could sit here for an hour and copy paste court cases and their decisions and you wouldn't even have half the concept down. Not. Even. Close.
Oh trust me, I know that, and criminal procedure is one of the areas of law I hated the most given how utterly inconsistent it can be. But I want to see if Treemonkeys knows what he's talking about or if, as I suspect, he's talking out of his ass.
|
On January 26 2011 05:32 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:30 Treemonkeys wrote:
According to the constitution, all powers not explicitly mentioned in the constitution are granted to the states and the people, not the federal government. This makes 95% of what the federal goverment does "illegal." The constitution is irrelevant. Like what? Every single bill passed by Congress has a hook to one of the clauses in the Constitution. Usually interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause, such as the ACA.
It is very specific about what powers it give the federal government, there is no room for magical sophistry to tie all these things together.
|
On January 26 2011 05:33 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:32 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:29 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:28 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:27 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:26 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:25 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote:
Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless. What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says? Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Unreasonable search and seizure. Be more specific. What in the Patriot Act allows "unreasonable" searches and seizures? What is the definition of "unreasonable"? Don't ask that question, you don't know what you're getting yourself into. Answering that question takes too long because there are too many scenarios and court cases that define it. I could sit here for an hour and copy paste court cases and their decisions and you wouldn't even have half the concept down. Not. Even. Close. Oh trust me, I know that, and criminal procedure is one of the areas of law I hated the most given how utterly inconsistent it can be. But I want to see if Treemonkeys knows what he's talking about or if, as I suspect, he's talking out of his ass.
You brought up bad memories of Criminal Procedure. So much reading... FUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuu.
I'm proudly a CSCI major now.
|
On January 26 2011 05:32 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:31 Treemonkeys wrote:
Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable. The Patriot Act doesn't allow the federal government to spy on anyone they want. Try again.
Yeah, you have to be a "terrorist" first. Only you don't get a trial either, so there is absolutely no way to demonstrate you aren't. Which means they can label anyone they want, and spy on them.
WRU critical thinking?
|
On January 26 2011 05:18 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 03:45 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost. Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise. Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more): - doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford Well they are being taken advantage of, but at the same time, they are not paying half the world's military budget, so they can afford it. The USA cannot afford anymore. You don't think doctor's have to take chase their money? This is just flat out ignorant. You obviously have zero experience with handling medical insurance claims. Doctors give free visits all the freaking time, because they cannot collect from insurance companies.
Dear Monkey,
how about you start one of your posts without accusing the people you quote of ignorance, for a start. Contrary to what you may believe, it does not strenghten your point of view but makes you look like an angry kid who is not open to debate.
In Germany, doctors do not have to chase after their money. If they are emplyoed in a hospital, they earn a fixed salary, if they have a practice of their own, they get paid for everything they do by the association of the insurance companies according to a set price list. No trouble, at all. If doctors in the US need to chase after their money despite having insurance companies maybe that is a problem than needs to be worked on.
So, given that our system works exactly the way I described it, and further taking into account that I was referring to this system or similar ones in my post, would you care to elaborate why this was ignorant?
|
On January 26 2011 05:34 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:32 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:30 Treemonkeys wrote:
According to the constitution, all powers not explicitly mentioned in the constitution are granted to the states and the people, not the federal government. This makes 95% of what the federal goverment does "illegal." The constitution is irrelevant. Like what? Every single bill passed by Congress has a hook to one of the clauses in the Constitution. Usually interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause, such as the ACA. It is very specific about what powers it give the federal government, there is no room for magical sophistry to tie all these things together.
No magical sophistry is necessary. The ACA is "necessary and proper" for Congress to regulate the health care market, which being a national market is "interstate commerce."
|
On January 26 2011 05:32 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:29 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:28 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:27 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:26 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:25 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote:
Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless. What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says? Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Unreasonable search and seizure. Be more specific. What in the Patriot Act allows "unreasonable" searches and seizures? What is the definition of "unreasonable"? Don't ask that question, you don't know what you're getting yourself into. Answering that question takes too long because there are too many scenarios and court cases that define it. I could sit here for an hour and copy paste court cases and their decisions and you wouldn't even have half the concept down. Not. Even. Close.
IE we could bullshit about this for hours and you aren't good enough at understanding sophistry.
|
On January 26 2011 05:36 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:34 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:32 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:30 Treemonkeys wrote:
According to the constitution, all powers not explicitly mentioned in the constitution are granted to the states and the people, not the federal government. This makes 95% of what the federal goverment does "illegal." The constitution is irrelevant. Like what? Every single bill passed by Congress has a hook to one of the clauses in the Constitution. Usually interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause, such as the ACA. It is very specific about what powers it give the federal government, there is no room for magical sophistry to tie all these things together. The ACA is "necessary and proper" for Congress to regulate the health care market, which being a national market is "interstate commerce."
We may find out within the next year or two whether this is true. It depends upon whether the Supeme Court accepts that particular issue on cert. However, the Supreme Court will definitely rule on whether the individual mandate is constitutional.
|
On January 26 2011 05:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:18 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 03:45 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost. Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise. Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more): - doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford Well they are being taken advantage of, but at the same time, they are not paying half the world's military budget, so they can afford it. The USA cannot afford anymore. You don't think doctor's have to take chase their money? This is just flat out ignorant. You obviously have zero experience with handling medical insurance claims. Doctors give free visits all the freaking time, because they cannot collect from insurance companies. Dear Monkey, how about you start one of your posts without accusing the people you quote of ignorance, for a start. Contrary to what you may believe, it does not strenghten your point of view but makes you look like an angry kid who is not open to debate. In Germany, doctors do not have to chase after their money. If they are emplyoed in a hospital, they earn a fixed salary, if they have a practice of their own, they get paid for everything they do by the association of the insurance companies according to a set price list. No trouble, at all. If doctors in the US need to chase after their money despite having insurance companies maybe that is a problem than needs to be worked on. So, given that our system works exactly the way I described it, and further taking into account that I was referring to this system or similar ones in my post, would you care to elaborate why this was ignorant?
My point of view needs no strengthening, but alas, the propaganda machine is far more than I could ever compete with. So I say fuck it, and say what I want to say. I have been given an alternate viewpoint that steps outside the daily propaganda, and it is something 99% of americans will never be able or even want to understand. Sometimes the truth hurts, and sometimes people become delusional when they hear it.
I don't know anything about how it works in germany, but I am quite experienced here in the USA, and doctors have to chase their money, and each and every claim is also a risk.
|
On January 26 2011 05:41 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 05:18 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 03:45 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost. Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise. Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more): - doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford Well they are being taken advantage of, but at the same time, they are not paying half the world's military budget, so they can afford it. The USA cannot afford anymore. You don't think doctor's have to take chase their money? This is just flat out ignorant. You obviously have zero experience with handling medical insurance claims. Doctors give free visits all the freaking time, because they cannot collect from insurance companies. Dear Monkey, how about you start one of your posts without accusing the people you quote of ignorance, for a start. Contrary to what you may believe, it does not strenghten your point of view but makes you look like an angry kid who is not open to debate. In Germany, doctors do not have to chase after their money. If they are emplyoed in a hospital, they earn a fixed salary, if they have a practice of their own, they get paid for everything they do by the association of the insurance companies according to a set price list. No trouble, at all. If doctors in the US need to chase after their money despite having insurance companies maybe that is a problem than needs to be worked on. So, given that our system works exactly the way I described it, and further taking into account that I was referring to this system or similar ones in my post, would you care to elaborate why this was ignorant? I don't know anything about how it works in germany, but I am quite experienced here in the USA, and doctors have to chase their money, and each and every claim is also a risk.
Monkey is 100% correct on this point.
|
On January 26 2011 05:37 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:32 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:29 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:28 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:27 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:26 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:25 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote:
Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless. What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says? Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Unreasonable search and seizure. Be more specific. What in the Patriot Act allows "unreasonable" searches and seizures? What is the definition of "unreasonable"? Don't ask that question, you don't know what you're getting yourself into. Answering that question takes too long because there are too many scenarios and court cases that define it. I could sit here for an hour and copy paste court cases and their decisions and you wouldn't even have half the concept down. Not. Even. Close. IE we could bullshit about this for hours and you aren't good enough at understanding sophistry.
Not an insult, just being truthful.
It's more like it takes an entire of semester of college to grasp the concept of reasonability because it is often a case-by-case basis based on scenarios. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you close to door on your phone booth. Define curtilage and it's characteristics. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy if a law enforcing agency decides to fly over your base and scout your mans(Lol EPA vs DOW). I can go on all day on this crap, but I don't want to.
Want to know what it means to be reasonable? Read every court case ever decided on it and try to compare it to the patriot act. If you REALLY want to grasp what it takes to understand what is reasonable, enroll in a criminal procedures class and find out then come back and tell us.
If I still had my book, I might actually be willing to link you court cases on searches and seizures.
|
On January 26 2011 05:22 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:18 silynxer wrote:On January 26 2011 05:09 TanGeng wrote:
It is insulating people from the true cost of risky behavior. This is the definition of moral hazard. Learn it. So why are the people in Europe not living unhealthier then? If the true cost of risky behavior is insulated but people are behaving less risky it hardly qualifies as moral hazard. There are moral hazards in the US system. There are other extraneous contributing factors beyond the health care sectors, most notably a subsidized and distorted food market.
So what about "number of broken bones" as an indicator (I'm going to bet that it is pretty much the same in the US as in most parts of Europe, perhaps I'll try to find statistics on this later)?
Should this be explained through "riskier culture" so that the American culture would be moral hazardous in itself?
But then again before I digress further, I think you would be hard pressed to show that free healthcare leads to riskier behaviour.
To expand on my edit: The true cost of pretty much everything healthcare related remains hidden from the people even if they pay the full price (my examples were vaccination and regular check ups).
[EDIT]: Really interesting and the timing is so good: TED talk
|
On January 26 2011 05:41 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 05:18 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 03:45 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost. Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise. Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more): - doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford Well they are being taken advantage of, but at the same time, they are not paying half the world's military budget, so they can afford it. The USA cannot afford anymore. You don't think doctor's have to take chase their money? This is just flat out ignorant. You obviously have zero experience with handling medical insurance claims. Doctors give free visits all the freaking time, because they cannot collect from insurance companies. Dear Monkey, how about you start one of your posts without accusing the people you quote of ignorance, for a start. Contrary to what you may believe, it does not strenghten your point of view but makes you look like an angry kid who is not open to debate. In Germany, doctors do not have to chase after their money. If they are emplyoed in a hospital, they earn a fixed salary, if they have a practice of their own, they get paid for everything they do by the association of the insurance companies according to a set price list. No trouble, at all. If doctors in the US need to chase after their money despite having insurance companies maybe that is a problem than needs to be worked on. So, given that our system works exactly the way I described it, and further taking into account that I was referring to this system or similar ones in my post, would you care to elaborate why this was ignorant? My point of view needs no strengthening, but alas, the propaganda machine is far more than I could ever compete with. So I say fuck it, and say what I want to say. I have been given an alternate viewpoint that steps outside the daily propaganda, and it is something 99% of americans will never be able or even want to understand. Sometimes the truth hurts, and sometimes people become delusional when they hear it.
This is what psychologists call a classical projection. Is there the possibility that you merely subsrcibe to another sort of propaganda? Just saying because your arguments are in no way new or extraordinary to me but merely based on a fundamentally different ideology. With regards to understanding them, there is a fundamental difference between acknowledging the internal consistency of your arguments (i.e. understanding them logically) and understanding why you hold those views (lets call that a moral or socio-emotionjal level).
I don't know anything about how it works in germany, but I am quite experienced here in the USA, and doctors have to chase their money, and each and every claim is also a risk.
Well, sorry to hear that people in the US enjoy not paying their bills at the cost of doctors and ultimately the patients. On the other hand, that does not limit the validity of my point in any way.
|
On January 26 2011 05:35 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:32 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:31 Treemonkeys wrote:
Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable. The Patriot Act doesn't allow the federal government to spy on anyone they want. Try again. Yeah, you have to be a "terrorist" first. Only you don't get a trial either, so there is absolutely no way to demonstrate you aren't. Which means they can label anyone they want, and spy on them. WRU critical thinking?
Before I simply say you are wrong (which you mostly are), I'd like some clarification. What sort of "spying" are we talking about? And what do you mean by "be a terrorist"? Is there some process involved?
|
This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
|
On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote:
This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion.
Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
|
On January 26 2011 06:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote:
This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism. Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion. Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
What's simplistic and childish about satire that is actually true?
|
On January 26 2011 06:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote:
This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism. Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion. Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
Why not?
|
On January 26 2011 06:34 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote:
This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism. Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion. Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it. What's simplistic and childish about satire that is actually true?
Because it's not true and demonstrates a laughable ignorance on the matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
