- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Upstairs. When I got there, the line was half way down the steps. The line moved pretty fast; I was at the counter in about 5 minutes or so. Then I waited on the line to see one of the service people or whatever they're called. Took about 5-7 minutes in line. The woman I saw handled the issue pretty quickly after asking me a few questions. This was on a pretty busy Saturday, late morning. Another time, about a week later, I went on a Monday morning. Things moved faster.
You speak myth. :lol: :shock:
Nope. Absolutely true. Like I said, I remember the old days of waiting for 3 hours in the Springfield DMV's waiting room, on those absolutely painfully uncomfortable chairs, just to get my simple car registration renewed. Last year I went for my picture driver's license renewal...at Springfield...on Thursday night, the one night they were open (at least that was the night, then...I don't think the do nights anymore). Took me less than 30 minutes. I was pretty impressed at their efficiency.
I disagree, any control is a gateway to total control.
Single payer means, one payer, meaning one entity dictates who and how doctors see.
Of all the reasons to criticize Obama's health care proposal (and there are many), this isn't the best one.
I haven't heard that any proposal would ban private doctors or otherwise prevent you or I from purchasing medical care that the government system did not cover. The only decision that government would have would be as to what it would choose to cover.
Another possible theory: A public plan will by design attract those whose care is the most costly. The practical result of this might be a decrease in the average consumer cost on private plans, which could lead to a decrease in private plan cost.
There is no way the private insurance companies can compete with a free government plan.
If they're not covering the same thing, then of course they could compete. Or, if the government plan is not a universally free plan, same story.
So, the private health insurance industry can just pick at the scraps falling off the government's table?
I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating for this. I'm just pointing out that "they won't let me get the healthcare I want" isn't the best criticism.
Under Obama's plan it is unlawful for the private sector to provide equivalent coverage as the government. Doesn't that validate some people's concerns regarding their healthcare options, or lack thereof?
Under Obama's plan it is unlawful for the private sector to provide equivalent coverage as the government. Doesn't that validate some people's concerns regarding their healthcare options, or lack thereof?
That law is the same in all nations with UHC, including Canada. The point is to make it so that the private sector is supplementary to the UHC system instead of it taking the full burden. In the U.S. this would mean a downsizing of the private sector, but insurance companies have already proven they cannot be trusted so I say this is their loss. People wouldn't be advocating for UHC if there weren't foul play happening.
Another possible theory: A public plan will by design attract those whose care is the most costly. The practical result of this might be a decrease in the average consumer cost on private plans, which could lead to a decrease in private plan cost.
No.
The goal of the Democrats is to destroy private health care for the masses and force more than three hundred million people into dependency on the federal government for treatment of the most common ailments, thereby attracting to the government the control of a full 14% of the US economy.
That's always what the health care debate has been about, no matter how sickly sweet the words from the Left have been.
Awake America, don't let them fit their chains upon your necks!
This is a fairly unfounded assumption.
No.
The goal of the Democrats is to destroy private health care for the masses and force more than three hundred million people into dependency on the federal government for treatment of the most common ailments, thereby attracting to the government the control of a full 14% of the US economy.
That's always what the health care debate has been about, no matter how sickly sweet the words from the Left have been.
Awake America, don't let them fit their chains upon your necks!
Oh damn, Scarecrow figured out our evil super sekret plan. Whatever will we do now?
It's a perfectly founded statement, not even an assumption.
The Democrats are pushing it, the Democrats are the party of goonions, rape, perjury, and corruption.
That the Democrats are trying to gain control of 14% of the US economy is indicative of foul play, just because who's doing it.
Naturally, if it was the Republicans pushing the scam, you Kool-Aid drinkers would be opposing it, on orders.
Right.
This is a fairly unfounded assumption.
You should read "We The Living", since "1984" is too complex for you.
You should read "We The Living", since "1984" is too complex for you.
You should try actual debate. Oh wait, that is far too complex and taxing for you.
Moderator's Warning: |
Are they proposing to require all doctors to work within the plan?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?