New ‘Medicare for All’ Bill Would Kick 181 Million Off Private Insurance

Are you Mr. duck...dodge or hide!!
You never answer direct questions...typical left wing obfuscation.

Is socialism name calling...won't get an answer there.
Forcing people to purchase healthcare...won't get an answer there. You tried to make the auto insurance comparison...YOU FAILED!!

Shoving Obummercare down the throats of the American people with ZERO support of the opposition party...won't get an answer there.

That the Gumment is inefficient, bloated and spends to much money...you can't and won't acknowledge that!!

You talk about "shit" on this board...you sling it and run.
Your TDS has consumed you...you continually espouse this socialist ideology and say...you don't know my political ideology...from the man who said "I've become a Democrap".

You try and play this sanctimonious above the fray crap as though your the "gentleman" and you tell us who you respect and don't as though we give a shit!!

Come down off you "high horse" and response to each point...I know you won't.
It just proves my point...you'll pass!! Originally Posted by bb1961

On occasion I'd appreciate it if your main goal was not to put down others who disagree with you and DISCUSS issues like the majority of people on this forum do.

It is rather obvious from your posts that your education level is quite a bit lower than the average poster.

Its simple really --free market , But let them keep talking

Speaking of short on facts Speedy. Again with the phony comparison to auto insurance? If you don't drive, you don't need to purchase auto insurance. Obama FORCED everybody to purchase an expensive plan or get fined (it was never a tax, he always called it a fine). Trump is attempting to remove a big problem by allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines. That alone would open up competition and lower prices. Seems it's the Dems who don't like that. Originally Posted by Lantern2814

After thinking more about it, my analogy of comparing the ACA to car insurance is not that far off other than those who do not have a car do not have to purchase car insurance.

However, once I decide to own a car I am forced by the government to spend money on insurance that I might not want. So the government used to require all to spend money on health insurance they might not want. And the government requires me to spend money on car insurance that I might not want.

After thinking more about it, my analogy of comparing the ACA to car insurance is not that far off other than those who do not have a car do not have to purchase car insurance.

However, once I decide to own a car I am forced by the government to spend money on insurance that I might not want. So the government used to require all to spend money on health insurance they might not want. And the government requires me to spend money on car insurance that I might not want. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So you agree that the foundation of the financial viability of the ACA which was the individual mandate of forcing one to buy something they didn't want or most likely by actuarial standards use shouldn't have been put in place.

And if you did choose to go with insurance you couldn't under the ACA choose minimal plans that only provide catastrophic coverage like you could with auto insurance.

To put it terms of your analogy, the ACA basically said you had to get comprehensive, liability, collision, road side assistance, car rental option, etc. That's not how it should work.

So you agree that the foundation of the financial viability of the ACA which was the individual mandate of forcing one to buy something they didn't want or most likely by actuarial standards use shouldn't have been put in place.

And if you did choose to go with insurance you couldn't under the ACA choose minimal plans that only provide catastrophic coverage like you could with auto insurance.

To put it terms of your analogy, the ACA basically said you had to get comprehensive, liability, collision, road side assistance, car rental option, etc. That's not how it should work. Originally Posted by eccielover

Yes, I agree. Although I think EVERYONE should have health insurance I don't think people who want to take the risk of not having health insurance should be forced to purchase it. Of course, if someone goes to the emergency room without health insurance, people like you and I are paying for it.

On occasion I'd appreciate it if your main goal was not to put down others who disagree with you and DISCUSS issues like the majority of people on this forum do.

It is rather obvious from your posts that your education level is quite a bit lower than the average poster. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Aren't you get tired of being perched up on that high horse for soooo long???
As I said before...I will not stop attacking the lunacy of the left and you are a an individual that thinks he's above criticism.
I have news for you you're NOT!!
What kind of education level does a person have that makes a statement...let me paraphrase:
Stop with the name calling...SOCIALISM...Mr. brilliant!!
Anyone ever called you a narcissist, pompous,arrogant or egotistical??...it's common behavior from the left on this board.
Again those simple question I asked were beneath you so you ignored them...see how it works!!
Thank you valued poster.

Of course, if someone goes to the emergency room without health insurance, people like you and I are paying for it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And you're good with that...you've said so much.

After thinking more about it, my analogy of comparing the ACA to car insurance is not that far off other than those who do not have a car do not have to purchase car insurance.

However, once I decide to own a car I am forced by the government to spend money on insurance that I might not want. So the government used to require all to spend money on health insurance they might not want. And the government requires me to spend money on car insurance that I might not want. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Driving a car is a privilege not a right...as you think health insurance is. Another failed analogy of yours.

Aren't you get tired of being perched up on that high horse for soooo long???
As I said before...I will not stop attacking the lunacy of the left and you are a an individual that thinks he's above criticism.
I have news for you you're NOT!!
What kind of education level does a person have that makes a statement...let me paraphrase:
Stop with the name calling...SOCIALISM...Mr. brilliant!!
Anyone ever called you a narcissist, pompous,arrogant or egotistical??...it's common behavior from the left on this board.
Again those simple question I asked were beneath you so you ignored them...see how it works!!
Thank you valued poster. Originally Posted by bb1961

I do not have a problem with criticism. When deserved.
You seem to get off on criticizing others. For some reason, I get along fine with the majority of others on this board. We disagree. We state our opinions, hopefully backed up by what we consider to be supporting facts, then we move on.

If you ask me a question I will try to respond. You tend to not accept answers that you don't like. When I say I have no problems with the TSA, you say I am a socialist. There's a lot more to being a socialist than supporting a handful of government programs.

Driving a car is a privilege not a right...as you think health insurance is. Another failed analogy of yours. Originally Posted by bb1961

Please try to comprehend what is being said. I am forced to pay car insurance in order to drive my car. FACT. The fact that it is a privilege to drive a car is irrelevant to my statement.

Please point out the post in which I stated that health insurance is a right.

And you're good with that...you've said so much. Originally Posted by bb1961

As an uninsured individual, you may not be familiar with what rights are available to you in an emergency. You have the right to emergency care if you meet the federal guidelines of what constitutes an emergency situation.

So what qualifies as an emergency?

Any incident that is severe or life-threatening,
Any incident where bodily functions or organs are seriously impaired,
Any incident where delivery is imminent in a pregnant woman.

No matter what your insurance status, hospitals and emergencies room must provide adequate care if your situation qualifies as an emergency.

Some visits will not qualify under the formal definition of an emergency:

Going to an emergency room for non-life threatening care
Visiting an urgent care facility for non-life threatening events
Prenatal care, wellness checks, screenings, follow-up appointments or ongoing doctor visits
Situations that are not considered life threatening, like flu, colds, rashes, etc.

Again you just want to argue.

Yes, I support people having the right to go to an emergency room and getting medical care. All I'm saying is that when someone goes to the emergency room and receives care and does not have the means to pay for it, someone has to pay for it. Medical care is not free.

Right FREE isn't FREE ( shhh don't tell the socialist dimocarps )

As an uninsured individual, you may not be familiar with what rights are available to you in an emergency. You have the right to emergency care if you meet the federal guidelines of what constitutes an emergency situation.

So what qualifies as an emergency?

Any incident that is severe or life-threatening,
Any incident where bodily functions or organs are seriously impaired,
Any incident where delivery is imminent in a pregnant woman.

No matter what your insurance status, hospitals and emergencies room must provide adequate care if your situation qualifies as an emergency.

Some visits will not qualify under the formal definition of an emergency:

Going to an emergency room for non-life threatening care
Visiting an urgent care facility for non-life threatening events
Prenatal care, wellness checks, screenings, follow-up appointments or ongoing doctor visits
Situations that are not considered life threatening, like flu, colds, rashes, etc.

Again you just want to argue.

Yes, I support people having the right to go to an emergency room and getting medical care. All I'm saying is that when someone goes to the emergency room and receives care and does not have the means to pay for it, someone has to pay for it. Medical care is not free. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

SR - You are correct, Sir. AnyOne presenting at an ER must be evaluated by law. Treatment depends on the results of the evaluation.

Indigent costs are generally covered by hospitals with funding shifted from private insurance payments. Medicare for all will abolish any private insurance, and put medical care and hospitals in a severe financial bind.

One will see less care, longer waits, and patient complications from unavailability of care.

That suits Bernie and Warren just fine - it is about Control, not the quality of Care to the radical Socialists.

The vote to repeal/replace the ACA never made it to the Senate floor because, even with a Republican majority in the Senate, several Republican Senators saw how terrible the AHCA was and would not support it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Make shit up???? I said the AHCA did not make it to the Senate floor for a vote. FACT. Yes, 3 senators broke ranks and would have voted against the AHCA. FACT. Three is several -- definition of "several" is "more than two but not many". FACT. And we all know who the 3 senators were who planned to vote against the AHCA. That was never in doubt. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

SR STOP!!!

you're making a fool of yourself with your strange math.

you clearly did not understand the dictionary meaning.

3 is not several. it would be classed as few.

from other sources, 1 - 3 is considered few; 4 - 9 is alot; 9 or more is several.

definition of several from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several

several

adjective sev·​er·​al | \ ˈsev-rəl

, ˈse-və-\

Definition of several

(Entry 1 of 2)

1 a : separate or distinct from one another federal union of the several states

..b (1) : individually owned or controlled : exclusive a several fishery — compare common

....(2) : of or relating separately to each individual involved a several judgment

..c : being separate and distinctive : respective specialists in their several fields

2 a : more than one several pleas
..b : more than two but fewer than many moved several inches
..c chiefly dialectal : being a great many


Definition of several (Entry 2 of 2)

: an indefinite number more than two and fewer than many

SR STOP!!!

you're making a fool of yourself with your strange math.

you clearly did not understand the dictionary meaning.

3 is not several. it would be classed as few.

from other sources, 1 - 3 is considered few; 4 - 9 is alot; 9 or more is several.

definition of several from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several

several

adjective sev·​er·​al | \ ˈsev-rəl

, ˈse-və-\

Definition of several

(Entry 1 of 2)

1 a : separate or distinct from one another federal union of the several states

..b (1) : individually owned or controlled : exclusive a several fishery — compare common

....(2) : of or relating separately to each individual involved a several judgment

..c : being separate and distinctive : respective specialists in their several fields

2 a : more than one several pleas
..b : more than two but fewer than many moved several inches
..c chiefly dialectal : being a great many
Definition of several (Entry 2 of 2)

: an indefinite number more than two and fewer than many Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

You got me. Several is a minimum of one more than two.