Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally, the ACA was to include a public option, but that was one of the first (if not THE first) thing scrapped to placate the Republicans & gain their support. That might have paved the way to universal healthcare, which we desperately need. Medicare for all, at minimum.
Wrong. Democrats didn't need GOP support when 0bummercare passed. They had a supermajority. It was DEMOCRATS who defeated the public option.
This thread reminds me why one should never get into a debate with a religious fanatic. It is always a chaotic discussion, bouncing between right wing tropes and religious casuistry.
And? Western Europe population is about 400 mil, US is about 330 mil. What's your point again?
I suggest you utilize reading comprehension. I said that after the tort reform, healthcare costs to the consumer did not decrease, got it?
And then there are the US Universities all of whose drug research gets pushed under "Health care costs". So name the top universities of Europe where Americans flock.
Can you read? Those few who truly do have these conditions can be part of the 5% helped by the 95%. But again, liberals would have to get off their brains and start pitching in.
Why do you keep saying that there's somehow only 5% that would be excluded? For example, "Approximately 38.4% of men and women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes." A lot of these people would either be denied due to preexisting condition or have their treatments exceed your plan coverage. And this is only one medical condition...there are many others. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...ing/statistics
Cost based on lifestyle and risk factors created by your choices needs to be a part of the conversation too. When my wife’s employer started covering gay partners, our insurance premiums went up quite a bit. I do believe in providing to everyone, but it’s only fair to charge everyone according their lifestyle choices. If you smoke - charged more, overweight-charged more (probably by tier), lgbtq-charged more. The current American nutrition habits is costing us a ton of money. Heart disease should almost not even be a problem but it is a leading killer. All about diet. At the same time, corporations peddling garbage disguised as food should be held accountable as well.
Yep. Fortunately, Samaritan only recognizes hetero marriages, and certainly wouldn't cover stuff like AIDs which is transmitted almost exclusively by illicit activity.
Why do you keep saying that there's somehow only 5% that would be excluded? For example, "Approximately 38.4% of men and women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes." A lot of these people would either be denied due to preexisting condition or have their treatments exceed your plan coverage. And this is only one medical condition...there are many others. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...ing/statistics
Yep. Fortunately, Samaritan only recognizes hetero marriages, and certainly wouldn't cover stuff like AIDs which is transmitted almost exclusively by illicit activity.
As do unintended pregnancies so it would seem, no coverage for the kids that result. Damn the little bastards anyway, eh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
