Government health care draws sick people away from God’

[Disir]

Actually, government health care is going to tear children out of their future. Just who do you think is going to pay or it all, when the government has 20 trillion in debt and a other 100+ trillion in liabilities?

Of course, the young won't stand for this blind robbery. They have a very good idea on who is destined to pay for all these leftist promises. Not surprisingly, the new generation, which should be called the "betrayed generation" is somewhere to the Right of Hitler.

Only a leftist is crazy enough to enslave his children in pursuit of the Marxist utopia.

I pay taxes.

You pay so much that a debt of 20 trillion and unfunded liabilities of 120 trillion is what is still unpaid for. The monolithic debt just calls for more government programs to be paid by the innocent young, doesn't it? It was easy to pretend these leftist policies are the be all end all, when all the costs were rolled to the unborn, wasn't it?

And of course, almost half the people don't even pay income taxes. Just roll it all to children, and then wonder why they became so RW, when your policies destroyed their future.

You don't give a rats ass about the innocent young.

Cut the crap.

 

[Norman]

Actually, government health care is going to tear children out of their future. Just who do you think is going to pay or it all, when the government has 20 trillion in debt and a other 100+ trillion in liabilities?

Of course, the young won't stand for this blind robbery. They have a very good idea on who is destined to pay for all these leftist promises. Not surprisingly, the new generation, which should be called the "betrayed generation" is somewhere to the Right of Hitler.

Only a leftist is crazy enough to enslave his children in pursuit of the Marxist utopia.

I pay taxes.

You pay so much that a debt of 20 trillion and unfunded liabilities of 120 trillion is what is still unpaid for. The monolithic debt just calls for more government programs to be paid by the innocent young, doesn't it? It was easy to pretend these leftist policies are the be all end all, when all the costs were rolled to the unborn, wasn't it?

And of course, almost half the people don't even pay income taxes. Just roll it all to children, and then wonder why they became so RW, when your policies destroyed their future.

You don't give a rats ass about the innocent young.

Cut the crap.

And yet, you are the one who wants to drown them in debt in order to make stupid policies sound like they are in any way sensible.

But yeah, indeed, you are getting a bit old so wouldn't it be nice if those young ones would pay all of your health care in addition to retirement and other social security. You care so much about them... Liabilities, obligations and debt for them, free shit for you.

 

[RodISHI]

You need to keep abreast of things. He declined Trump's consideration. Now, you can leave him alone and go back to your regularly scheduled tearing down of this nation.

Dr. Mark Green, Tennessee State Senator for District 22, serves as the Vice-Chair of the Senate Commerce and Insurance Committee as well as a member of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committees. He is the Chaplain of the Senate GOP Caucus and was selected as the Tennessee Journal’s Rookie of the year in 2013 and has won legislator of the year for numerous organizations. He recently won recognition as the NFIB’s Guardian of Small Business. Mark was also recognized as one of GOPAC’s top 21 Emerging Leaders for the Country.


I know. Get rid of this mother fucker.

Couldn't read and process my post can you? Typical LWNJ.

Have you ever read the Constitution about there not being a religious test to hold any office?

Didn't think so!

Actually Twat- I understand the Constitution just fine. What I dislike is anyone who is proposing putting "free" medical clinics in churches so they can get God.

What's it to you if someone else is providing "free medical clinics". Do you have a problem with other people having freedom of choice or it that merely for you and those who think like you?

It's placing the free clinics which are government funded inside churches so that people can "get God". That is an issue.

Actually, government health care is going to tear children out of their future. Just who do you think is going to pay or it all, when the government has 20 trillion in debt and a other 100+ trillion in liabilities?

Of course, the young won't stand for this blind robbery. They have a very good idea on who is destined to pay for all these leftist promises. Not surprisingly, the new generation, which should be called the "betrayed generation" is somewhere to the Right of Hitler.

Only a leftist is crazy enough to enslave his children in pursuit of the Marxist utopia.

I pay taxes.

You pay them in Tennessee too? I say he stays.

http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/...e-among-states-most-dependent-on-federal.html


Doncha think you ought to see what he is about before cheer leading or is it just because he is a Republican? You're starting to sound like a Democrat.

The article link tells us this state is third for receiving funds, not a direct connection to your complaint wanting to replace another states representative. It doesn't equate in that directly.

His hope to set up free clinics doesn't say "I wanna set up free clinics and make someone else pay for it".

I had desired to use my profits from my mining operation to help others once my debt obligation was freed and the control freaks that hate God, along with hating those who believe can't stand the idea of someone else having a "vision". They couldn't see that happening either so they purposely went after me. Get back to everyone when he says he wants someone else to pay for his dreams and visions.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Dr. Mark Green, Tennessee State Senator for District 22, serves as the Vice-Chair of the Senate Commerce and Insurance Committee as well as a member of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committees. He is the Chaplain of the Senate GOP Caucus and was selected as the Tennessee Journal’s Rookie of the year in 2013 and has won legislator of the year for numerous organizations. He recently won recognition as the NFIB’s Guardian of Small Business. Mark was also recognized as one of GOPAC’s top 21 Emerging Leaders for the Country.


I know. Get rid of this mother fucker.

Couldn't read and process my post can you? Typical LWNJ.

Have you ever read the Constitution about there not being a religious test to hold any office?

Didn't think so!

Actually Twat- I understand the Constitution just fine. What I dislike is anyone who is proposing putting "free" medical clinics in churches so they can get God.

No, you obviously do not, or at least what you posted indicates you do not.

Since he is not your representative, you can merely stuff your complaints where the sun does not shine.

Grow up.

I grew up a long time ago. When are you going to learn to read?

Steve Spurrier on the Alabama library fire.
On a fire at the Auburn library that destroyed 20 books: “The real tragedy was that 15 hadn’t been colored yet.”

 

[Disir]

Dr. Mark Green, Tennessee State Senator for District 22, serves as the Vice-Chair of the Senate Commerce and Insurance Committee as well as a member of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committees. He is the Chaplain of the Senate GOP Caucus and was selected as the Tennessee Journal’s Rookie of the year in 2013 and has won legislator of the year for numerous organizations. He recently won recognition as the NFIB’s Guardian of Small Business. Mark was also recognized as one of GOPAC’s top 21 Emerging Leaders for the Country.


I know. Get rid of this mother fucker.

Couldn't read and process my post can you? Typical LWNJ.

Have you ever read the Constitution about there not being a religious test to hold any office?

Didn't think so!

Actually Twat- I understand the Constitution just fine. What I dislike is anyone who is proposing putting "free" medical clinics in churches so they can get God.

What's it to you if someone else is providing "free medical clinics". Do you have a problem with other people having freedom of choice or it that merely for you and those who think like you?

It's placing the free clinics which are government funded inside churches so that people can "get God". That is an issue.

Actually, government health care is going to tear children out of their future. Just who do you think is going to pay or it all, when the government has 20 trillion in debt and a other 100+ trillion in liabilities?

Of course, the young won't stand for this blind robbery. They have a very good idea on who is destined to pay for all these leftist promises. Not surprisingly, the new generation, which should be called the "betrayed generation" is somewhere to the Right of Hitler.

Only a leftist is crazy enough to enslave his children in pursuit of the Marxist utopia.

I pay taxes.

You pay them in Tennessee too? I say he stays.

http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/...e-among-states-most-dependent-on-federal.html


Doncha think you ought to see what he is about before cheer leading or is it just because he is a Republican? You're starting to sound like a Democrat.

The article link tells us this state is third for receiving funds, not a direct connection to your complaint wanting to replace another states representative. It doesn't equate in that directly.

His hope to set up free clinics doesn't say "I wanna set up free clinics and make someone else pay for it".

I had desired to use my profits from my mining operation to help others once my debt obligation was freed and the control freaks that hate God, along with those who believe can't stand the idea of someone else having a "vision". They couldn't see that happening either so they purposely went after me. Get back to everyone when he says he wants someone else to pay for his dreams and visions.

His goal is conversion. Where do you think that money comes from? Further, I post articles all of the time in the religious section there is no way that I qualify in your people that hate God. You're making shit up.

 

[RodISHI]

Couldn't read and process my post can you? Typical LWNJ.

Have you ever read the Constitution about there not being a religious test to hold any office?

Didn't think so!

Actually Twat- I understand the Constitution just fine. What I dislike is anyone who is proposing putting "free" medical clinics in churches so they can get God.

What's it to you if someone else is providing "free medical clinics". Do you have a problem with other people having freedom of choice or it that merely for you and those who think like you?

It's placing the free clinics which are government funded inside churches so that people can "get God". That is an issue.

Actually, government health care is going to tear children out of their future. Just who do you think is going to pay or it all, when the government has 20 trillion in debt and a other 100+ trillion in liabilities?

Of course, the young won't stand for this blind robbery. They have a very good idea on who is destined to pay for all these leftist promises. Not surprisingly, the new generation, which should be called the "betrayed generation" is somewhere to the Right of Hitler.

Only a leftist is crazy enough to enslave his children in pursuit of the Marxist utopia.

I pay taxes.

You pay them in Tennessee too? I say he stays.

http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/...e-among-states-most-dependent-on-federal.html


Doncha think you ought to see what he is about before cheer leading or is it just because he is a Republican? You're starting to sound like a Democrat.

The article link tells us this state is third for receiving funds, not a direct connection to your complaint wanting to replace another states representative. It doesn't equate in that directly.

His hope to set up free clinics doesn't say "I wanna set up free clinics and make someone else pay for it".

I had desired to use my profits from my mining operation to help others once my debt obligation was freed and the control freaks that hate God, along with those who believe can't stand the idea of someone else having a "vision". They couldn't see that happening either so they purposely went after me. Get back to everyone when he says he wants someone else to pay for his dreams and visions.

His goal is conversion. Where do you think that money comes from? Further, I post articles all of the time in the religious section there is no way that I qualify in your people that hate God. You're making shit up.

No, you are actually the one "making shit up" trying to make something out of nothing as it is not there in the articles you are stating and you apparently do not like that being pointed out to you.

 

[Disir]

No, you are actually the one "making shit up" trying to make something out of nothing as it is not there in the articles you are stating and you apparently do not like that being pointed out to you.

He already has two. You are being intentionally obtuse. The man has two. He said he wanted them in churches for conversion. The two he has already receive funding from the government.

 

[RodISHI]

No, you are actually the one "making shit up" trying to make something out of nothing as it is not there in the articles you are stating and you apparently do not like that being pointed out to you.

He already has two. You are being intentionally obtuse.

Where is that information that he already has two that are government supported as I saw that no where in what you posted in your OP?

 

[RodISHI]

Couldn't read and process my post can you? Typical LWNJ.

Have you ever read the Constitution about there not being a religious test to hold any office?

Didn't think so!

Actually Twat- I understand the Constitution just fine. What I dislike is anyone who is proposing putting "free" medical clinics in churches so they can get God.

What's it to you if someone else is providing "free medical clinics". Do you have a problem with other people having freedom of choice or it that merely for you and those who think like you?

It's placing the free clinics which are government funded inside churches so that people can "get God". That is an issue.

I pay taxes.

You pay so much that a debt of 20 trillion and unfunded liabilities of 120 trillion is what is still unpaid for. The monolithic debt just calls for more government programs to be paid by the innocent young, doesn't it? It was easy to pretend these leftist policies are the be all end all, when all the costs were rolled to the unborn, wasn't it?

And of course, almost half the people don't even pay income taxes. Just roll it all to children, and then wonder why they became so RW, when your policies destroyed their future.

You don't give a rats ass about the innocent young.

Cut the crap.

And yet, you are the one who wants to drown them in debt in order to make stupid policies sound like they are in any way sensible.

But yeah, indeed, you are getting a bit old so wouldn't it be nice if those young ones would pay all of your health care in addition to retirement and other social security. You care so much about them... Liabilities, obligations and debt for them, free shit for you.

Ok. Since you have decided that you want the topic to be something else other than what it is lets have that conversation. 1. It is more cost effective (less debt) to move to universal health care. 2. Most of the youngsters----you know those babies you keep holding up and using as a shield in the middle of gunfire----are in the hole paying for your experiments in other areas and fighting corporate wars that miraculously go across party lines. 3. Many of those youngsters receive health care paid for through taxes.

Sorry but you'll have to fix that for I know what you are trying to say.

 

[Disir]

Actually, government health care is going to tear children out of their future. Just who do you think is going to pay or it all, when the government has 20 trillion in debt and a other 100+ trillion in liabilities?

Of course, the young won't stand for this blind robbery. They have a very good idea on who is destined to pay for all these leftist promises. Not surprisingly, the new generation, which should be called the "betrayed generation" is somewhere to the Right of Hitler.

Only a leftist is crazy enough to enslave his children in pursuit of the Marxist utopia.

I pay taxes.

You pay so much that a debt of 20 trillion and unfunded liabilities of 120 trillion is what is still unpaid for. The monolithic debt just calls for more government programs to be paid by the innocent young, doesn't it? It was easy to pretend these leftist policies are the be all end all, when all the costs were rolled to the unborn, wasn't it?

And of course, almost half the people don't even pay income taxes. Just roll it all to children, and then wonder why they became so RW, when your policies destroyed their future.

You don't give a rats ass about the innocent young.

Cut the crap.

And yet, you are the one who wants to drown them in debt in order to make stupid policies sound like they are in any way sensible.

But yeah, indeed, you are getting a bit old so wouldn't it be nice if those young ones would pay all of your health care in addition to retirement and other social security. You care so much about them... Liabilities, obligations and debt for them, free shit for you.

Ok. Since you have decided that you want the topic to be something else other than what it is lets have that conversation. 1. It is more cost effective (less debt) to move to universal health care. 2. Most of the youngsters----you know those babies you keep holding up and using as a shield in the middle of gunfire----are in the hole paying for your experiments in other areas and fighting corporate wars that miraculously go across party lines. 3. Many of those youngsters receive health care paid for through taxes.

 

[Disir]

No, you are actually the one "making shit up" trying to make something out of nothing as it is not there in the articles you are stating and you apparently do not like that being pointed out to you.

He already has two. You are being intentionally obtuse.

Where is that information that he already has two that are government supported as I saw that no where in what you posted in your OP?

It's not in the OP. Why are you cheerleading for a man you know nothing about?

 

[Norman]

Actually, government health care is going to tear children out of their future. Just who do you think is going to pay or it all, when the government has 20 trillion in debt and a other 100+ trillion in liabilities?

Of course, the young won't stand for this blind robbery. They have a very good idea on who is destined to pay for all these leftist promises. Not surprisingly, the new generation, which should be called the "betrayed generation" is somewhere to the Right of Hitler.

Only a leftist is crazy enough to enslave his children in pursuit of the Marxist utopia.

I pay taxes.

You pay so much that a debt of 20 trillion and unfunded liabilities of 120 trillion is what is still unpaid for. The monolithic debt just calls for more government programs to be paid by the innocent young, doesn't it? It was easy to pretend these leftist policies are the be all end all, when all the costs were rolled to the unborn, wasn't it?

And of course, almost half the people don't even pay income taxes. Just roll it all to children, and then wonder why they became so RW, when your policies destroyed their future.

You don't give a rats ass about the innocent young.

Cut the crap.

And yet, you are the one who wants to drown them in debt in order to make stupid policies sound like they are in any way sensible.

But yeah, indeed, you are getting a bit old so wouldn't it be nice if those young ones would pay all of your health care in addition to retirement and other social security. You care so much about them... Liabilities, obligations and debt for them, free shit for you.

Ok. Since you have decided that you want the topic to be something else other than what it is lets have that conversation. 1. It is more cost effective (less debt) to move to universal health care. 2. Most of the youngsters----you know those babies you keep holding up and using as a shield in the middle of gunfire----are in the hole paying for your experiments in other areas and fighting corporate wars that miraculously go across party lines. 3. Many of those youngsters receive health care paid for through taxes.

"It is more cost effective"... why prove things when its so much simpler to just assert bullshit. So far nothing the federal government produces is cost effective or cheap so this is a rather extraordinary claim.

I am sure that the young are very fond of having to pay for your health care and getting 0.0005% of the cost back. I don't think you understand, no one is so stupid as to fall for this. You would get much more respect if you just admitted to being a loser who wants free shit, at least then you would be honest.

 

[Disir]

I pay taxes.

You pay so much that a debt of 20 trillion and unfunded liabilities of 120 trillion is what is still unpaid for. The monolithic debt just calls for more government programs to be paid by the innocent young, doesn't it? It was easy to pretend these leftist policies are the be all end all, when all the costs were rolled to the unborn, wasn't it?

And of course, almost half the people don't even pay income taxes. Just roll it all to children, and then wonder why they became so RW, when your policies destroyed their future.

You don't give a rats ass about the innocent young.

Cut the crap.

And yet, you are the one who wants to drown them in debt in order to make stupid policies sound like they are in any way sensible.

But yeah, indeed, you are getting a bit old so wouldn't it be nice if those young ones would pay all of your health care in addition to retirement and other social security. You care so much about them... Liabilities, obligations and debt for them, free shit for you.

Ok. Since you have decided that you want the topic to be something else other than what it is lets have that conversation. 1. It is more cost effective (less debt) to move to universal health care. 2. Most of the youngsters----you know those babies you keep holding up and using as a shield in the middle of gunfire----are in the hole paying for your experiments in other areas and fighting corporate wars that miraculously go across party lines. 3. Many of those youngsters receive health care paid for through taxes.

"It is more cost effective"... why prove things when its so much simpler to just assert bullshit. So far nothing the federal government produces is cost effective or cheap so this is a rather extraordinary claim.

I am sure that the young are very fond of having to pay for your health care and getting 0.0005% of the cost back. I don't think you understand, no one is so stupid as to fall for this. You would get much more respect if you just admitted to being a loser who wants free shit, at least then you would be honest.

Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care
The U.S. spends more money on administrative costs than anywhere in the world, according to a recent article in Health Affairs
By Samuel Metz, M.D.
The Lund Report (Portland, Ore.), Nov. 11, 2014

Honoring a rather unpleasant tradition, the September issue of Health Affairs published yet another peer-reviewed study confirming that administrative costs in the U.S. healthcare system are the highest in the world. These administrative costs do not improve patient care. They pay for more administrators.

Each American physician requires 10 administrators to stay in business. Why does American healthcare require twice as many administrators as any other healthcare system?

Because these additional administrators perform a function totally unnecessary in other countries: They restrict access to healthcare and limit benefits of patients who do gain access.

If restricting access and limiting benefits produced a healthier population at lower cost, then Americans could be proud of our massive number of administrators. But the U.S. does not have a healthier population and our healthcare is not inexpensive. In fact, our public health is the worst in the developed world, and our healthcare system is the most expensive of any nation on the planet.

Some blame government bureaucracies for these excessive administrative costs. But let’s not be hasty. Per patient, private insurance overhead exceeds that of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA – combined. We may have doubts about our government to spend money in other areas, but when it comes to reducing the administrative costs of health care, government programs are ten times as efficient as private insurance.

Restricting access and limiting care is an expensive process, consuming more money than we would spend simply providing unrestricted access and treating all treatable diseases. How do we know? Because every healthcare system in the world that implements universal care without limiting benefits ultimately provides better care to more people for less money.

Where does our private insurance model lead us astray? The primary goal of insurance companies, like all other businesses, is to make more money than they spend. But an insurance company cannot stay solvent selling comprehensive policies at affordable prices to people who will get sick. So insurance companies spend a lot of money to avoid populations that include sick people, to shift costs to patients, to limit benefits, and to exclude physicians who care for patients with expensive diseases (e.g., AIDS, cancer). After all, who will buy a policy that lets you go broke before you get better?
Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care | Physicians for a National Health Program

 

[RodISHI]

No, you are actually the one "making shit up" trying to make something out of nothing as it is not there in the articles you are stating and you apparently do not like that being pointed out to you.

He already has two. You are being intentionally obtuse.

Where is that information that he already has two that are government supported as I saw that no where in what you posted in your OP?

It's not in the OP. Why are you cheerleading for a man you know nothing about?

Why don't you fess up and be truthful? You do post some really neat stuff but this isn't one of those post.

 

[Norman]

You pay so much that a debt of 20 trillion and unfunded liabilities of 120 trillion is what is still unpaid for. The monolithic debt just calls for more government programs to be paid by the innocent young, doesn't it? It was easy to pretend these leftist policies are the be all end all, when all the costs were rolled to the unborn, wasn't it?

And of course, almost half the people don't even pay income taxes. Just roll it all to children, and then wonder why they became so RW, when your policies destroyed their future.

You don't give a rats ass about the innocent young.

Cut the crap.

And yet, you are the one who wants to drown them in debt in order to make stupid policies sound like they are in any way sensible.

But yeah, indeed, you are getting a bit old so wouldn't it be nice if those young ones would pay all of your health care in addition to retirement and other social security. You care so much about them... Liabilities, obligations and debt for them, free shit for you.

Ok. Since you have decided that you want the topic to be something else other than what it is lets have that conversation. 1. It is more cost effective (less debt) to move to universal health care. 2. Most of the youngsters----you know those babies you keep holding up and using as a shield in the middle of gunfire----are in the hole paying for your experiments in other areas and fighting corporate wars that miraculously go across party lines. 3. Many of those youngsters receive health care paid for through taxes.

"It is more cost effective"... why prove things when its so much simpler to just assert bullshit. So far nothing the federal government produces is cost effective or cheap so this is a rather extraordinary claim.

I am sure that the young are very fond of having to pay for your health care and getting 0.0005% of the cost back. I don't think you understand, no one is so stupid as to fall for this. You would get much more respect if you just admitted to being a loser who wants free shit, at least then you would be honest.

Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care
The U.S. spends more money on administrative costs than anywhere in the world, according to a recent article in Health Affairs
By Samuel Metz, M.D.
The Lund Report (Portland, Ore.), Nov. 11, 2014

Honoring a rather unpleasant tradition, the September issue of Health Affairs published yet another peer-reviewed study confirming that administrative costs in the U.S. healthcare system are the highest in the world. These administrative costs do not improve patient care. They pay for more administrators.

Each American physician requires 10 administrators to stay in business. Why does American healthcare require twice as many administrators as any other healthcare system?

Because these additional administrators perform a function totally unnecessary in other countries: They restrict access to healthcare and limit benefits of patients who do gain access.

If restricting access and limiting benefits produced a healthier population at lower cost, then Americans could be proud of our massive number of administrators. But the U.S. does not have a healthier population and our healthcare is not inexpensive. In fact, our public health is the worst in the developed world, and our healthcare system is the most expensive of any nation on the planet.

Some blame government bureaucracies for these excessive administrative costs. But let’s not be hasty. Per patient, private insurance overhead exceeds that of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA – combined. We may have doubts about our government to spend money in other areas, but when it comes to reducing the administrative costs of health care, government programs are ten times as efficient as private insurance.

Restricting access and limiting care is an expensive process, consuming more money than we would spend simply providing unrestricted access and treating all treatable diseases. How do we know? Because every healthcare system in the world that implements universal care without limiting benefits ultimately provides better care to more people for less money.

Where does our private insurance model lead us astray? The primary goal of insurance companies, like all other businesses, is to make more money than they spend. But an insurance company cannot stay solvent selling comprehensive policies at affordable prices to people who will get sick. So insurance companies spend a lot of money to avoid populations that include sick people, to shift costs to patients, to limit benefits, and to exclude physicians who care for patients with expensive diseases (e.g., AIDS, cancer). After all, who will buy a policy that lets you go broke before you get better?
Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care | Physicians for a National Health Program

Physicians find the system that promises to pay them fat wages favorable?

Not shit... and again if you are stupid enough to think anyone falls for this revealing display of corruption, you are dumb. When did physicians turn into policy specialists anyway? This is laughably bad display of ignorance.

But please, do keep believing that initiating massively costly programs by a massively inefficient organization is somehow going to save money, especially for the young who would pay for it all and receive little if any benefit. Personally I rather believe in unicorns...

 

[Disir]

No, you are actually the one "making shit up" trying to make something out of nothing as it is not there in the articles you are stating and you apparently do not like that being pointed out to you.

He already has two. You are being intentionally obtuse.

Where is that information that he already has two that are government supported as I saw that no where in what you posted in your OP?

It's not in the OP. Why are you cheerleading for a man you know nothing about?

Why don't you fess up and be truthful? You do post some really neat stuff but this isn't one of those post.

You just don't like it. You know, most things I am pretty relaxed on. Health care isn't one of those. Some jack ass that profits off it and then seeks to move to conversion ain't one of those things.

 

[Disir]

You don't give a rats ass about the innocent young.

Cut the crap.

And yet, you are the one who wants to drown them in debt in order to make stupid policies sound like they are in any way sensible.

But yeah, indeed, you are getting a bit old so wouldn't it be nice if those young ones would pay all of your health care in addition to retirement and other social security. You care so much about them... Liabilities, obligations and debt for them, free shit for you.

Ok. Since you have decided that you want the topic to be something else other than what it is lets have that conversation. 1. It is more cost effective (less debt) to move to universal health care. 2. Most of the youngsters----you know those babies you keep holding up and using as a shield in the middle of gunfire----are in the hole paying for your experiments in other areas and fighting corporate wars that miraculously go across party lines. 3. Many of those youngsters receive health care paid for through taxes.

"It is more cost effective"... why prove things when its so much simpler to just assert bullshit. So far nothing the federal government produces is cost effective or cheap so this is a rather extraordinary claim.

I am sure that the young are very fond of having to pay for your health care and getting 0.0005% of the cost back. I don't think you understand, no one is so stupid as to fall for this. You would get much more respect if you just admitted to being a loser who wants free shit, at least then you would be honest.

Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care
The U.S. spends more money on administrative costs than anywhere in the world, according to a recent article in Health Affairs
By Samuel Metz, M.D.
The Lund Report (Portland, Ore.), Nov. 11, 2014

Honoring a rather unpleasant tradition, the September issue of Health Affairs published yet another peer-reviewed study confirming that administrative costs in the U.S. healthcare system are the highest in the world. These administrative costs do not improve patient care. They pay for more administrators.

Each American physician requires 10 administrators to stay in business. Why does American healthcare require twice as many administrators as any other healthcare system?

Because these additional administrators perform a function totally unnecessary in other countries: They restrict access to healthcare and limit benefits of patients who do gain access.

If restricting access and limiting benefits produced a healthier population at lower cost, then Americans could be proud of our massive number of administrators. But the U.S. does not have a healthier population and our healthcare is not inexpensive. In fact, our public health is the worst in the developed world, and our healthcare system is the most expensive of any nation on the planet.

Some blame government bureaucracies for these excessive administrative costs. But let’s not be hasty. Per patient, private insurance overhead exceeds that of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA – combined. We may have doubts about our government to spend money in other areas, but when it comes to reducing the administrative costs of health care, government programs are ten times as efficient as private insurance.

Restricting access and limiting care is an expensive process, consuming more money than we would spend simply providing unrestricted access and treating all treatable diseases. How do we know? Because every healthcare system in the world that implements universal care without limiting benefits ultimately provides better care to more people for less money.

Where does our private insurance model lead us astray? The primary goal of insurance companies, like all other businesses, is to make more money than they spend. But an insurance company cannot stay solvent selling comprehensive policies at affordable prices to people who will get sick. So insurance companies spend a lot of money to avoid populations that include sick people, to shift costs to patients, to limit benefits, and to exclude physicians who care for patients with expensive diseases (e.g., AIDS, cancer). After all, who will buy a policy that lets you go broke before you get better?
Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care | Physicians for a National Health Program

Physicians find the system that promises to pay them fat wages favorable?

Not shit... and again if you are stupid enough to think anyone falls for this revealing display of corruption, you are dumb. When did physicians turn into policy specialists anyway? This is laughably bad display of ignorance.

But please, do keep believing that initiating massively costly programs by a massively inefficient organization is somehow going to save money, especially for the young who would pay for it all and receive little if any benefit. Personally I rather believe in unicorns...

So, you got nothing.....

 

[Norman]

And yet, you are the one who wants to drown them in debt in order to make stupid policies sound like they are in any way sensible.

But yeah, indeed, you are getting a bit old so wouldn't it be nice if those young ones would pay all of your health care in addition to retirement and other social security. You care so much about them... Liabilities, obligations and debt for them, free shit for you.

Ok. Since you have decided that you want the topic to be something else other than what it is lets have that conversation. 1. It is more cost effective (less debt) to move to universal health care. 2. Most of the youngsters----you know those babies you keep holding up and using as a shield in the middle of gunfire----are in the hole paying for your experiments in other areas and fighting corporate wars that miraculously go across party lines. 3. Many of those youngsters receive health care paid for through taxes.

"It is more cost effective"... why prove things when its so much simpler to just assert bullshit. So far nothing the federal government produces is cost effective or cheap so this is a rather extraordinary claim.

I am sure that the young are very fond of having to pay for your health care and getting 0.0005% of the cost back. I don't think you understand, no one is so stupid as to fall for this. You would get much more respect if you just admitted to being a loser who wants free shit, at least then you would be honest.

Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care
The U.S. spends more money on administrative costs than anywhere in the world, according to a recent article in Health Affairs
By Samuel Metz, M.D.
The Lund Report (Portland, Ore.), Nov. 11, 2014

Honoring a rather unpleasant tradition, the September issue of Health Affairs published yet another peer-reviewed study confirming that administrative costs in the U.S. healthcare system are the highest in the world. These administrative costs do not improve patient care. They pay for more administrators.

Each American physician requires 10 administrators to stay in business. Why does American healthcare require twice as many administrators as any other healthcare system?

Because these additional administrators perform a function totally unnecessary in other countries: They restrict access to healthcare and limit benefits of patients who do gain access.

If restricting access and limiting benefits produced a healthier population at lower cost, then Americans could be proud of our massive number of administrators. But the U.S. does not have a healthier population and our healthcare is not inexpensive. In fact, our public health is the worst in the developed world, and our healthcare system is the most expensive of any nation on the planet.

Some blame government bureaucracies for these excessive administrative costs. But let’s not be hasty. Per patient, private insurance overhead exceeds that of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA – combined. We may have doubts about our government to spend money in other areas, but when it comes to reducing the administrative costs of health care, government programs are ten times as efficient as private insurance.

Restricting access and limiting care is an expensive process, consuming more money than we would spend simply providing unrestricted access and treating all treatable diseases. How do we know? Because every healthcare system in the world that implements universal care without limiting benefits ultimately provides better care to more people for less money.

Where does our private insurance model lead us astray? The primary goal of insurance companies, like all other businesses, is to make more money than they spend. But an insurance company cannot stay solvent selling comprehensive policies at affordable prices to people who will get sick. So insurance companies spend a lot of money to avoid populations that include sick people, to shift costs to patients, to limit benefits, and to exclude physicians who care for patients with expensive diseases (e.g., AIDS, cancer). After all, who will buy a policy that lets you go broke before you get better?
Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care | Physicians for a National Health Program

Physicians find the system that promises to pay them fat wages favorable?

Not shit... and again if you are stupid enough to think anyone falls for this revealing display of corruption, you are dumb. When did physicians turn into policy specialists anyway? This is laughably bad display of ignorance.

But please, do keep believing that initiating massively costly programs by a massively inefficient organization is somehow going to save money, especially for the young who would pay for it all and receive little if any benefit. Personally I rather believe in unicorns...

So, you got nothing.....

Wrong, I already responded to that shitty opinion piece. But given that it doesn't have much facts nor arguments, just opinions based on fairy-tales, I don't see why there should even be a response. The site is of course, completely biased and agenda driven, so why you expected it would produce anything scientific or objective is just more madness.

It's absolute insanity to think that the young people could save money by paying for more of your health care. This is the sort of absurd bullshit that leftists always convince themselves of. "By getting pillaged we are all better of, it's a privilege to pay for my mistakes, tee-hee": No one buys this bullshit in this day and age.

 

[Disir]

Ok. Since you have decided that you want the topic to be something else other than what it is lets have that conversation. 1. It is more cost effective (less debt) to move to universal health care. 2. Most of the youngsters----you know those babies you keep holding up and using as a shield in the middle of gunfire----are in the hole paying for your experiments in other areas and fighting corporate wars that miraculously go across party lines. 3. Many of those youngsters receive health care paid for through taxes.

"It is more cost effective"... why prove things when its so much simpler to just assert bullshit. So far nothing the federal government produces is cost effective or cheap so this is a rather extraordinary claim.

I am sure that the young are very fond of having to pay for your health care and getting 0.0005% of the cost back. I don't think you understand, no one is so stupid as to fall for this. You would get much more respect if you just admitted to being a loser who wants free shit, at least then you would be honest.

Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care
The U.S. spends more money on administrative costs than anywhere in the world, according to a recent article in Health Affairs
By Samuel Metz, M.D.
The Lund Report (Portland, Ore.), Nov. 11, 2014

Honoring a rather unpleasant tradition, the September issue of Health Affairs published yet another peer-reviewed study confirming that administrative costs in the U.S. healthcare system are the highest in the world. These administrative costs do not improve patient care. They pay for more administrators.

Each American physician requires 10 administrators to stay in business. Why does American healthcare require twice as many administrators as any other healthcare system?

Because these additional administrators perform a function totally unnecessary in other countries: They restrict access to healthcare and limit benefits of patients who do gain access.

If restricting access and limiting benefits produced a healthier population at lower cost, then Americans could be proud of our massive number of administrators. But the U.S. does not have a healthier population and our healthcare is not inexpensive. In fact, our public health is the worst in the developed world, and our healthcare system is the most expensive of any nation on the planet.

Some blame government bureaucracies for these excessive administrative costs. But let’s not be hasty. Per patient, private insurance overhead exceeds that of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA – combined. We may have doubts about our government to spend money in other areas, but when it comes to reducing the administrative costs of health care, government programs are ten times as efficient as private insurance.

Restricting access and limiting care is an expensive process, consuming more money than we would spend simply providing unrestricted access and treating all treatable diseases. How do we know? Because every healthcare system in the world that implements universal care without limiting benefits ultimately provides better care to more people for less money.

Where does our private insurance model lead us astray? The primary goal of insurance companies, like all other businesses, is to make more money than they spend. But an insurance company cannot stay solvent selling comprehensive policies at affordable prices to people who will get sick. So insurance companies spend a lot of money to avoid populations that include sick people, to shift costs to patients, to limit benefits, and to exclude physicians who care for patients with expensive diseases (e.g., AIDS, cancer). After all, who will buy a policy that lets you go broke before you get better?
Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care | Physicians for a National Health Program

Physicians find the system that promises to pay them fat wages favorable?

Not shit... and again if you are stupid enough to think anyone falls for this revealing display of corruption, you are dumb. When did physicians turn into policy specialists anyway? This is laughably bad display of ignorance.

But please, do keep believing that initiating massively costly programs by a massively inefficient organization is somehow going to save money, especially for the young who would pay for it all and receive little if any benefit. Personally I rather believe in unicorns...

So, you got nothing.....

Wrong, I already responded to that shitty opinion piece. But given that it doesn't have much facts nor arguments, just opinions based on fairy-tales, I don't see why there should even be a response.

It's absolute insanity to think that the young people could save money by paying for more of your health care. This is the sort of absurd bullshit that leftists always convince themselves of. "By getting pillaged we are all better of, tee-hee": No one buys this bullshit in this day and age.

They would be paying for their own and considering that I am paying for many of them that receive care now it will be fine. Insurance companies serve no purpose.

 

[Norman]

"It is more cost effective"... why prove things when its so much simpler to just assert bullshit. So far nothing the federal government produces is cost effective or cheap so this is a rather extraordinary claim.

I am sure that the young are very fond of having to pay for your health care and getting 0.0005% of the cost back. I don't think you understand, no one is so stupid as to fall for this. You would get much more respect if you just admitted to being a loser who wants free shit, at least then you would be honest.

Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care
The U.S. spends more money on administrative costs than anywhere in the world, according to a recent article in Health Affairs
By Samuel Metz, M.D.
The Lund Report (Portland, Ore.), Nov. 11, 2014

Honoring a rather unpleasant tradition, the September issue of Health Affairs published yet another peer-reviewed study confirming that administrative costs in the U.S. healthcare system are the highest in the world. These administrative costs do not improve patient care. They pay for more administrators.

Each American physician requires 10 administrators to stay in business. Why does American healthcare require twice as many administrators as any other healthcare system?

Because these additional administrators perform a function totally unnecessary in other countries: They restrict access to healthcare and limit benefits of patients who do gain access.

If restricting access and limiting benefits produced a healthier population at lower cost, then Americans could be proud of our massive number of administrators. But the U.S. does not have a healthier population and our healthcare is not inexpensive. In fact, our public health is the worst in the developed world, and our healthcare system is the most expensive of any nation on the planet.

Some blame government bureaucracies for these excessive administrative costs. But let’s not be hasty. Per patient, private insurance overhead exceeds that of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA – combined. We may have doubts about our government to spend money in other areas, but when it comes to reducing the administrative costs of health care, government programs are ten times as efficient as private insurance.

Restricting access and limiting care is an expensive process, consuming more money than we would spend simply providing unrestricted access and treating all treatable diseases. How do we know? Because every healthcare system in the world that implements universal care without limiting benefits ultimately provides better care to more people for less money.

Where does our private insurance model lead us astray? The primary goal of insurance companies, like all other businesses, is to make more money than they spend. But an insurance company cannot stay solvent selling comprehensive policies at affordable prices to people who will get sick. So insurance companies spend a lot of money to avoid populations that include sick people, to shift costs to patients, to limit benefits, and to exclude physicians who care for patients with expensive diseases (e.g., AIDS, cancer). After all, who will buy a policy that lets you go broke before you get better?
Implementing a Universal Healthcare System Costs Less, Provides Better Care | Physicians for a National Health Program

Physicians find the system that promises to pay them fat wages favorable?

Not shit... and again if you are stupid enough to think anyone falls for this revealing display of corruption, you are dumb. When did physicians turn into policy specialists anyway? This is laughably bad display of ignorance.

But please, do keep believing that initiating massively costly programs by a massively inefficient organization is somehow going to save money, especially for the young who would pay for it all and receive little if any benefit. Personally I rather believe in unicorns...

So, you got nothing.....

Wrong, I already responded to that shitty opinion piece. But given that it doesn't have much facts nor arguments, just opinions based on fairy-tales, I don't see why there should even be a response.

It's absolute insanity to think that the young people could save money by paying for more of your health care. This is the sort of absurd bullshit that leftists always convince themselves of. "By getting pillaged we are all better of, tee-hee": No one buys this bullshit in this day and age.

They would be paying for their own and considering that I am paying for many of them that receive care now it will be fine.

You pay one dollar and expect to receive 120 trillion. Nothing is quite so unoriginal as the famous, left wing false equivalency:

But please, do pretend that you are doing people a favor by raping them. Ultimately no one is fooled as the bills come due, but it sure is interesting to watch how misguided people can be.