|
Nth Doctor posted:Someone I know posted this on Facebook yesterday: quote:Let me get this straight... We're going to be "gifted" with with a healthcare plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, Most of the new people who will be covered will actually be covered by the Expansion of Medicaid (assuming their State doesn't opt-out). So they will be "gifted" with insurance. For most of the rest, they'll be gifted with sizable subsidies to help them buy it. And using "forced" in this way is kind of weird since there's no real "force" to compel you to buy it. If I don't have a mortgage and don't buy a Chevy Volt, my taxes will be higher this year than if I did. In 2014 if I don't buy insurance, my taxes will be higher than if I did. Am I being "forced" to buy a Volt or pay interest on a mortgage? quote:which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, Most likely more than this, but good enough. quote:without adding a single new doctor, From PPACA: TITLE V—HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE Subtitle C—Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce It specifically does try to increase the number of nurses and doctors. But Congress can't pass a law that says, "The US now has twice as many Doctors!" And their attempts in the bill may not be successful. But statistically, I think its sure bet that it will add more than one new doctor. Also, this ignores how healthcare works. All 10 million people aren't going to show up at the doctor's office tomorrow. And they already get emergency care at hospitals. So it really only impacts non-life threatening wait times. quote:but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, False. quote:written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, Like most bills, PPACA was written by many different committees, and sub-committees, in both the House and the Senate. So which committee, and which chairman, and when did they say it, and in what context? quote:passed by a Congress that didn’t read it The only person in Congress I've heard say they didn't read it, was John Boehner in the closing debate right before Congress voted in March of 2010. Now, did every person in Congress read every last page? No, because that would be stupid. They have congressional staff for a reason. quote:but exempted themselves from it, False, false, false, false, false. Not only are they not exempted from the mandate, they're losing their current employer provided health insurance in 2014 and will be required to purchase it on the Exchanges, where they will not meet the requirements for subsidies and be forced to buy insurance at full price. Sec. 1312(d)(3)(D) -- MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.— (i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are— (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act). quote:and signed by a President who smokes, Quit smoking, and even if he still did, it doesn't matter. His own bad health habits in no way reflect upon whether the law is a good idea or not. The law is either good or bad based on what's in it, not based on the personal habits of the people involved in creating it. quote:with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, Made a mistake with a tricky bit of tax code, which he later paid. Also, in a surprise twist, he won't be Sec. of Treasury forever! (I no rite?!) quote:for which we’ll be taxed for four years "before" any benefits take effect, False. Many benefits began in 2010, and only minimal taxes began in 2010. Most of the taxes begin in 2013 to fund the creation of the Exchanges. The taxes then ramp up between 2013-2018. In fact some of the taxes don't reach full strength or even begin until 2018; but we start to get full benefits in 2014. So if anything, its the opposite of what is being implied here. quote:by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, The main problem with Medicare and Social Security is we have a political party who doesn't want to have to actually pay for anything and runs on the promises of "we can cut your taxes even further without jeopardizing the things you think are important!" (Guess what, they can't). quote:all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, Really its overseen by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. But she has a vagina, so you'd probably hold that against her anyways. Also, more importantly, being obese says nothing about their ability to do their job. quote:and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!! See the part above where I talk about actually paying for poo poo. quote:‘What the #!?%* could possibly go wrong? People could believe this garbage?
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Sarion posted:Wow, a grand total of 1.0% of the Canadians got care outside of the country? That's practically "the percentage of people who got sick while on vacation". Not really, but still its an incredibly tiny percent. Whats better about this report by the Canadian equivalent of Cato is that these numbers are based on a survey they send out asking (specialist) doctors what percentage patients they think received treatment outside of Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:I'm loving shocked that something approaching actual dialogue happened, and didn't end with ad hominems against each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:It's certainly well above the typical facebook debate, but Person 3 still simply sticks his fingers in his ears yelling LALALALA at the end. It seems quite clear he doesn't give a single goddamn about facts, because he already knows (from his extensive experience in "the industry") that the law is a devastating assault on our fantastic system. What's hilarious is they are an independent nutritionist consultant, work as an administrator at a home care place, and up until 3 years ago, did the traffic on the local classic rock radio station's morning show. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
constantIllusion posted:Usually they'll say something to the effect of "I just checked the want ads section of the newspaper/CareerBuilder.com and counted 300+ different ads, there is no reason why they can't get a job!" "So there are jobs? Then why are you still complaining that Obama is an economy-wrecking job killer?  "
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:Someone I know posted this on Facebook yesterday: So Person 3 doesn't understand what the bill is at all? I'm certainly no expert on PPACA, but I see this every day on Facebook from people trying to formulate an argument against the bill. They get 3 paragraphs into enough seemingly coherent information that I'm at least prepared to fact check, and then they get into some crazy poo poo about the government deciding treatment plans and SOCIALISM, and then I just sort of disregard everything else they've said. Am I wrong in my understanding of this? Does anyone have a quick and to the point argument over why that line of thinking is wrong? I have FB 'friends' who legitimately believe that federal bureaucrat's will be telling their doctors to hold off on the meds, and it's kind of sad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
tek79 posted:So Person 3 doesn't understand what the bill is at all? I'm certainly no expert on PPACA, but I see this every day on Facebook from people trying to formulate an argument against the bill. They get 3 paragraphs into enough seemingly coherent information that I'm at least prepared to fact check, and then they get into some crazy poo poo about the government deciding treatment plans and SOCIALISM, and then I just sort of disregard everything else they've said. "First off, the government would determine what treatments you are eligible for only if you're under a federal health program (ie Medicare). Furthermore, you do realize that insurance companies get to dictate what procedures and treatments they will pay for, correct? The private insurance company is a profit-seeking business, so it's in their best interest to deny anything they can. Why is it acceptable for private insurance to decide the treatments you can have to maintain profits but not the government based on need?" Crackbone fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jul 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
tek79 posted:So Person 3 doesn't understand what the bill is at all? I'm certainly no expert on PPACA, but I see this every day on Facebook from people trying to formulate an argument against the bill. They get 3 paragraphs into enough seemingly coherent information that I'm at least prepared to fact check, and then they get into some crazy poo poo about the government deciding treatment plans and SOCIALISM, and then I just sort of disregard everything else they've said. Your friends are idiots. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only skin the government has in the game is the Medicare and Medicaid programs, if that. They aren't stepping into the  FREE MARKET insurance companies' domains and saying "Deny this, approve that."
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:Your friends are idiots. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only skin the government has in the game is the Medicare and Medicaid programs, if that. They aren't stepping into the There are new regulations that all plans will have to abide by which tell insurance companies what they have to cover at a minimum. So yes, the government is stepping in and telling insurance companies, "You have to approve that". And that's a good thing. However, the government regulations set the minimum. If your insurance provider wants to cover homeopathy, that's totally their call. So the government is NOT stepping in and saying "Deny that". There's no limitations on what they can cover. Except (big surprise here) abortions. Each State must have at least 1 plan in their Exchange that does NOT cover abortion, for people who object to the idea of their money being spent on abortions (because they think that once you give away your money, its still really yours). Unfortunately, the reverse is not true; there is no requirement that every State Exchange offers at least 1 plan which covers abortion. So if Mississippi wants to make it so that 100% of the Private Insurance Plans offered through their Exchange (does not impact Employer insurance plans), deny abortion coverage, they can. But this is a double whammy of STATES RITES and ABORTION BAD, so I doubt it will upset conservatives too much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Except (big surprise here) abortions. Each State must have at least 1 plan in their Exchange that does NOT cover abortion, for people who object to the idea of their money being spent on abortions (because they think that once you give away your money, its still really yours). Unfortunately, the reverse is not true; there is no requirement that every State Exchange offers at least 1 plan which covers abortion. So if Mississippi wants to make it so that 100% of the Private Insurance Plans offered through their Exchange (does not impact Employer insurance plans), deny abortion coverage, they can. But this is a double whammy of STATES RITES and ABORTION BAD, so I doubt it will upset conservatives too much. One of my favourite pieces of feminist writing is Gloria Steinem's "If Men Could Menstruate", because it does make the brilliant point that all this stuff is really hatred of women cloaked in religious dogma cloaked in conservative language. But back to the feminism thread I should go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Except (big surprise here) abortions. Each State must have at least 1 plan in their Exchange that does NOT cover abortion, for people who object to the idea of their money being spent on abortions (because they think that once you give away your money, its still really yours). Unfortunately, the reverse is not true; there is no requirement that every State Exchange offers at least 1 plan which covers abortion. So if Mississippi wants to make it so that 100% of the Private Insurance Plans offered through their Exchange (does not impact Employer insurance plans), deny abortion coverage, they can. But this is a double whammy of STATES RITES and ABORTION BAD, so I doubt it will upset conservatives too much. Don't expect a big uproar over that, either. Next week, Mississippi is closing down its last abortion clinic. The legislature didn't even fight the technicality that was being used. To be honest, it's in Jackson, which is at the very center of the state. Unless you live in Jackson, it's almost certainly easier to go to Memphis, New Orleans, Mobile, or Birmingham. Everyone I've ever known to get an abortion just went to the nearest city (which just so happened to be out-of-state).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Sarion posted:There are new regulations that all plans will have to abide by which tell insurance companies what they have to cover at a minimum. So yes, the government is stepping in and telling insurance companies, "You have to approve that". And that's a good thing. However, the government regulations set the minimum. If your insurance provider wants to cover homeopathy, that's totally their call. So the government is NOT stepping in and saying "Deny that". There's no limitations on what they can cover. I stand corrected. I blame being up all night reading the PPACA for rebuttal points for being extra grouchy today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:I stand corrected. I blame being up all night reading the PPACA for rebuttal points for being extra grouchy today. No problem. You are correct about Government not getting between you and your doctor, though. PPACA is the Government stopping your insurance company from getting between you and your doctor (as much). Its an important distinction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Don't expect a big uproar over that, either. Next week, Mississippi is closing down its last abortion clinic. The legislature didn't even fight the technicality that was being used. Yeah, I think this is common practice in the South. South Carolina has something like 2 clinics in the entire State. Which is kind of the whole idea behind the "go to the clinic, and then wait 24 hours before you can get the abortion". Because it forces women to make that trip twice, putting a huge hurdle in the way of lots of women in those States.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
Man, at least in the old days when bad poo poo happened you could blame the Devil or witchcraft. Now the biggest evil we got is Socialist Homosexuals. Satan desperately tries to take center stage, but even when passing out free abortion and facial coupons, and dancing in assless chaps, no one looks to him for anything. Today I had to spent $200 on car repairs. I had money put away, but it makes me so loving furious to think that others would laugh and call me a sinner or imply I deserved it if I didn't have the cash. Clearly I did something wrong! I would have no loving problem whatsoever with being taxed at 20 or 30% if it meant we got better schools, health care, more libraries, better roads, loving LIGHT RAILS AND BUSES. No one wants to pay the Piper but everyone hates the rats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:It's pretty simple to counter: "But I can always switch companies." *ignores the past several years of cartel behavior, preexisting conditions, and employer-related coverage* "The government is a monopoly." *that you can vote to change*
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:No one wants to pay the Piper but everyone hates the rats. They hate the very concept of a Piper so loving much that they'd let the rats take over the town. Or they've been listening to the town cryers paid by The Rat King or whatever for so long they identify with the rats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:It's certainly well above the typical facebook debate, but Person 3 still simply sticks his fingers in his ears yelling LALALALA at the end. It seems quite clear he doesn't give a single goddamn about facts, because he already knows (from his extensive experience in "the industry") that the law is a devastating assault on our fantastic system. My favorite part is where one of his criticisms of PPACA is that some of the elderly will allegedly lose their health coverage because of cuts to Medicare Advantage and the next comment they say that they "don't believe in socialism." American education is far worse off than I used to think with all these people who "hate socialism" but take part in Medicare or are proponents of protecting it. Crackbone posted:It's pretty simple to counter: More importantly, there needs to be some entity finally doing something about the exorbitant costs of American healthcare. Journalist TR Reid wrote a great book comparing healthcare systems around the world, and the most striking contrast was that the same MRI that cost $1400 in the US only cost about $89 in Japan. We pay way too much for the same exact medical services because there is no incentive to to innovate and find ways to make these services cheaper. Providers have an incentive to keep these costs the same because they make more money when these things are expensive. Insurance companies have an incentive, but they don't care about making things more affordable, they just look for ways to deny covering any medical expenses (e.g. recission) so that the burden is completely shifted to patients who have no power to affect costs. Best case scenario is that insurance companies just refuse to reimburse providers and the providers send the rest of the bill to the patients and/or bill collectors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 08:21
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Wow, a grand total of 1.0% of the Canadians got care outside of the country? That's practically "the percentage of people who got sick while on vacation". Not really, but still its an incredibly tiny percent. Here's an anecdote, but I don't know if stats exist on this. It might account for a particular portion of Canadians who are given care in the US. When my mother was dying of brain cancer there was a treatment the doctors wanted to try but there was no neurologist available to perform it within a timeframe that would save her life if it worked. So, the province paid to drive her in an ambulance to Buffalo, New York, paid for the surgery, paid for her recovery in the hospital, and paid to drive her back home. It didn't cost us anything at all. The staff in the hospital in Buffalo knew she was Canadian but perhaps didn't know that the government was paying for it - perhaps they thought she was fed up with out system and paid out of her own pocket.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 08:34
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:...
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 09:28
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Here's an anecdote, but I don't know if stats exist on this. It might account for a particular portion of Canadians who are given care in the US. http://www.pluralofanecdote.com
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
That's a great site. It's really nice how tangible the contrasts feel because of the immediate juxtaposition, rather than the usual disconnect in time between these stories when you hear them individually from people telling you their personal experiences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 09:57
|
|
|
Je suis fatigue posted:Did it work? No, she died within 2 months. The government was perfectly okay paying for the chance though. Presumably it was much more expensive than paying a doctor here to do it due to the lack of price controls in the US. BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Jul 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 09:57
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:No, she died within 2 months. The government was perfectly okay paying for the chance though. Presumably it was much more expensive than paying a doctor here to do it due to the lack of price controls in the US. poo poo, man, sorry to hear about your mom, but it does remind me of an insane article from Investor's Business Daily from about August 2009 at the height of the "death panels" bullshit. The author claimed that Stephen Hawking would have died under Britain's NHS because the costs of his care would have been deemed too high and he would have just been left to die due to the "rationing" of socialized universal healthcare systems. Pretty much everyone who isn't retarded knows how loving stupid this is and Hawking himself came out and said he'd be dead if not for the NHS. Investor's Business Daily has since removed the article from their website, but there are plenty of other articles that quote directly from it. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/hawking_british_and_alive/ quote:In perhaps the most amusing effort to discredit US President Barack Obama's plan for nationalized health care - if not the most ridiculous - US financial newspaper Investor's Business Daily has said that if Stephen Hawking were British, he would be dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 11:08
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:That's a great site. It's really nice how tangible the contrasts feel because of the immediate juxtaposition, rather than the usual disconnect in time between these stories when you hear them individually from people telling you their personal experiences. Goon-run. This guy: http://forums.somethingawful.com/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=73112 Keep posting and he'll keep it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 11:10
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:No, she died within 2 months. The government was perfectly okay paying for the chance though. Presumably it was much more expensive than paying a doctor here to do it due to the lack of price controls in the US.  Glad our government was cool and you didn't have to worry about how it would all be paid for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 11:21
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Goon-run. This guy: http://forums.somethingawful.com/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=73112 Even better. Now, I'll just have to go through my bills and old medical records to submit some of the insane charges I've received.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 11:41
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:My favorite part is where one of his criticisms of PPACA is that some of the elderly will allegedly lose their health coverage because of cuts to Medicare Advantage and the next comment they say that they "don't believe in socialism." Some hospitals actually make a lot of their money through things like imaging and tests (doctors are expensive). I know of a case where a more rural hospital decided to install an MRI on site rather than continue to use a mobile one that would make rounds throughout the area because the doctors were more likely to have patients get MRIs if there was a machine in house and thus make more money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
I think this went through at least 2 of my aunts, then my dad. Are people not embarrassed to send out poo poo this stupid? Also not really political. I left in the diamond question mark things, for effect.quote:I sent an angel to watch over you last night, but it came back. I asked "why?"... The angel said: "Angels don't watch over angels!" Twenty angels are in your world. Ten of them are sleeping, nine are playing, one is reading this message. Please read.... not joking.....God has seen you struggling with something. God says it�s over. A blessing is coming your way. If you believe in God, send this message on, please don't ignore it, you are being tested. God is going to fix two BIG things tonight in your favor. If you believe in God, drop everything and pass it on. Tomorrow will be the best day ever. Send this to ten friends, including me, if I don't get it back, I guess I�m not one of them. As soon as you get five replies, someone you love will quietly surprise you. So it seems to be implying that the person reading this email is an angle. Then it states that there are 20 angles in this world, and 19 of them are off somewhere else, but you are reading this email and you are an angel. Well what if my Dad and my Aunt were reading the email at the same time, before they were both angles, but the email clearly says only one of them is an angel, so now only one of them is? Thats stupid. Then we get the stuff about You are going to get a blessing, which is possibly that god will fix things for you, or maybe that is separate. You should drop everything and pass this email on. Note that by sending you you imply that the recipients are angles, but if there are more than 19 recipients, they can't all be angels (assuming you still are), so you are lying to most of them or something. You are supposed to forward the email on, and it is poorly phrased, but I think the blessings and poo poo are supposed to be dependent on you forwarding it. Religious people, please don't send blatantly self contradictory bullshit just because it sound nice. I'm not sure I could even bring this up without saying something like "that is the stupidest piece of writing I have ever read, and if you forwarded, I have lost all respect for you." So probably I won't bring it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
lancemantis posted:More on healthcare chat, about those earlier claims of people leaving Canada for healtcare, I recently ran into someone who posted this The Fraser Institute is the Canadian equivalent of Cato. I wouldn't put a ton of weight in that study. Just a head's up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
modig posted:I think this went through at least 2 of my aunts, then my dad. Are people not embarrassed to send out poo poo this stupid? Also not really political. I left in the diamond question mark things, for effect. "There are 20 angels in your world" implies that each person who reads the email knows 20 angels (including him/herself), not that there are only 20 angels in the entire world. But yeah, pretty crappy writing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
Thanks for this. One more UHC (Canada) success story up there. e: one word too many. Cromulent_Chill fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Jul 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
modig posted:I think this went through at least 2 of my aunts, then my dad. Are people not embarrassed to send out poo poo this stupid? Also not really political. I left in the diamond question mark things, for effect. That reminds me of one of David Cross' bits from one of his old acts about a newspaper article titled "Will you know people in heaven?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2QqrvSryQA Pththya-lyi posted:"There are 20 angels in your world" implies that each person who reads the email knows 20 angels (including him/herself), not that there are only 20 angels in the entire world. But yeah, pretty crappy writing. But most readers probably have more than 20 close friends and relatives, so what does that make the rest of them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 10:37
|
|
|
That seems like an adult, Christian version of the chain posts and texts that teenage girls used (still do?) to send, "if you pass this on your crush will come by your house tonight" sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:That seems like an adult, Christian version of the chain posts and texts that teenage girls used (still do?) to send, "if you pass this on your crush will come by your house tonight" sort of thing. I hadn't thought it like that before, but it seems pretty accurate, though I guess it doesn't really bother me, aside from the magical thinking, because it's generally inoffensive and harmless. At least it's not some hateful "gently caress you got mine" bullshit or homophobia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:That seems like an adult, Christian version of the chain posts and texts that teenage girls used (still do?) to send, "if you pass this on your crush will come by your house tonight" sort of thing. Chain letters have been around a lot longer than texts: http://www.silcom.com/~barnowl/chain-letter/evolution.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
Helping my mom with an email thing and noticed that her inbox is full of messages from a coworker. All emails titled with TEA PARTY STRIKES BACK AGAINST OSAMA and other poo poo. Can someone please, please give me a simple idiot's guide to why the reform passed isn't welfare, socialism, and won't bankrupt the country/force the rich to pay for the lazy poors? Something to send to my mom so she hopefully remember this instead of OBAMA LIED TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS LOST TO MUSLIM HOSPITALS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
It's insurance. Insurances work based on pools--the bigger the pool, the lower the cost. The people who spend more than they receive on insurance cover those who receive more than they spend. This is how all insurance works. Nothing to do with the government, that's how insurance works. Now, Obamacare seeks to minimize costs by expanding the pool to everyone. Don't even try to explain the Medicaid expansion or Medicare Advantage or Part D or anything else. Get her to understand that she doesn't have a great grasp on the fundamentals of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
quote:Can someone please, please give me a simple idiot's guide to why the reform passed isn't welfare, socialism, and won't bankrupt the country/force the rich to pay for the lazy poors? It may act pretty much like welfare sometimes, it is a little socialist, and it might force some rich people to effectively pay for others (poor, lazy, or otherwise). But if it's implemented well, it'll mean that overall more people get better healthcare, while the country spends less total money on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
How is it socialist? It's literally just the government enforcing a law. No one is losing property rights, and the government isn't nationalizing any sort of service or product. Ask her if she's allowed to drive down the street without a seatbelt or a license. Yes, I know, the car analogy isn't like the healthcare analogy, because you can choose not to drive a car. No one does, and to be honest, in most of America, that's not a choice. So, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess your mom drives a car. Ask her why it's okay for the government to tell her to pay for tags, insurance, and a license, and if she doesn't, they throw her in jail, but it's not okay to do the same thing with health insurance?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 00:42
|
|