Poll: Large majorities of Americans want to preserve Obamacare's consumer protections

CFM said:
I gave you an explanation. Not my problem you're too stupid to understand.
Click to expand...

You didn't give an explanation.

You just said "the Constitution".

But that's not an explanation as to why you think you get better health care because of a profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursement to your provider.
 
CFM said:
Are you a doctor? Unless you are, you can't make an assumption like that.
Click to expand...

You don't need to be a doctor to know what insurance companies actually do.

Your doctor doesn't treat you with a higher level of care based on who reimburses them after.

It's malpractice if they do.
 
LV426 said:
Dude, Adam Connover cites everything and has links to all supporting data both within the clip itself, and on his website.

The only thing you've been able to cite is The Bell Jar, which is a book white supremacists read to make them feel better about their underachieving life.
Click to expand...

That's odd, he doesn't seem to feel better at all.
 
CFM said:
Underachieving life? You're the one begging the government create a healthcare coverage system so you can get what I earned. Appears to me as you haven't achieved even being able to provide yourself with the basics.
Click to expand...

You admit to having someone else pay for your health care.
 
CFM said:
I gave you an explanation. Not my problem you're too stupid to understand.
Click to expand...

It IS your probelm if you're too stupid to answer the question and attempt to cover that up by blathering "the Constitution" as if that were an answer. Do you not understand that?
 
CFM said:
You're the one begging the government create a healthcare coverage system so you can get what I earned.
Click to expand...

See, CFM has to frame this as jealousy because that's the only way he's secure in his shitty, underachieving life. I'm not jealous of having someone else pay for your health care, but it seems detrimental to whatever fake argument you're making here that I do.

So you have to construct straw men to burn, which I guess is better than burning crosses.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
It IS your probelm if you're too stupid to answer the question and attempt to cover that up by blathering "the Constitution" as if that were an answer. Do you not understand that?
Click to expand...

He just very dumbly said "the Constitution" is why he thinks tying a profit motive to the administration of reimbursements leads to better care from your doctor.

He can't make the connection, so he just falls back on lazily saying "the Constitution" as his catch-all explanation for everything.

Why do cats push stuff off the table? The Constitution!

Why does Taco Bell give you diarrhea? The Constitution!

Why does it rain? The Constitution!
 
LV426 said:
See, CFM has to frame this as jealousy because that's the only way he's secure in his shitty, underachieving life. I'm not jealous of having someone else pay for your health care, but it seems detrimental to whatever fake argument you're making here that I do.

So you have to construct straw men to burn, which I guess is better than burning crosses.
Click to expand...

Scarecrow with a pair of Nike's might be attractive to CFM.
 
LV426 said:
He just very dumbly said "the Constitution" is why he thinks tying a profit motive to the administration of reimbursements leads to better care from your doctor.

He can't make the connection, so he just falls back on lazily saying "the Constitution" as his catch-all explanation for everything.

Why do cats push stuff off the table? The Constitution!

Why does Taco Bell give you diarrhea? The Constitution!

Why does it rain? The Constitution!
Click to expand...

Hopefully this outlet results in a reduction of the time CFM spends walking the compound ranting to himself.
 
TrippyHippy said:
I do what I can on my limited income to help people. I often like to hand out backpacks to the homeless filled with food, clean clothes, and soap. Every once in a while I offer to give one of them a few dollars in exchange for helping me out with my garden or mowing or whatnot. But that helps maybe a handful of people at best. I also take part in organizations which share the cost of necessary but expensive things (like healthcare) among the group. I find encouraging people to switch to alternative options like that to be better than paying people's premiums outright. Teach a man to fish, right? But again, the scope of who that can affect is small. As leery as I am of the centralized state, it is the best apparatus to make any kind of laudable change on a national scale at this stage of humanity. If we can get to a point where people are empowered to take direct action on the issues that matter to them, rather than fill out a ballot sheet, we can talk. But then, you are just as guilty of that when it comes to the things you care about so it'll be a damn while.

The constitution does state the government should provide for the general welfare of it's people. This doesn't mean handouts, no, but it does have a legitimate constitutional responsibility to give a hand up to it's citizens. To allow for the health, happiness, and fortunes of all American people.



What's ridiculous is your incessant need to reason your way out of any sort of responsibility to your neighbors, even small children. That you'd rather stick your nose up way in the air and grunt "well i'm not it's parent!" than just give the poor damn kid a sandwich. You and ilk like you are why we need taxes to provide for the well-being of our people. You say in the beginning of your post that compassion should be individual and voluntary, not compulsory. I'd tend to agree ideally, but then by the end of your post you admit that you wouldn't help anybody on your own volition anyway. Making my point for me.
Click to expand...

There we have it. Someone with the inability to do something on the level he thinks others should do still demanding others do with their money what you expect them to do. I bet you're one of those that thinks someone with more than YOU believe they need not doing as much as YOU think they should is selfish.

For those that receive money for the "whatnot", that isn't giving. That's called getting paid for working.

As for those organizations, that's your choice with your money. The problem comes in when you expect others to do with their money what you think they should do.

You can't claim you're leery about a centralized government then support such a major concept headed up by that centralized government. That's like considering all used car salesman as shysters then buying a used car from one of them.

The general welfare doesn't mean that it's the government's place to provide to people what they refuse to provide to themselves. Many of you that equate healthcare to the general welfare have proven you don't know what the term "general welfare" means. More than one of you using that argument have stated that if a majority support the government doing it and you can't justify in your mind that it fits what you consider the general welfare, you're OK with it. However, those same people, when it's something they oppose, consider a majority voting to do something as mob rule.

In case you're too stupid to understand, if the government constantly gives someone else's money to another group that refuses to do even the basics for themselves, they have no motivation to do for themselves. You don't get rid of stray cats by feeding them.

I have no responsibility to fund my neighbor's choices even feeding their children. If parents don't give a shit enough about their own kids to provide them with the basics, it doesn't become the place of us that do with our kids to feed them. What we need is bleeding hearts like you that feel it is your responsibility to do it rather than support taxing someone else to make yourself feel better.

I help who I, not you, decide to help. The first thing you need to learn is that unless it's your money, you have no say in who and how much I should do. Your entire argument centers around you thinking it's your place to determine who and how much for someone else. There isn't but one person for which you can make that determination and that's you. You've proven you won't do to the level you demand others do while claiming you have compassion.
 
LV426 said:
See, CFM has to frame this as jealousy because that's the only way he's secure in his shitty, underachieving life. I'm not jealous of having someone else pay for your health care, but it seems detrimental to whatever fake argument you're making here that I do.

So you have to construct straw men to burn, which I guess is better than burning crosses.
Click to expand...


I have what you want. I earned it. You want it provided for nothing. That's jealousy.

Hopefully your lack of coverage will result in you not getting care for something detrimental to your health.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
It IS your probelm if you're too stupid to answer the question and attempt to cover that up by blathering "the Constitution" as if that were an answer. Do you not understand that?
Click to expand...

I explained. Apparently he combined IQ of you two dumbasses isn't to the level of the average, or should I say below average, black.
 
LV426 said:
You admit to having someone else pay for your health care.
Click to expand...

You claim that's what it is. I've explained that it's EARNED compensation. If you can't understand, the sooner that sickness gets you that lack of coverage doesn't help the better.
 
CFM said:
You claim that's what it is. I've explained that it's EARNED compensation. If you can't understand, the sooner that sickness gets you that lack of coverage doesn't help the better.
Click to expand...

It goes into a pool with all the other contributors and you/they draw out as needed through the course of a given year. Same with single payer systems.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
It goes into a pool with all the other contributors and you/they draw out as needed through the course of a given year. Same with single payer systems.
Click to expand...

Those not contributing don't get to draw from the pool.

With what you support, the funding is based on a percentage of the person's income. What that means is the person making a lower income, thus, contributing a lesser amount gets the same coverage as a person making a higher income and contributing a higher amount. Why should someone putting in less get the same thing? What about those that don't work and contribute nothing? Do they get care if needed? If so, that, alone, destroys your argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top