TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
- Jun 11, 2015
- 27,452
- 7,913
Nice rant that says nothing. Interesting how you don't even try to present an argument that is backed up with facts and logic. Try it some time if you know how." Fuck you" Calm down Bubba. It sounds like you're becoming unhinged. I understand, no one wants to be made to look foolish.Clearly you do not have a clue as to what you're talking about. Read it again, slowly. Get help if you need to. It is referring to the supply of health care providers relative to the demand for treatment. It clearly state that the burden the burden for caring for the uninsured falls on the hospitals and the taxpayers, and when a hospital closes, the burden is increased on remaining facilities. If you can't understand that I pity you. You are to blinded by you anti government, anti insurance right wing ideology to see what is right in front of your face. The alternative explanation for your ignorance is far worseDid you read it? Do you know what this means ?:
Yes.
And the fact that it is inelastic means that is going to happen regardless of what you try to do in terms of giving people more insurance.
Fuck you.
Inelastic is inelastic. Deal with it.
All this happens regardless of what we do to insure people.
To many people use the E.R. was one of the foundational bullshit arguments for the A.C.A.
Emergency room visits hit all-time high during ACA implementation
Now for your little Red Herring logical fallacy- the subject is the effects of the uninsured on the health care system and individuals. But you got smacked down on that and now you want to make it about the increase in ER visits since the implementation of the ACA.
Yes that is a problem, but there explanations for it, which you would know if you read past the headline. In any case it in no way refutes anything that I have said.
Keep trying shitface.
Like any left winger, you are a legend in your own mind. And I dare say your first claim isn't true since you make a fool of yourself every time you post.
Next, we started this by examining your willingness to make a (typical) left wing statement calling someone a selfish prick instead of saying the post sounded selfish. But, of course, you can't see that since you walk on water and people lay in front of you so you don't have to walk in dirt.
Then we got to your claims...which your own article defeats.
So I didn't need to refute anything...you took care of it.