Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That moment you wish you had not already completely destroyed your credibility.Quote:
Comparatively, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., told reporters that Morrison had corroborated some of the earlier testimony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7FsAgPuVwU
So this is your insane policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Don't worry about the essentials to maintaining a long healthy life let's just insure it.
This completely defies any reasonable logic. That asside.
Healthcare is a service just like any other service. I'll use my daughter as an example as she just got her RN last year and is working on her PA. The last 5 years of her life have consisted of driving to her full time job (70 mile round trip), going to classes every day (60 mile round trip), being a mother to her 2 children and maintaining a marriage. She will get to do this for another 3 - 4 years.
And you assholes want those services for free?
Seriously, get the fuck out of here.
Never said free and I think professionals should be compensated fully for their time and effort. My point is a mandatory insurance system not only ensures that folks have coverage to care for their long-term and emergent needs, but as all insurances work for everyone ten covered healthy persons you have one very ill person their premiums are compensating.
The idea of a single payer socialised system, or a national basic income makes me sick to my stomach. I too am a professional that has fought for and earned every dime and to think folks feel they deserve my income in exchange for their laziness is appalling.
You're against a single payer/socialized system because you don't think others deserve your income, yet you're in favor of mandatory health insurance. This makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
What confuses you? Mandatory insurance, whether it's through a PPO, HMO or private insurance put together by the state like HealthNet in California, they all require people with incomes to pay a share of the premium. Those premiums pay for the care reimbursements of the sick, which is exactly why ACA was such a major boon for insurers. More enrollees means less out of pocket expenses.
You're right, I didn't ask you to specify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Should insurance companies be able to charge people more if they are in bad health or make bad health choices (like smoking or drinking a lot)?
Quote:
(((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio
Verified account
@jasonrantz
Follow Follow @jasonrantz
More
Today on the House floor, @replouiegohmert ripped into Democrats on the "gross unfairness" and secrecy of the impeachment process. He calls the attempts to impeach @realDonaldTrump a "coup".
https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/statu...64710671953920
Bad health, no. Now what's going to get me in trouble is believing that someone should reasonably expect to pay higher premiums for smoking, excessive drinking, habitually abusing narcotics, etc., because yes it does cost a plan so much more for folks who are self abusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Okay so how is this insurance? I know I know, "it's not their fault they are in bad health!" Firstly: That's not necessarily true. Secondly: It doesn't really matter because insurance is a risk game. If you are more likely to use the services of said insurance company than you are going to pay more than the person who is less likely to use said services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
We might as well just all pay a national tax to go towards health insurance costs, something you said you were against.
All of a sudden it's not free healthcare anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Though you think professionals should be fully compensated you are asking the government to decide what my daughters income will be. We really seem to be seeing a push to limit those professionals income who have spent their early adult lives learning to produce new medicines.
Here is another interesting tidbit that is kind of blowing my mind:
"The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation reports that there are over 968,000 practicing physicians in the United States."
How do you suggest we treat 350,000,000 with roughly 1 million physicians while more government involvement will only further disincentivise people from entering these fields?
Maybe it's best that people like you, the government, insurance companies, shut the fuck up, get out of these peoples way and let them work directly with their patients. All three of you are basically an impediment to these people who have invested massive amounts of time and money to be able to offer these services.
This is just one of many countless examples of how little the government fucking cares:
When I was out in Washington our employer had a rep. from one of these cash only "healthcare coops" meet with us. It was $100 a month for a family and basically covered everything but major medical care. The problem? This still didn't count as insurance so you still get your annual government lashing for not having insurance.Quote:
If you’re on Medicaid, it can be challenging to afford the extra expense of a cash-only doctor. Some cash-only doctors provide discounted or even free care to Medicaid recipients on a case-by-case basis. Currently, only one bill, H.R. 3315, has attempted to bridge the gap between Medicaid recipients and cash-only doctors by reimbursing monthly membership fees. However, the bill died in Congress and, thus far, no other bill has taken its place.