Democrat Kamala Harris obliterated on Twitter...AGAIN

[Seawytch]

The linked article did explain to you how you were wrong in your claim that taxpayers don't pay for St Ronald's law. They do, to the tune of billions.

You're so profoundly wrong on all of this that you can't even figure out whose law it was. This is yet another illustration of how ignorant you are of how your own government operates. The President does not - and cannot - create law, snowflake. It was Tip O'Neill and the Dumbocrats in Congress who created the law. But of course, you never accept the ineptitude and catastrophic failures of your side of the aisle.

So please enlighten us - what governing body did hospitals submit reimbursements to for patients treated that didn't have any coverage? I'll wait...

He signed it into law with great fanfare after it was overwhelming passed by a majority in the House and Senate. It's St Ronnie's law.


The health care services received by uninsured individuals that they do not pay for themselves are picked up or “absorbed” by a number of parties, including:

• practitioners and institutions, both public and private, that serve the uninsured at no charge or reduced charges;
• the federal government, localities, and states that support the operation of hospitals and clinics, both through direct appropriations and implicit subsidies like the Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments; and
• philanthropic donations.

Spending on Health Care for Uninsured Americans: How Much, and Who Pays? - Hidden Costs, Values Lost - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[P@triot]

He signed it into law with great fanfare after it was overwhelming passed by a majority in the House and Senate. It's St Ronnie's law.

Sweetie....it was Tip O'Neill and the Dumbocrats who wrote the law, who voted on the law, and who passed the law. I understand that you're ashamed of how your party always creates failed legislation but everyone here knows that a President who adheres to the U.S. Constitution (such as Ronald Reagan) cannot create law. Epic Fail #1

The health care services received by uninsured individuals that they do not pay for themselves are picked up or “absorbed” by a number of parties

None of which are the tax payers. Epic Fail #2

practitioners and institutions, both public and private, that serve the uninsured at no charge or reduced charges

In other words....the charitable deeds of providers and facilities. Absolutely no tax payer dollars in this one. Oops... Epic Fail #3

the federal government, localities, and states that support the operation of hospitals and clinics, both through direct appropriations and implicit subsidies like the Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments

Well we said those without coverage and specifically cited that that eliminates people with Medicare and Medicaid as I knew some of our more dimwitted friends on the left would step forward and try to make the case that the tax payers picked up the cost on those patients (which is true - but irrelevant as having Medicare or Medicaid means one is covered). Epic Fail #4

philanthropic donations

Spending on Health Care for Uninsured Americans: How Much, and Who Pays? - Hidden Costs, Values Lost - NCBI Bookshelf

In other words - more charitable deeds. Epic Fail #5

By the way - you forgot the biggest portion is covered by the hospital eating the cost initially and then passing it on to all of its insured patients to make up for the costs. That's how idiot socialism works. I pay 4x's the cost of my healthcare to cover the healthcare costs for 3 of you left-wing parasites who mooch off of me.

Please stop while your ahead my dear. I'm literally embarrassed for you. I'm trying to spare you a shred of credibility but you're destroying it with lie after lie after lie.

 

[Pogo]

Healthcare is labor provided by others. You do not have a right to another persons labor. The 13th amendment ended that argument definitively

Sorry --- "care" is not "labor".

It comes down to what is a "right". You have the right to free speech, for example. That requires no effort on anyone else's part, it only prevents others from shutting you up. You can stand on a street corner and say political things, but no one is obligated to purchase a sound system and give you a microphone. A "right" to healthcare, OTOH, means that you can demand that others put forth effort on your behalf. Someone has to build hospitals, supply a lot of medical goods, pay doctors, nurses and orderlies. That's the difference.

And once again ---- as I already pointed out to the original poster who then ran away --- I said nothing about any "rights". Both of you are trying to shift the point somewhere else because you can't handle the one on the table.

Literacy is a lost art.

 

[Seawytch]

He signed it into law with great fanfare after it was overwhelming passed by a majority in the House and Senate. It's St Ronnie's law.

Sweetie....it was Tip O'Neill and the Dumbocrats who wrote the law, who voted on the law, and who passed the law. I understand that you're ashamed of how your party always creates failed legislation but everyone here knows that a President who adheres to the U.S. Constitution (such as Ronald Reagan) cannot create law. Epic Fail #1

The health care services received by uninsured individuals that they do not pay for themselves are picked up or “absorbed” by a number of parties

None of which are the tax payers. Epic Fail #2

practitioners and institutions, both public and private, that serve the uninsured at no charge or reduced charges

In other words....the charitable deeds of providers and facilities. Absolutely no tax payer dollars in this one. Oops... Epic Fail #3

the federal government, localities, and states that support the operation of hospitals and clinics, both through direct appropriations and implicit subsidies like the Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments

Well we said those without coverage and specifically cited that that eliminates people with Medicare and Medicaid as I knew some of our more dimwitted friends on the left would step forward and try to make the case that the tax payers picked up the cost on those patients (which is true - but irrelevant as having Medicare or Medicaid means one is covered). Epic Fail #4

philanthropic donations

Spending on Health Care for Uninsured Americans: How Much, and Who Pays? - Hidden Costs, Values Lost - NCBI Bookshelf

In other words - more charitable deeds. Epic Fail #5

By the way - you forgot the biggest portion is covered by the hospital eating the cost initially and then passing it on to all of its insured patients to make up for the costs. That's how idiot socialism works. I pay 4x's the cost of my healthcare to cover the healthcare costs for 3 of you left-wing parasites who mooch off of me.

Please stop while your ahead my dear. I'm literally embarrassed for you. I'm trying to spare you a shred of credibility but you're destroying it with lie after lie after lie.

Yes, that's it... focus on anything other than how wrong you were about who pays the costs. If Ronny wasn't responsible, what are you so upset about.? According to you it's not really Saint Reagan's fault that the taxpayers pay the costs for the bill he signed into law.

 

[P@triot]

If Ronny wasn't responsible, what are you so upset about.?

The fact that you have to ask that question illustrates just how much you don't get it. For starters, lets make it clear that unlike you people, I do not set out to defend any person or action because it's on "my side" of the aisle. I'll be the first one to call Ronald Reagan out for any actions he did that were wrong.

Second - and far more importantly - what am I so upset about? The fact that the federal government unconstitutionally forced private enterprise to provide their labor at no cost. That's called slavery and we outlawed that shit in the 1860's. Sadly, your side of the aisle did everything they could to prevent the end of slavery back then and you've continued to find ways to manipulate government into restoring it right up to today.

 

[Slade3200]

If Ronny wasn't responsible, what are you so upset about.?

The fact that you have to ask that question illustrates just how much you don't get it. For starters, lets make it clear that unlike you people, I do not set out to defend any person or action because it's on "my side" of the aisle. I'll be the first one to call Ronald Reagan out for any actions he did that were wrong.

Second - and far more importantly - what am I so upset about? The fact that the federal government unconstitutionally forced private enterprise to provide their labor at no cost. That's called slavery and we outlawed that shit in the 1860's. Sadly, your side of the aisle did everything they could to prevent the end of slavery back then and you've continued to find ways to manipulate government into restoring it right up to today.

Haha, are you really comparing cotton picking slaves to doctors and hopital executives who drive to work in their mercedes and porches?

 

[P@triot]

Haha, are you really comparing cotton picking slaves to doctors and hopital executives who drive to work in their mercedes and porches?

So as long as blacks had a horse and nice carriage in the 1860's while they were picking cotton - it wouldn't have been slavery in your mind?

Slavery has nothing to do with personal possessions. It has to do with being forced to perform labor.

 

[Slade3200]

Haha, are you really comparing cotton picking slaves to doctors and hopital executives who drive to work in their mercedes and porches?

So as long as blacks had a horse and nice carriage in the 1860's while they were picking cotton - it wouldn't have been slavery in your mind?

Slavery has nothing to do with personal possessions. It has to do with being forced to perform labor.

You've got a pretty fucked up minset dude. Nobody is being forced to do anything. If one chooses to go into the medical field there are curtain regulations to go along with the extreme wealth they will obtain. Your gonna lose every time with your slavery arguement. I suggest you find another

 

[hadit]

Healthcare is labor provided by others. You do not have a right to another persons labor. The 13th amendment ended that argument definitively

Sorry --- "care" is not "labor".

It comes down to what is a "right". You have the right to free speech, for example. That requires no effort on anyone else's part, it only prevents others from shutting you up. You can stand on a street corner and say political things, but no one is obligated to purchase a sound system and give you a microphone. A "right" to healthcare, OTOH, means that you can demand that others put forth effort on your behalf. Someone has to build hospitals, supply a lot of medical goods, pay doctors, nurses and orderlies. That's the difference.

And once again ---- as I already pointed out to the original poster who then ran away --- I said nothing about any "rights". Both of you are trying to shift the point somewhere else because you can't handle the one on the table.

Literacy is a lost art.

The bottom line is, healthcare cannot be a fundamental right because someone else has to provide it.

 

[Pogo]

Healthcare is labor provided by others. You do not have a right to another persons labor. The 13th amendment ended that argument definitively

Sorry --- "care" is not "labor".

It comes down to what is a "right". You have the right to free speech, for example. That requires no effort on anyone else's part, it only prevents others from shutting you up. You can stand on a street corner and say political things, but no one is obligated to purchase a sound system and give you a microphone. A "right" to healthcare, OTOH, means that you can demand that others put forth effort on your behalf. Someone has to build hospitals, supply a lot of medical goods, pay doctors, nurses and orderlies. That's the difference.

And once again ---- as I already pointed out to the original poster who then ran away --- I said nothing about any "rights". Both of you are trying to shift the point somewhere else because you can't handle the one on the table.

Literacy is a lost art.

The bottom line is, healthcare cannot be a fundamental right because someone else has to provide it.

The bottom line is that I never brought up "rights" at all -- that's what you're trying to change the subject to.

The more immediate bottom line is that I just pointed this out and it whizzed right over your head. And there you are expecting different results.

 

[hadit]

Healthcare is labor provided by others. You do not have a right to another persons labor. The 13th amendment ended that argument definitively

Sorry --- "care" is not "labor".

It comes down to what is a "right". You have the right to free speech, for example. That requires no effort on anyone else's part, it only prevents others from shutting you up. You can stand on a street corner and say political things, but no one is obligated to purchase a sound system and give you a microphone. A "right" to healthcare, OTOH, means that you can demand that others put forth effort on your behalf. Someone has to build hospitals, supply a lot of medical goods, pay doctors, nurses and orderlies. That's the difference.

And once again ---- as I already pointed out to the original poster who then ran away --- I said nothing about any "rights". Both of you are trying to shift the point somewhere else because you can't handle the one on the table.

Literacy is a lost art.

The bottom line is, healthcare cannot be a fundamental right because someone else has to provide it.

The bottom line is that I never brought up "rights" at all -- that's what you're trying to change the subject to.

The more immediate bottom line is that I just pointed this out and it whizzed right over your head. And there you are expecting different results.

You posted that "care" is not "labor" in response to a poster making the point that healthcare is labor provided by others, and thus is not something anyone has a right to. You most certainly were talking about rights.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry --- "care" is not "labor".

It comes down to what is a "right". You have the right to free speech, for example. That requires no effort on anyone else's part, it only prevents others from shutting you up. You can stand on a street corner and say political things, but no one is obligated to purchase a sound system and give you a microphone. A "right" to healthcare, OTOH, means that you can demand that others put forth effort on your behalf. Someone has to build hospitals, supply a lot of medical goods, pay doctors, nurses and orderlies. That's the difference.

And once again ---- as I already pointed out to the original poster who then ran away --- I said nothing about any "rights". Both of you are trying to shift the point somewhere else because you can't handle the one on the table.

Literacy is a lost art.

The bottom line is, healthcare cannot be a fundamental right because someone else has to provide it.

The bottom line is that I never brought up "rights" at all -- that's what you're trying to change the subject to.

The more immediate bottom line is that I just pointed this out and it whizzed right over your head. And there you are expecting different results.

You posted that "care" is not "labor" in response to a poster making the point that healthcare is labor provided by others, and thus is not something anyone has a right to. You most certainly were talking about rights.

You must have ordered the lead paint special. SMH

 

[hadit]

It comes down to what is a "right". You have the right to free speech, for example. That requires no effort on anyone else's part, it only prevents others from shutting you up. You can stand on a street corner and say political things, but no one is obligated to purchase a sound system and give you a microphone. A "right" to healthcare, OTOH, means that you can demand that others put forth effort on your behalf. Someone has to build hospitals, supply a lot of medical goods, pay doctors, nurses and orderlies. That's the difference.

And once again ---- as I already pointed out to the original poster who then ran away --- I said nothing about any "rights". Both of you are trying to shift the point somewhere else because you can't handle the one on the table.

Literacy is a lost art.

The bottom line is, healthcare cannot be a fundamental right because someone else has to provide it.

The bottom line is that I never brought up "rights" at all -- that's what you're trying to change the subject to.

The more immediate bottom line is that I just pointed this out and it whizzed right over your head. And there you are expecting different results.

You posted that "care" is not "labor" in response to a poster making the point that healthcare is labor provided by others, and thus is not something anyone has a right to. You most certainly were talking about rights.

You must have ordered the lead paint special. SMH

If you want to make a point in a vacuum, don't reply to a previous post. I thought that was obvious.

 

[Pogo]

And once again ---- as I already pointed out to the original poster who then ran away --- I said nothing about any "rights". Both of you are trying to shift the point somewhere else because you can't handle the one on the table.

Literacy is a lost art.

The bottom line is, healthcare cannot be a fundamental right because someone else has to provide it.

The bottom line is that I never brought up "rights" at all -- that's what you're trying to change the subject to.

The more immediate bottom line is that I just pointed this out and it whizzed right over your head. And there you are expecting different results.

You posted that "care" is not "labor" in response to a poster making the point that healthcare is labor provided by others, and thus is not something anyone has a right to. You most certainly were talking about rights.

You must have ordered the lead paint special. SMH

If you want to make a point in a vacuum, don't reply to a previous post. I thought that was obvious.

The only vacuum seems to be between your ear canals. Once again for the shortbus set --- I made no mention of "rights". At all. Anywhere. I actually pointed that out already to the poster to whom I was actually posting, correcting him on exactly that--- and he then ran away. Now here you come in with the same move-the-goalpost play expecting --- what, different results?