Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
exactly, and if you happen to make enough, then you get to pay full price.. The problem with the ACA is that people can't get their money's worth with it, and the ones who don't want it are getting fined for not having something that isn't worth the money even if they did have it.actually had you been paying attention, you might have notice that the republicans took control of the houses back basically due to the American voters hope that obamacare would be reversed. It was, how does your illegal alien leader put it?? Oh yes, a mandate.
only the worthless bottom feeders really want obamacare
It doesn't matter who wants ACA, or who doesn't. Or why. It's a dangerous abuse of government power and should be struck down as soon as possible.
Some folks said that about the 13th Amendment.
Some folks said it about the 14th Amendment.
Some folks said it about the 15th Amendment.
And the 19th.
And Social Security.
And Medicare.
And...
That's not the problem. The problem is government micromanaging your life.
Okay, so I make X amount of dollars. The government "assumes" I can afford Obamunist with X amount in subsidies. HTF would they know that?
Do they know what I pay for mortgage or rent every month? Do they know what my car payments are? Do they know what my property taxes are? Do they know how much I have to pay for prescriptions every month? Do they know what I'm paying in child support? If I'm not paying child support, do they know how many kids I have in college and what I'm paying for that? Do they know how far away I need to drive for work every morning and how much I spend in gasoline every month?
Of course not, and trust me, I answered all of their questions when I applied. In essence, the government is telling me what kind of life I should be leading instead of what kind of life I am leading.
does the government know if you are already stretched on your paycheck? if you have a 4k mortgage and two new cars in the drive while putting two kids through college and covering your parents nursing home? I guess when your insurance triples it will be a matter of you being foolish and living outside of your means.
. Yes but not for quality and equality of care, and that is a problem for many. Shouldn't be this way.interesting thing is that everyone does have a right to health care, and always has.actually had you been paying attention, you might have notice that the republicans took control of the houses back basically due to the American voters hope that obamacare would be reversed. It was, how does your illegal alien leader put it?? Oh yes, a mandate.
only the worthless bottom feeders really want obamacare
It doesn't matter who wants ACA, or who doesn't. Or why. It's a dangerous abuse of government power and should be struck down as soon as possible.
Some folks said that about the 13th Amendment.
Some folks said it about the 14th Amendment.
Some folks said it about the 15th Amendment.
And the 19th.
And Social Security.
And Medicare.
And...
Fuck off troll. Amendments are how we change the Constitution. Corporatist cocksuckers like you are how we destroy it.
Well, at least you added some content this time. I was wondering how long you'd get away without it.
So what we need is an amendment codifying health into "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." From your posts to Congress's ear...
In some cases, they may be treated, but not in all. I know that my wife would never have been given a bone marrow transplant if we didn't have health insurance, because that is exactly what we were told by the hospital. The cost was just too great, and they couldn't afford to do it pro bono. Unfortunately, my wife didn't make it even with the bone marrow transplant. BTW, $100k is peanuts. My wife's bills exceeded $1 million, and that was in 2002. Without insurance, people would receive treatment, but there were and are definitely limits to that treatment. The other side of this is that when people like your family member go without insurance, then get treated for $100k, and then cannot pay, guess who pays for it. I do, that's who. Anyone who has insurance pays for the leeches who refuse to carry insurance on themselves. It kills me when conservatives whine about those on medicaid leeching off of them but then they themselves do not want to fully insure themselves leaving everyone else to pay their bills for them.
I'm sorry for your loss.
You illustrate what Beagle9 and the other Communists here cannot grasp, there are ALWAYS limits to available resources. The question is simply how do we allocate the resources we have? In our society, we have used money, as it provides an incentive to the service provider to provide the best care possible. BUT that care is contingent on the ability of the consumer to pay.
Beagle9 and the other Communists want to change the method of allocation to one of coercion. Under their plan, everyone gets a little bit of care, no one gets quality care.
Basically, if there is a pot of soup that feeds 10, and the chef sells his soup to those who have money, then 10 people get really good soup. Beagle9 comes along and wails "NO FAIR" everyone has a "right" to soup for free. A thousand people stand in line, but there is only enough soup to feed 10. The government overseer cracks his whip and tells the chef that everyone gets soup, or he gets the whip on his back. So what to do? The only thing he can do, add 999 gallons of water to the soup and give everyone the diluted mess.
And this is what happens when the Communists get ahold of healthcare. The amount of service doesn't increase, in fact considering the loss of incentive and the presence of coercion, the number of doctors, American born and educated, drops tremendously. So we water it down with trade school "technicians" and foreign "doctors" who follow a script and don't really know how to practice medicine.
What the Communists like Beagle9 cannot grasp is that reality is. Even if they get the power to force others to adapt to their mindless fantasy, reality will still assert itself.
Sure thing, pal. "Let them die!“ worked so well in 2012. Why not stick with that message in 2016?And this is why Republicans are a dying party
Oh, you've been brainwashed into that nonsense too, huh? Well the dying party had record success in retaking the leadership of Congress and the Senate, and Hillary doesn't stand a chance at winning the presidency either. We'll see who is a dying party.
Let's see, you had Trump to cling to. He's pretty much done now. He's unelectable anyway. Who's next? Cruz?A Christian fundie nut job who believes that abortion should be illegal and has no plan for US health care other than repeal Obamacare and go back to the old system? (That's pretty much any Republican candidate's health care policy)
Private Health Care had no issues like Obamacare does. My plan was fine. Now its more expensive as a result of ACA. Furthermore, many places DO NOT accept Obamacare like Urgent Care and some doctors in general
-Geaux
. Wouldn't my idea of a government insurance for healthcare plan, that is paid for by all Americans who have an income in this nation work best ? Government would then work to ensure that us and them (as our money managers of our care), are not overcharged, defrauded and abused by the providers in the way in which you speak. The government would be a non-profit in the situation (only charging a tax for adminstration cost to run the program for us). By use of the private health insurance providers, we are getting double slammed, because it has profit motives that causes it to abuse us in the situation as well, and then it is caught up in fighting the healthcare providers who try and hit them hard as you speak, and if they can't win well guess what ? They will turn to you (the client or insured), and they will kick you out because you are to much of a risk (robbing them of too much profits), and because you have brought those huge cost.upon them. Then where do you turn if private health insurance has banned you with your conditions that would be deemed as pre-existing folks ? No other carrier that has profit motive wants you, so you turn to government or depend upon walking into emergency rooms where you will be treated as second class citizens, and may even be left in a chair to die. At this point I might should say elect me as your President, and these issues would be fixed... LOLIn some cases, they may be treated, but not in all. I know that my wife would never have been given a bone marrow transplant if we didn't have health insurance, because that is exactly what we were told by the hospital. The cost was just too great, and they couldn't afford to do it pro bono. Unfortunately, my wife didn't make it even with the bone marrow transplant. BTW, $100k is peanuts. My wife's bills exceeded $1 million, and that was in 2002. Without insurance, people would receive treatment, but there were and are definitely limits to that treatment. The other side of this is that when people like your family member go without insurance, then get treated for $100k, and then cannot pay, guess who pays for it. I do, that's who. Anyone who has insurance pays for the leeches who refuse to carry insurance on themselves. It kills me when conservatives whine about those on medicaid leeching off of them but then they themselves do not want to fully insure themselves leaving everyone else to pay their bills for them.
I'm sorry for your loss.
You illustrate what Beagle9 and the other Communists here cannot grasp, there are ALWAYS limits to available resources. The question is simply how do we allocate the resources we have? In our society, we have used money, as it provides an incentive to the service provider to provide the best care possible. BUT that care is contingent on the ability of the consumer to pay.
Beagle9 and the other Communists want to change the method of allocation to one of coercion. Under their plan, everyone gets a little bit of care, no one gets quality care.
Basically, if there is a pot of soup that feeds 10, and the chef sells his soup to those who have money, then 10 people get really good soup. Beagle9 comes along and wails "NO FAIR" everyone has a "right" to soup for free. A thousand people stand in line, but there is only enough soup to feed 10. The government overseer cracks his whip and tells the chef that everyone gets soup, or he gets the whip on his back. So what to do? The only thing he can do, add 999 gallons of water to the soup and give everyone the diluted mess.
And this is what happens when the Communists get ahold of healthcare. The amount of service doesn't increase, in fact considering the loss of incentive and the presence of coercion, the number of doctors, American born and educated, drops tremendously. So we water it down with trade school "technicians" and foreign "doctors" who follow a script and don't really know how to practice medicine.
What the Communists like Beagle9 cannot grasp is that reality is. Even if they get the power to force others to adapt to their mindless fantasy, reality will still assert itself.
The problem is that most Americans re
Sure thing, pal. "Let them die!“ worked so well in 2012. Why not stick with that message in 2016?And this is why Republicans are a dying party
Oh, you've been brainwashed into that nonsense too, huh? Well the dying party had record success in retaking the leadership of Congress and the Senate, and Hillary doesn't stand a chance at winning the presidency either. We'll see who is a dying party.
Let's see, you had Trump to cling to. He's pretty much done now. He's unelectable anyway. Who's next? Cruz?
Private Health Care had no issues like Obamacare does. My plan was fine. Now its more expensive as a result of ACA. Furthermore, many places DO NOT accept Obamacare like Urgent Care and some doctors in general
-Geaux
Your statement makes no sense. Obamacare does not insure you. Your insurance company provides your insurance, and that is through a private company just as it always has been. As for the cost of your insurance, it may well have gone up in price, but it may also have come down. Rate changes have not affected everyone the same. What most people do not understand is that the main driving force of cost is from the providers themselves. You have to ask yourself why it costs over $100,000 for a hip replacement while in Europe the cost is only around $20,000. Insurance isn't the problem. The ACA isn't the problem. The problem is with the providers. If I need an MRI, the hospital will charge me $2500, but if I go to a stand alone imaging center, the cost is only $500 for the same exact MRI. What's going on with that? Why does the hospital need to charge me five times as much for the same exact procedure?
. Wouldn't my idea of a government insurance for healthcare plan, that is paid for by all Americans who have an income in this nation work best ? Government would then work to ensure that us and them (as our money managers of our care), are not overcharged, defrauded and abused by the providers in the way in which you speak. The government would be a non-profit in the situation (only charging a tax for adminstration cost to run the program for us). By use of the private health insurance providers, we are getting double slammed, because it has profit motives that causes it to abuse us in the situation as well, and then it is caught up in fighting the healthcare providers who try and hit them hard as you speak, and if they can't win well guess what ? They will turn to you (the client or insured), and they will kick you out because you are to much of a risk (robbing them of too much profits), and because you have brought those huge cost.upon them. Then where do you turn if private health insurance has banned you with your conditions that would be deemed as pre-existing folks ? No other carrier that has profit motive wants you, so you turn to government or depend upon walking into emergency rooms where you will be treated as second class citizens, and may even be left in a chair to die. At this point I might should say elect me as your President, and these issues would be fixed... LOLIn some cases, they may be treated, but not in all. I know that my wife would never have been given a bone marrow transplant if we didn't have health insurance, because that is exactly what we were told by the hospital. The cost was just too great, and they couldn't afford to do it pro bono. Unfortunately, my wife didn't make it even with the bone marrow transplant. BTW, $100k is peanuts. My wife's bills exceeded $1 million, and that was in 2002. Without insurance, people would receive treatment, but there were and are definitely limits to that treatment. The other side of this is that when people like your family member go without insurance, then get treated for $100k, and then cannot pay, guess who pays for it. I do, that's who. Anyone who has insurance pays for the leeches who refuse to carry insurance on themselves. It kills me when conservatives whine about those on medicaid leeching off of them but then they themselves do not want to fully insure themselves leaving everyone else to pay their bills for them.
I'm sorry for your loss.
You illustrate what Beagle9 and the other Communists here cannot grasp, there are ALWAYS limits to available resources. The question is simply how do we allocate the resources we have? In our society, we have used money, as it provides an incentive to the service provider to provide the best care possible. BUT that care is contingent on the ability of the consumer to pay.
Beagle9 and the other Communists want to change the method of allocation to one of coercion. Under their plan, everyone gets a little bit of care, no one gets quality care.
Basically, if there is a pot of soup that feeds 10, and the chef sells his soup to those who have money, then 10 people get really good soup. Beagle9 comes along and wails "NO FAIR" everyone has a "right" to soup for free. A thousand people stand in line, but there is only enough soup to feed 10. The government overseer cracks his whip and tells the chef that everyone gets soup, or he gets the whip on his back. So what to do? The only thing he can do, add 999 gallons of water to the soup and give everyone the diluted mess.
And this is what happens when the Communists get ahold of healthcare. The amount of service doesn't increase, in fact considering the loss of incentive and the presence of coercion, the number of doctors, American born and educated, drops tremendously. So we water it down with trade school "technicians" and foreign "doctors" who follow a script and don't really know how to practice medicine.
What the Communists like Beagle9 cannot grasp is that reality is. Even if they get the power to force others to adapt to their mindless fantasy, reality will still assert itself.
The problem is that most Americans re
Sure thing, pal. "Let them die!“ worked so well in 2012. Why not stick with that message in 2016?And this is why Republicans are a dying party
Oh, you've been brainwashed into that nonsense too, huh? Well the dying party had record success in retaking the leadership of Congress and the Senate, and Hillary doesn't stand a chance at winning the presidency either. We'll see who is a dying party.
Let's see, you had Trump to cling to. He's pretty much done now. He's unelectable anyway. Who's next? Cruz?
Private Health Care had no issues like Obamacare does. My plan was fine. Now its more expensive as a result of ACA. Furthermore, many places DO NOT accept Obamacare like Urgent Care and some doctors in general
-Geaux
Your statement makes no sense. Obamacare does not insure you. Your insurance company provides your insurance, and that is through a private company just as it always has been. As for the cost of your insurance, it may well have gone up in price, but it may also have come down. Rate changes have not affected everyone the same. What most people do not understand is that the main driving force of cost is from the providers themselves. You have to ask yourself why it costs over $100,000 for a hip replacement while in Europe the cost is only around $20,000. Insurance isn't the problem. The ACA isn't the problem. The problem is with the providers. If I need an MRI, the hospital will charge me $2500, but if I go to a stand alone imaging center, the cost is only $500 for the same exact MRI. What's going on with that? Why does the hospital need to charge me five times as much for the same exact procedure?
. Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. Every other American would pay a tax that would be deducted from their incomes in America.. With everyone participating, and the proper government fraud and overcharging detection services in place, the tax should be miniscule inorder to insure and give all Americans insurance for their healthcare services and needs. The hospitals, clinics, doctors offices, and other medical related free market places would remain in competition with one another in the free market place. This would ensure that the best prices and services are offered, and that the ones who are bad will fall by the way side, because we wouldn't use our healthcare card at their offices or buy their products if charging to much for either.The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?. Wouldn't my idea of a government insurance for healthcare plan, that is paid for by all Americans who have an income in this nation work best ? Government would then work to ensure that us and them (as our money managers of our care), are not overcharged, defrauded and abused by the providers in the way in which you speak. The government would be a non-profit in the situation (only charging a tax for adminstration cost to run the program for us). By use of the private health insurance providers, we are getting double slammed, because it has profit motives that causes it to abuse us in the situation as well, and then it is caught up in fighting the healthcare providers who try and hit them hard as you speak, and if they can't win well guess what ? They will turn to you (the client or insured), and they will kick you out because you are to much of a risk (robbing them of too much profits), and because you have brought those huge cost.upon them. Then where do you turn if private health insurance has banned you with your conditions that would be deemed as pre-existing folks ? No other carrier that has profit motive wants you, so you turn to government or depend upon walking into emergency rooms where you will be treated as second class citizens, and may even be left in a chair to die. At this point I might should say elect me as your President, and these issues would be fixed... LOLIn some cases, they may be treated, but not in all. I know that my wife would never have been given a bone marrow transplant if we didn't have health insurance, because that is exactly what we were told by the hospital. The cost was just too great, and they couldn't afford to do it pro bono. Unfortunately, my wife didn't make it even with the bone marrow transplant. BTW, $100k is peanuts. My wife's bills exceeded $1 million, and that was in 2002. Without insurance, people would receive treatment, but there were and are definitely limits to that treatment. The other side of this is that when people like your family member go without insurance, then get treated for $100k, and then cannot pay, guess who pays for it. I do, that's who. Anyone who has insurance pays for the leeches who refuse to carry insurance on themselves. It kills me when conservatives whine about those on medicaid leeching off of them but then they themselves do not want to fully insure themselves leaving everyone else to pay their bills for them.
I'm sorry for your loss.
You illustrate what Beagle9 and the other Communists here cannot grasp, there are ALWAYS limits to available resources. The question is simply how do we allocate the resources we have? In our society, we have used money, as it provides an incentive to the service provider to provide the best care possible. BUT that care is contingent on the ability of the consumer to pay.
Beagle9 and the other Communists want to change the method of allocation to one of coercion. Under their plan, everyone gets a little bit of care, no one gets quality care.
Basically, if there is a pot of soup that feeds 10, and the chef sells his soup to those who have money, then 10 people get really good soup. Beagle9 comes along and wails "NO FAIR" everyone has a "right" to soup for free. A thousand people stand in line, but there is only enough soup to feed 10. The government overseer cracks his whip and tells the chef that everyone gets soup, or he gets the whip on his back. So what to do? The only thing he can do, add 999 gallons of water to the soup and give everyone the diluted mess.
And this is what happens when the Communists get ahold of healthcare. The amount of service doesn't increase, in fact considering the loss of incentive and the presence of coercion, the number of doctors, American born and educated, drops tremendously. So we water it down with trade school "technicians" and foreign "doctors" who follow a script and don't really know how to practice medicine.
What the Communists like Beagle9 cannot grasp is that reality is. Even if they get the power to force others to adapt to their mindless fantasy, reality will still assert itself.
The problem is that most Americans re
Sure thing, pal. "Let them die!“ worked so well in 2012. Why not stick with that message in 2016?Oh, you've been brainwashed into that nonsense too, huh? Well the dying party had record success in retaking the leadership of Congress and the Senate, and Hillary doesn't stand a chance at winning the presidency either. We'll see who is a dying party.
Let's see, you had Trump to cling to. He's pretty much done now. He's unelectable anyway. Who's next? Cruz?
Private Health Care had no issues like Obamacare does. My plan was fine. Now its more expensive as a result of ACA. Furthermore, many places DO NOT accept Obamacare like Urgent Care and some doctors in general
-Geaux
Your statement makes no sense. Obamacare does not insure you. Your insurance company provides your insurance, and that is through a private company just as it always has been. As for the cost of your insurance, it may well have gone up in price, but it may also have come down. Rate changes have not affected everyone the same. What most people do not understand is that the main driving force of cost is from the providers themselves. You have to ask yourself why it costs over $100,000 for a hip replacement while in Europe the cost is only around $20,000. Insurance isn't the problem. The ACA isn't the problem. The problem is with the providers. If I need an MRI, the hospital will charge me $2500, but if I go to a stand alone imaging center, the cost is only $500 for the same exact MRI. What's going on with that? Why does the hospital need to charge me five times as much for the same exact procedure?
Before government can do that they would have to start paying the entire bill for their patents.
If Government took over healthcare, then doctors and facilities would have to close down because nobody operates at a loss; nobody can operate to break even.
Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...
The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?
. Well then why don't we just desolve this union and be done with it since we can't come together to run it anymore ? Everyone call their states and group them together.Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...
What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?
The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?
This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.
Well then why don't we just desolve this union and be done with it since we can't come together to run it anymore ? Everyone call their states and group them together. Accept members based upon their loyalties and be done with it. The only government than should exist would be the military that would protect the entire North American land in which various countries within it does reside. It could be called up to help settle disputes between the small countries within, if such troubles should arise, but who would make up or control that government ?
. Re-read my post that speaks about where the doctors, clinics, and hospitals would still operate in the nation... They would operate and reside in the free market place still. This will ensure the best results for the citizens and the government, along with the quality of care and etc. The key is us having the freedom to use the healthcare card issued, where ever we want to. This will be what keeps the private sector in a healthy competition with each other. Everyone wins or should win.Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...
What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?
The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?
This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.
. Re-read my post that speaks about where the doctors, clinics, and hospitals would still operate in the nation... They would operate and reside in the free market place still. This will ensure the best results for the citizens and the government, along with the quality of care and etc. The key is us having the freedom to use the healthcare card issued, where ever we want to. This will be what keeps the private sector in a healthy competition with each other. Everyone wins or should win.Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...
What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?
The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?
This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.
. Well then why don't we just desolve this union and be done with it since we can't come together to run it anymore ? Everyone call their states and group them together.Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...
What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?
The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?
This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.
Accept members based upon their loyalties and be done with it. The only government that should exist would be the military that would protect the entire North American land mass, in which would be where all the various countries within it does now reside.
It could be called up to help settle disputes between the small countries within it, otherwise if such troubles should arise, but who would make up or control that government then, and could it be trusted then ?
. You just added another question that would be addressed in the ideas put forth, but it doesn't disqualify the idea altogether... It is just parts of the idea that would be debated as to the criteria in which medical services would be covered (I.e. paid for), and which ones would be considered as out of pocket expenses. Abortions would not be covered unless involved incest, rape or the life of the mother. Then there would be rules and criteria involved in those situations also. Cosmetic medicine or healthcare services that involve cosmetics would only be agreed upon in reconstructive surgery procedures, and this due to the disfiguration caused be an accident, war or birth deffects.. Re-read my post that speaks about where the doctors, clinics, and hospitals would still operate in the nation... They would operate and reside in the free market place still. This will ensure the best results for the citizens and the government, along with the quality of care and etc. The key is us having the freedom to use the healthcare card issued, where ever we want to. This will be what keeps the private sector in a healthy competition with each other. Everyone wins or should win.Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...
What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?
The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?
This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.
How do you propose to protect that freedom? If the pro-life crowd gets control, what will prevent them from refusing to cover abortions or birth control? And, more generally, who decides what a valid health care procedure would be? Should people be allowed to user their government provided health insurance to pay for faith healers? Cosmetic surgery? I could go on, but I trust you get the point.
. The issue of healthcare is tied directly to the well being of this nation on whole, because disease ignores all land boundaries.. Well then why don't we just desolve this union and be done with it since we can't come together to run it anymore ? Everyone call their states and group them together.Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...
What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?
The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?
This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.
Accept members based upon their loyalties and be done with it. The only government that should exist would be the military that would protect the entire North American land mass, in which would be where all the various countries within it does now reside.
It could be called up to help settle disputes between the small countries within it, otherwise if such troubles should arise, but who would make up or control that government then, and could it be trusted then ?
That's pretty much the way our founders set up this country. States were to operate like individual countries and unite only when there is a national issue at hand. Healthcare and welfare are not national issues--the are state issues if that.
. The issue of healthcare is tied directly to the well being of this nation on whole, because disease ignores all land boundaries.. Well then why don't we just desolve this union and be done with it since we can't come together to run it anymore ? Everyone call their states and group them together.Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...
What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?
The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?
This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.
Accept members based upon their loyalties and be done with it. The only government that should exist would be the military that would protect the entire North American land mass, in which would be where all the various countries within it does now reside.
It could be called up to help settle disputes between the small countries within it, otherwise if such troubles should arise, but who would make up or control that government then, and could it be trusted then ?
That's pretty much the way our founders set up this country. States were to operate like individual countries and unite only when there is a national issue at hand. Healthcare and welfare are not national issues--the are state issues if that.
. You just added another question that would be addressed in the ideas put forth, but it doesn't disqualify the idea altogether... It is just parts of the idea that would be debated as to the criteria in which medical services would be covered, and which ones would be considered as out of pocket expenses. Abortions would not be covered unless involved incest, rape or the life of the mother. Then there would be rules and criteria involved in those situations also.. Re-read my post that speaks about where the doctors, clinics, and hospitals would still operate in the nation... They would operate and reside in the free market place still. This will ensure the best results for the citizens and the government, along with the quality of care and etc. The key is us having the freedom to use the healthcare card issued, where ever we want to. This will be what keeps the private sector in a healthy competition with each other. Everyone wins or should win.Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...
What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?
The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?
This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.
How do you propose to protect that freedom? If the pro-life crowd gets control, what will prevent them from refusing to cover abortions or birth control? And, more generally, who decides what a valid health care procedure would be? Should people be allowed to user their government provided health insurance to pay for faith healers? Cosmetic surgery? I could go on, but I trust you get the point.
. It became one of them, but it has been mismanaged over the years, and the gray areas involved has allowed the confusion to reign supreme all because of, just like it shows here.. The issue of healthcare is tied directly to the well being of this nation on whole, because disease ignores all land boundaries.. Well then why don't we just desolve this union and be done with it since we can't come together to run it anymore ? Everyone call their states and group them together.Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...
What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?
The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?
This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.
Accept members based upon their loyalties and be done with it. The only government that should exist would be the military that would protect the entire North American land mass, in which would be where all the various countries within it does now reside.
It could be called up to help settle disputes between the small countries within it, otherwise if such troubles should arise, but who would make up or control that government then, and could it be trusted then ?
That's pretty much the way our founders set up this country. States were to operate like individual countries and unite only when there is a national issue at hand. Healthcare and welfare are not national issues--the are state issues if that.
Only contagious ones. What the founders thought were national concerns are in the US Constitution; healthcare is not one of them.
Neither is the FAA, but it matters to us since we, maybe unlike you, don't live in 1789.... The issue of healthcare is tied directly to the well being of this nation on whole, because disease ignores all land boundaries.. Well then why don't we just desolve this union and be done with it since we can't come together to run it anymore ? Everyone call their states and group them together.Government is not to take over healthcare, but rather it would be the holder and manager of every Americans healthcare account in America, and it would be responsible for paying the bills for each American who is paying into the system, and also paying for children who may not have the means or ways to help the system because of being children who have no income as of yet. ...
What else would be required for you to see these efforts as "taking over" health care? If they're holding and managing the health care accounts of every American, if they're responsible for paying every American's healthcare bills, and their children's, how is that not taking it over?
The whole reluctance for my ideas are because people loath and hate the government but isn't that because of who has been in charge of our government ? Let's say that government is a gun, well wouldn't it be the person who is pulling the trigger on that gun that is the problem, and not the gun itself ? How about let's get into place a government, that is run properly by the right people so we the Americans can be served greatly by it, and also be united again by it ?
This is where I think you're misunderstanding the opposition. What you say here is true. But we can't control who might be pulling the trigger in the future. But we can, through a constitution and a will to stand by it, limit the size and range of their gun. The problem many of the laws advocated by progressives and statists is that they radically increase it.
Accept members based upon their loyalties and be done with it. The only government that should exist would be the military that would protect the entire North American land mass, in which would be where all the various countries within it does now reside.
It could be called up to help settle disputes between the small countries within it, otherwise if such troubles should arise, but who would make up or control that government then, and could it be trusted then ?
That's pretty much the way our founders set up this country. States were to operate like individual countries and unite only when there is a national issue at hand. Healthcare and welfare are not national issues--the are state issues if that.
Only contagious ones. What the founders thought were national concerns are in the US Constitution; healthcare is not one of them.
