RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits

RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

igor2003 -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 1:43:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery That's because the CONTENT of that plan matters . . . and when there's NO plan, it's just a reaction, not a plan. Colin Powell's Pottery Barn Rule applies here as well: You break it, you own it. Will be interesting to see how this plays out over time. In the short run, it hurts real people. I know you don't care. Others do. The Democrats broke it. Ask the voters. Oh wait, we did, didn't we. What you consistently keep forgetting is that some 3,000,000 more people voted for Clinton than what voted for Trump. And when you say "the voters have spoken", well, they spoke FOR Clinton. And yes, I understand that you have trouble accepting that. This is a republic, not a democracy you dumb ass. Figure out how it works then get back to us They campaigned on the real rules that we have at present, not the imaginary "what if" rules of your idiotic make-believe pretend world And look at Congress. We won, you lost - get used to it. Spin it any way you want. There were still more people that voted for Clinton than Trump. That is a FACT. Not a "what if". When you figure that about 50% of eligible voters didn't vote for either one, and more than half of the people that did vote, voted for Clinton, that means that 75% of the voting population was AGAINST Comrade Trump. THAT is a FACT. Suck it up buttercup.

tamaka -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 1:47:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery That's cherry-picking the upper end. For patients without health insurance, X-rays typically cost about $100-$1,000 or more. On average, X-rays cost $260-$460, varying by provider and geographic location, according to NewChoiceHealth.com . Actual X-ray cost depends on the provider, the part of the body being X-rayed, and the number of views taken. http://health.costhelper.com/x-rays.html But yeah. Health care costs are a concern. Eliminating insurance for many isn't going to help. It sure isn't going to help because the way it works is, if you don't have insurance you get billed the top amount. When i was living in Vegas, i had health insurance with a $5000 deductible. One day i had to go to the emergency room because of chest pains. I ended up with a $3000 bill. They told me the bill would have been alot higher if i didn't have health insurance because having it meant the hospital could only bill for the insurance- negotiated amount. Without insurance, you pay the highest amount they bill.

tamaka -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 2:00:33 PM)
I get angry every time they mention the whole 'health savings account' thing... like that is going to be any help at all to most people who can't afford to save much anyways, and the first time they have a rash, the medical bills will wipe all of their savings out. What a stupid thing to talk about to the American people about a great part of some potential future health plan.

bounty44 -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 2:03:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 When you figure that about 50% of eligible voters didn't vote for either one, and more than half of the people that did vote, voted for Clinton, that means that 75% of the voting population was AGAINST Comrade Trump. THAT is a FACT. Suck it up buttercup. im not sure whether to just say your math and your logic suck, or to ask exactly how you got to "75% of the voting population was against trump."

BoscoX -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 2:09:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Spin it any way you want. There were still more people that voted for Clinton than Trump. That is a FACT. Not a "what if". When you figure that about 50% of eligible voters didn't vote for either one, and more than half of the people that did vote, voted for Clinton, that means that 75% of the voting population was AGAINST Comrade Trump. THAT is a FACT. Suck it up buttercup. Make-believe Had they campaigned on your imaginary rules, used tactics better suited to the popular vote, you can't say who would have won. You can pretend, sure. While you are at it why not pretend that socialism works, and pretend that man-caused global warming is proven science Oh wait, you already do dont you

klmpong -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 2:24:14 PM)
All Obamacare did was help the insurance companies steal more of our money by force of law. They got away with it long ago by requiring auto liability ins. Remember their argument then? "IT will reduce the cost of liability ins because,... everyone will have it." I know MY liability ins went up 75% just 45 days after my state legislators were bought off. It's also interesting to note, that the actual cost of that X ray is less than $6. How about we do something really different and actually look at the COST of HEALTHCARE ! One very simple idea is to require that all HCPs have a public price list. This will open up the free enterprise system ( that has been under attack for some time) and offer the consumer the benefits of actual competition. That way we can question their practices and pricing in the public square. Make the hospital explain publicly charges like $19 for two Tylenol. How about the pharmacist charging $550 for drugs that cost them between $5-$15? Why is questioning the health care industry such a golden cow? Health care is a PROFIT oriented industry after all . One without ANY consumer protection. On a side note, I'd also like to know why the NFL.....has a NON-PROFIT status with the IRS ? ( yeah, look it up) If they can get non profit status,.... ANY company should be able to forgo paying taxes." Equal protection under the law".. and all, ya know?

BoscoX -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 2:51:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: klmpong All Obamacare did was help the insurance companies steal more of our money by force of law. They got away with it long ago by requiring auto liability ins. Remember their argument then? "IT will reduce the cost of liability ins because,... everyone will have it." I know MY liability ins went up 75% just 45 days after my state legislators were bought off. It's also interesting to note, that the actual cost of that X ray is less than $6. How about we do something really different and actually look at the COST of HEALTHCARE ! One very simple idea is to require that all HCPs have a public price list. This will open up the free enterprise system ( that has been under attack for some time) and offer the consumer the benefits of actual competition. That way we can question their practices and pricing in the public square. Make the hospital explain publicly charges like $19 for two Tylenol. How about the pharmacist charging $550 for drugs that cost them between $5-$15? Why is questioning the health care industry such a golden cow? Health care is a PROFIT oriented industry after all . One without ANY consumer protection. On a side note, I'd also like to know why the NFL.....has a NON-PROFIT status with the IRS ? ( yeah, look it up) If they can get non profit status,.... ANY company should be able to forgo paying taxes." Equal protection under the law".. and all, ya know? Part of the problem with cost are lawsuits There was a nurse in a hospital near here that grabbed an IV, essentially just salt water. But she grabbed the wrong one, which they looked almost exactly alike. They're in a hurry, right, life and death and all that Well, this IV had potassium in it for a patient that needed it. It killed a baby Guess what that salt water with a bit of potassium cost the hospital

mnottertail -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 3:05:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: klmpong All Obamacare did was help the insurance companies steal more of our money by force of law. They got away with it long ago by requiring auto liability ins. Remember their argument then? "IT will reduce the cost of liability ins because,... everyone will have it." I know MY liability ins went up 75% just 45 days after my state legislators were bought off. It's also interesting to note, that the actual cost of that X ray is less than $6. How about we do something really different and actually look at the COST of HEALTHCARE ! One very simple idea is to require that all HCPs have a public price list. This will open up the free enterprise system ( that has been under attack for some time) and offer the consumer the benefits of actual competition. That way we can question their practices and pricing in the public square. Make the hospital explain publicly charges like $19 for two Tylenol. How about the pharmacist charging $550 for drugs that cost them between $5-$15? Why is questioning the health care industry such a golden cow? Health care is a PROFIT oriented industry after all . One without ANY consumer protection. On a side note, I'd also like to know why the NFL.....has a NON-PROFIT status with the IRS ? ( yeah, look it up) If they can get non profit status,.... ANY company should be able to forgo paying taxes." Equal protection under the law".. and all, ya know? Part of the problem with cost are lawsuits There was a nurse in a hospital near here that grabbed an IV, essentially just salt water. But she grabbed the wrong one, which they looked almost exactly alike. They're in a hurry, right, life and death and all that Well, this IV had potassium in it for a patient that needed it. It killed a baby Guess what that salt water with a bit of potassium cost the hospital Yeah, fuck that, the cost of lawsuits is handled by malpractice insurance, you may drop the cost of that for doctors but it wont do a fucking thing for HEALTH INSURANCE costs felchgobbler. It will cost the hospital less, but they are insured, the meantime the individual is dead while you are felchgobbling your corporate insurance guys so they dont have to actually pay out. What the fuck does that have to do with anyones health insurance? You are looking to felch corporate ass there. Not only that but you are forcing a moral hazard on your corporations, something you would suck anyones ass to avoid. Remember, you are a nutsucker act as if you are for individual freedoms and not the communism of giving our citizens away to soulless corporations you lousy toiletlicking unamerican shitbreather.

tamaka -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 3:09:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: klmpong All Obamacare did was help the insurance companies steal more of our money by force of law. They got away with it long ago by requiring auto liability ins. Remember their argument then? "IT will reduce the cost of liability ins because,... everyone will have it." I know MY liability ins went up 75% just 45 days after my state legislators were bought off. It's also interesting to note, that the actual cost of that X ray is less than $6. How about we do something really different and actually look at the COST of HEALTHCARE ! One very simple idea is to require that all HCPs have a public price list. This will open up the free enterprise system ( that has been under attack for some time) and offer the consumer the benefits of actual competition. That way we can question their practices and pricing in the public square. Make the hospital explain publicly charges like $19 for two Tylenol. How about the pharmacist charging $550 for drugs that cost them between $5-$15? Why is questioning the health care industry such a golden cow? Health care is a PROFIT oriented industry after all . One without ANY consumer protection. On a side note, I'd also like to know why the NFL.....has a NON-PROFIT status with the IRS ? ( yeah, look it up) If they can get non profit status,.... ANY company should be able to forgo paying taxes." Equal protection under the law".. and all, ya know? Part of the problem with cost are lawsuits There was a nurse in a hospital near here that grabbed an IV, essentially just salt water. But she grabbed the wrong one, which they looked almost exactly alike. They're in a hurry, right, life and death and all that Well, this IV had potassium in it for a patient that needed it. It killed a baby Guess what that salt water with a bit of potassium cost the hospital The hospital has liability insurance so it didn't cost them anything.

mnottertail -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 3:17:58 PM)
Say medical malpractice insurance is 44K per doctor (that looks like the highest bid) (insurance is state run for you nutsuckers, who are unaware of constitution and law) Let's pretend we are fiscally and financially irresponsible nutsuckers such as you inSanity and there exists a corporation who pays all the malpractice insurance for their 10K doctors (I know, nutsucker fantasy and felchgobbling propaganda, that would be 440 million, now, lets call that UHC. here is the top 5 compensation: http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?t=UNH we havent even went into assistants and flunkies and lawyers and nobody. How much will you save per policy, by cutting that----------nay, lets felchgobble like a nutsucker furiously slashing as an American by 2/3rds and then somehow propping up the slash to the corporations that insure them? Or are you talking real socialism and going to blow out the fucking useless insurance companies and go to single payer, a system that has worked in Norway since 1900 and in many other parts of the world not so long after, certainly since Atlee in Britain. You have not dropped individual insurance costs by one fucking dime, toiletlicker, but you have given corporations a free ride with your forcing upon them this moral hazard, thats why you are a feeble minded nutsucker and not a conservative, my commie friend.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 4:14:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 When you figure that about 50% of eligible voters didn't vote for either one, and more than half of the people that did vote, voted for Clinton, that means that 75% of the voting population was AGAINST Comrade Trump. THAT is a FACT. Suck it up buttercup. im not sure whether to just say your math and your logic suck, or to ask exactly how you got to "75% of the voting population was against trump." Maths isn't your strong suit is it? Or algebra either. Are you really so dumb you can't work that out for yourself?? 50% of eligible voters didn't vote. That means that 50% didn't vote for the gibbon or Hilary. That leaves 50% who did vote. More than half who did, voted for Hilary. Lets say for arguments sake, it was 54% Hilary and 46% for Trump - of the 50% that did vote. But remember, that's only half (50%) of all eligible voters. So in reality, of all eligible voters (not just those who voted), only 27% voted Hilary and 23% voted trump. Remember, there were 50% who didn't vote for either one. So add that back to the total so you get a true picture of who voted for whom out of all eligible voters. So that makes 73% of voters didn't vote for Hilary and 77% of voters didn't vote for Trump. By reasoned logic, for those that didn't vote for one particular candidate, they must have been against them otherwise they would have voted for them to support them. So.... Igor's statement is true: more than 75% of eligible voters didn't vote for him. Ergo, of they didn't support him, they must have been against him. That doesn't inherently imply that those that didn't, must have voted for the other side either. Again, remember, 50% didn't vote for either one. Basic 12yo algebra... and you can't work it out. [8\|]

Lucylastic -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 4:14:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX Thinkprogress is so heavily biased, even the name showcases it's heavy bias It only proves that you are insane for you to try to use it as a legitimate news source so you cant find anything that makes it fake? thats on you chicken shit

BoscoX -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 4:20:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka The hospital has liability insurance so it didn't cost them anything. Because liability insurance is free [8\|]

BoscoX -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 4:21:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX Thinkprogress is so heavily biased, even the name showcases it's heavy bias It only proves that you are insane for you to try to use it as a legitimate news source so you cant find anything that makes it fake? thats on you chicken shit The source itself, idiot

Musicmystery -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 6:10:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 When you figure that about 50% of eligible voters didn't vote for either one, and more than half of the people that did vote, voted for Clinton, that means that 75% of the voting population was AGAINST Comrade Trump. THAT is a FACT. Suck it up buttercup. im not sure whether to just say your math and your logic suck, or to ask exactly how you got to "75% of the voting population was against trump." Don't know about that, but only 9% of voters picked Trump and Clinton in the primaries: [image]https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-02-at-7.26.55-AM.png[/image] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html And the president-elect currently has an approval rating of only 37%. Most Americans didn't vote FOR anyone this election -- they choose whom to vote AGAINST. So we had two candidates the majority of Americans hated. Anyway anyone wants to spin that, for Trump or for Clinton, those are pathetic candidates.

Wayward5oul -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 6:18:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Spin it any way you want. There were still more people that voted for Clinton than Trump. That is a FACT. Not a "what if". When you figure that about 50% of eligible voters didn't vote for either one, and more than half of the people that did vote, voted for Clinton, that means that 75% of the voting population was AGAINST Comrade Trump. THAT is a FACT. Suck it up buttercup. If 50% of eligible voters didn't vote, then you cannot state that their non-vote was against Trump. Unless you are also willing to accept that their non-vote was also against Clinton. Which leaves you with quite a conundrum. All you can state for sure is of those who did vote, the majority voted for Clinton.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 6:28:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Most Americans didn't vote FOR anyone this election -- they choose whom to vote AGAINST. So we had two candidates the majority of Americans hated. Interesting but weird situation over there. If there were sooo many people out there that hated BOTH candidates, how the fuck did they get to be presidential nominees?? Regardless of the crazy EC system you have, how did these two bubble up to the top?? Something seriously sucks with the US election system. And I mean... seriously sucks.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 6:30:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Spin it any way you want. There were still more people that voted for Clinton than Trump. That is a FACT. Not a "what if". When you figure that about 50% of eligible voters didn't vote for either one, and more than half of the people that did vote, voted for Clinton, that means that 75% of the voting population was AGAINST Comrade Trump. THAT is a FACT. Suck it up buttercup. If 50% of eligible voters didn't vote, then you cannot state that their non-vote was against Trump. Unless you are also willing to accept that their non-vote was also against Clinton. Which leaves you with quite a conundrum. All you can state for sure is of those who did vote, the majority voted for Clinton. Simple logic. If they didn't support X candidate (and didn't vote for them), they must be against them. And that logic applies to both sides.

Wayward5oul -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 6:37:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Spin it any way you want. There were still more people that voted for Clinton than Trump. That is a FACT. Not a "what if". When you figure that about 50% of eligible voters didn't vote for either one, and more than half of the people that did vote, voted for Clinton, that means that 75% of the voting population was AGAINST Comrade Trump. THAT is a FACT. Suck it up buttercup. If 50% of eligible voters didn't vote, then you cannot state that their non-vote was against Trump. Unless you are also willing to accept that their non-vote was also against Clinton. Which leaves you with quite a conundrum. All you can state for sure is of those who did vote, the majority voted for Clinton. Simple logic. If they didn't support X candidate (and didn't vote for them), they must be against them. And that logic applies to both sides. Or maybe they were just apathetic. Or maybe they don't feel that it matters because they feel their vote doesn't count because of our voting system. Or maybe they were for Clinton but they were so sure that she was going to win that they didn't think they needed to vote. Or maybe they were for Trump but they didnt think there was any way in hell he was going to get it so they stayed home. Or their car broke down and they couldn't get to the polls. Or they were running late. Or sick. Or feeling depressed that day. Or it was raining and they didn't want to get out. There could have been a million little reasons to account for lots of people not getting out. Unless you are a mind reader and you scanned all of them, then no, you cannot say they were against anyone just because they didn't vote.

bounty44 -> RE: GOP votes to take away these 6 essential health benefits (1/14/2017 6:52:53 PM)
the actual "voting population" are the people registered to vote, not those merely eligible to vote there were ~146 million people registered to vote this past presidential election. trump got 63 million, ~43% Clinton got 66 million, ~45% roughly 6 million went to other candidates, 4% ~17 million people did not vote (sorry, and i'll be making this point again, NOT voting is NOT a vote AGAINST trump). that means about 49% of the voting population voted for someone other than trump, which even then is not a vote AGAINST trump. you have no idea for how many voters he could have been second choice. the whole notion of "75%" requires you to count eligible voters (~219 million) not registered ones so that only works if you play loose with the terms... which you actually do when you say that voting for someone is necessarily a vote against someone else. its even worse when you count in the 73 million people who didn't vote as being AGAINST trump. you have no idea why they didn't vote and what their thoughts are concerning trump. you can "ergo" all you want there, it doesn't work. i'll give a pass on the math based on the assumptions used, but I reject the assumptions. so we'll just go with "logic sucking" and subsequently that includes yours too.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625