justin_o_guy2 wrote on 10/28/19 at 16:22:59:



HMO - 100% profit driven.

There's your unabated capitalism at work.

There's this point when you realize a person is so dumb they've gone beyond where their impairment can be regarded humorously.

Class for idiots is back in session:

Car insurance has all legal drivers, as in those who pay for insurance when their car is in legal operation on the road, pay into the system.

Mangled Spring, you lack the required reading comprehension to parse meaning from syntax, understand even the most basic elements being communicated.   Again, I'm unable to provide a cartoon illustration- so, good luck with this post.

T And T Garage wrote on 10/29/19 at 07:41:51:


Not the point.
We need to end that program.
When things go to crap
Look at what changes were made just prior.

So you just want to criticize.
Actually trying to figure out an answer to WHY our health care system went to crap doesn't need to happen.

verslagen1 wrote on 10/29/19 at 09:03:44:


Please- let's be absolutely clear:  this is one long run away from the topic of the lead post.   It's a fractal digression, as the need to distract from the last stupid utterance leads to the next.   Witness this latest forking:

Eegore, our resident public healthcare policy expert, mentioned car insurance as a conceptual placeholder for the impact of requiring insurance for participation- no "opting out" if a member is of a particular demographic.    Mangled Spring, instead of speaking to the substantive point, digressed into the details of how to register a car and then drive it illegally in some States.   Eegore redirects back from automobiles to national health care by explaining that the ACA can not be gamed as the automobile licensing example.

Eegore then, after prompting, returned to characterizing the benefit of requiring participation in the insurance market, qualifying the comparison to auto insurance thusly:

"Health insurance isn't exactly the same as in identical, extremely similar, precisely comparatively equal or otherwise similar to extreme degrees.  The concept in application is what shares similarity, but not identical attributes."

In other words, 'ya, there are differences- but they aren't pertinent, because we aren't talking about replication'.

So, this entire spiral down into how some driving illegally transfer their liability onto legal drivers is totally and completely irrelevant.   In point of fact, the very concept of transferred liability is one of the primary concerns mandatory participation aims to address in the first place.

Then, Michael/verslagen1, you do us all the disservice by chasing the laser pointer dot.   It doesn't fuxing matter that there are some uninsured motorists on the road.   Eegore was not 'shamelessly and blatantly lying', as Malignant Spring slurred, by limiting consideration in his analogy explicitly to legal drivers as a conceptual aid.   We've all come to anticipate Minimal-effort Spring's throwing crap at the fan, Michael- but at least I expect more from you.

Instead of exploring why a council member felt comfortable saying 'gun laws should be relaxed because a homosexual is running for the Presidency', we're trying to catch the spinning crap as it falls.

Sewing discord and chaos is easy- order takes time, effort, and here, a shovel.   Deriding crap removal -well, you pick your priorities.

"What a shameless, blatant, lie."

 Why are we always going over the structures of sentences with you?  Do you actually read these posts?

 I very specifically said:

"Car insurance has all legal drivers, as in those who pay for insurance when their car is in legal operation on the road, pay into the system."

 Because I assumed you would divert this into differences instead of processing what is actually being said here.

 "Legal Operation"  I am in exclusivity talking about humans who are legally driving.  Not any other human in any other context.  This is for a reason, so we can continue the conversation, not cry about uninsured motorists, I already said ACA is NOT like that.

 Now for those who do not insure their vehicle and are caught, they are fined.  No not everyone pays, not everyone gets a ticket not everyone is subject equally, like all things in all parts of life all of the time.

 ACA is like car insurance as it expects more people to contribute to the pool, if they are legal, LEGALLY, using a vehicle on public roads.  Legally, not illegally, very specifically legal drivers.

 The pool of people not paying is SMALLER, when there are legal repercussions, not all people pay.  Everyone does not pay, we get it, you don't need to make some other argument about it, we know  not all people pay.

 But the pool of non-payers is smaller, so your 13% distribution of cost to payers to cover uninsured would be HIGHER if insurance wasn't required at all.