Son, if you are ashamed to state your livelihood, that's your business, son. Urinal cakes are necessary and somebody has to change them ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BRHornet45
Printable View
Son, if you are ashamed to state your livelihood, that's your business, son. Urinal cakes are necessary and somebody has to change them ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BRHornet45
LMAO at the petty bitchfest between two posters in this thread.
LMAO at DarrinS trying to accuse someone else of petty bitchiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
^thisQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Exactly. Glad you agree with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
He's probably not going to get paid as much as he wants, and that's all it amounts to. Turning away patients won't fix that, so yeah, it's entirely politics and posturing, and nothing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
"What a douche.
actually i believe he's a doctor for men."
ok then, "What an enema"
Bleeding lib commies are a sad poor bunch. Wanting freebies for everybody on someone else's dime. Please go to Europe and smile as you wait in line for health care.
Shitting on Doctors as if they are the cause of the problems-it's pretty disgusting. No doctor anywhere should be forced to care for anybody. They didn't go to med school to give away free services at the poor clinics. It's their choice to make a living and to treat whom they want because this is a free country despite what you bleeding libs are trying to do.
Let's see you numbnuts try to get into med school much less graduate and actually become Doctors then work for the government for 35,000 a year for 3 years as you train. Obama rags on all the successful people and businesses while the kool-aid drinking libs take it all in and adore him as if America was built on this type of lunacy.
:lmao
:rollin
Poor poor doctors
this board thinks doctors are pushing Kia sephias and feeding their kids 3 ramens a day because of socialism
No they're really not going to lose anything. My wife's practice stopped taking assignment a long time ago and the appointment wait time for new patients who want to see her is 7 weeks. Good doctors already have more work than they can possibly do. Besides, doctors fees really aren't that expensive and most people can afford to pay them out of pocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
thisQuote:
Originally Posted by ploto
I am sure this has nothing to do with this fact:
Quote:
Cassell, whose lawyer wife, Leslie Campione, has declared herself a Republican candidate for Lake County commissioner...
Hmmmm...
Looks dark out.
A sign posted the night before 4/1...
Possible significance?
luckily for these poor doctors, their kids will now have healthcareQuote:
Originally Posted by mookie2001
Oh well then I guess most doctors ARE taking insurance out of the goodness of their hearts and the warm fuzzy feeling they get.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
The expensive of doctor fees is relative. You may not find the 100 bucks for a checkup expensive, but for most families they'd much rather spend 10-20 on a copay then 100 dollars because that shit IS expensive when you add it up 5 times or so for an average family.
In any event, I agree that good doctors have a luxury of not taking insurance. There are doctors out there who can see one patient a day and make a lot of money doing nothing more. This certainly isn't the case with the vast majority of doctors.
And fuck, if shit is so good for them why are we supposed to feel sorry for them again?
Yes but you didn't join me for the Klan meeting and crossburning so it wasn't like you truly voted Republican IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Anyway, I'll let you get back to you convo with Blake since I wouldn't want to disturb a valuable exchange beteen elites who get Obma :tu
It probably didn't hurt the Doc's business...
So tell me libs, at what point do you think his income will be more in line with your approval?
If his business isn't hurt, there is no issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt
We're not. We're supposed to vilify successful people and feel sorry for lazy fat ass alcoholic high school dropouts who can't pay for shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
:blingQuote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Then again you're totally cool with voting for Obama who protects lazy incompetent Union workers who earn close to a 100 grand, produce nowhere near the quality of work a doctor does, and on top of that are excluded from the Cadillac tax.
So when did the idea of taking away income (private property) become a principle of when this country was founded?
Why do we villify the motives of private practice doctors whose work is tied to their worth, something that was a romanticized idea pre Henry Ford's concept of removing the value of a product fromt the worker. Instead, you have done nothing but cheerlead a bill which forces americans to enrich corporate insurance companies who now will benefit from all this.
We lost,
The doctors lost,
People who put effort into studying medicine lost.
But the insurance companies and the federal govt won.
Again why are you laughing at yourselves?
You should only feel sorry for the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by mookie2001
How much did you personally lose?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
How much did doctors lose?
I'll let you get back to your crossburning :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by whottt
The costs of doctors are huge component in health care costs, so if costs are to come down, then doctors revenues have to come down. US doctors make 2x what doctors make in other countries.
Same with BigPharma charging the USA 2x what BigPharma charges other countries for the same drugs. Americans are subsidizing the drugs for "socialist" countries with national health insurance and systems.
Americans are their own worst enemy, leading pathogenic lifestyles (no exercise) and over-eating corporate food-like shit. Probably 50% of the national health bill is from (over) treating and over charging for lifestyle diseases.
I don't really expect any "bending the curve" upward on Americans taking better care of themselves, not any "bending the curve" downward on rip-off doctors and insurance companies.
this is front-page news! right, darrin? this should be the lead-in on CBS!!
I just do fucking get it, he's a private company. And if an obama voter walks in he still has to help them. So why is the fucking news
www.spursreport.com :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by Blake
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images...9/ButtHurt.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by whottt
:tu
I don't but I do know you are very very insecure and petty. This thread is another example of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Yeah, that's why you post about me all the time instead of the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
:lmao
jackiesommerset the victim
Someone was mean to him on the internets!
definitelyQuote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
:rollinQuote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
You guys need to form a support group.
They have one. It's called the GOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
My personal liberty, the right to not have to buy insurance and instead pay out of pocket. That's like biden would say, "A big fucking deal."Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
How much did doctors lose? Money, and the degradation of the value of their work, money to hire more staff to deal with the new paperwork, and more stress and headaches in trying to deal with the feds.
Don't you have the hidden fat forums?Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
What hidden fat forums?
Do you currently have health insurance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Do you really pay out of pocket?
Yes or no.
Tell me how much money the doctors are losing.Quote:
How much did doctors lose? Money, and the degradation of the value of their work, money to hire more staff to deal with the new paperwork, and more stress and headaches in trying to deal with the feds.
Be specific.
Don't just make shit up.
I own a small business!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
1st,... yes, I have payed out of pocket for my doctors visit and for one emergency visit, and hopefully i won't have to in the near future since i love being healthy.
2, You've demonstrated yourself to be a moron in this thread by asking how specific amount of money doctors will lose implying that they all receive the same income and salary, all have the same situation. Just like we could never predict the actual cost of medicare until hindsight, the same can be said for how much a certain bill will would specifically cost someone.
Thing is that doctors are complaining, my family doctor aswell that this bill is going to hurt their offices and make them hire more staff to deal with more govt backed insured patients who will abuse the system.
Do you have family members in guantanamo?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Are you in guantanamo?
Then Shut the fuck up!
:Chumpdumper tactic
I don't need my rights so you don't either.Quote:
Originally Posted by mookie2001
So if you don't know what the repurcussions will be, then how can you claim they will be harmful? I think that's chump's point. If you are going to claim that doctors will lose money then you should be able to prove it with something other than your biased opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
What constitutes proof? a chart? they don't make those on the internets. Do you want me to ask a doctor to provide his w40 information, or would you rather me list examples of how the bill would require doctors to hire staff to deal with federal paperwork, and be forced out of options to give to their patients like i just did previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
His questions are stupid.
And that's not his only point. His point is that if you're not personally affected then you have no ground to gripe about. THat's like saying if you're not black or a minority you shouldn't give a shit about racial discrimination.
Quit defending Chumpdumper, he's the fucktard.
so nobody really knows that it will cost doctors more money, it's just a guess on their/your part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
So they will be losing money because more patients will be walking in the door?Quote:
Thing is that doctors are complaining, my family doctor aswell that this bill is going to hurt their offices and make them hire more staff to deal with more govt backed insured patients who will abuse the system.
eh, beat me to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
if you are going to claim "they will lose money" then how hard is it to explain exactly how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
It's posts like these that keep me coming back to the poly forum :tuQuote:
And that's not his only point. His point is that if you're not personally affected then you have no ground to gripe about. THat's like saying if you're not black or a minority you shouldn't give a shit about racial discrimination.
Quit defending Chumpdumper, he's the fucktard.
so then stop making unsubstantiated claims.. easy to fixQuote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA606.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Blake
linky here.
Doctors are saying that Obamacare is gonna bring more taxes, more reg, decreased pay and a higher workload.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA606.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
But i'm not.
MATT PATTERSONQuote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
POLICY ANALYST
Matt Patterson is an author and analyst whose work has appeared in The Washington Post, The New York Post, FoxNews.com, and National Review Online, among others. In 2009 he was named a National Review Institute Washington Fellow.
From 2008-2009, Matt served as research assistant to Charles Krauthammer. In the 2008 Republican primary race, he served as policy communications coordinator and a state political coordinator for the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign.
Matt is an honors graduate of Columbia University, where he studied ancient Greek and Latin, and has performed across the U.S. and abroad as an award winning sleight-of-hand artist. He grew up in Colorado.
Oh he is an objetive source....
Quote:
About Us
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.
So it's a biased right wing blogger...
Are you really trying to reason with George?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
You'll have better luck with George of the Jungle.
I guess proof of what they are dealing with now, Medicare, and late reimbursements from Private insurances, then a public expansion of both would be worse off for them. But these are the guys that deal with this shit everyday.Quote:
But talk to older doctors. Many will tell you that they intend to retire as soon as it is financially feasible. They are tired of fighting for insurance reimbursement − from private insurers, and especially from Medicare and Medicaid.
More physicians are opting out of Medicare. They endure endless resubmissions of claims, endless denials and endless appeals − and even demands for refunds months later. Question: How much of the Medicare “waste, fraud and abuse” that President Obama talks about actually represents valid claims for needed treatment that were arbitrarily denied?
If you think dealing with an insurance company can be maddening, try dealing with Medicare. When an insurance company denies a claim, you can go to court or appeal to your state insurance commissioner. Your chances are slim, but at least there is a chance. But where do you go when the federal government denies your claim?
About one-third of physicians say they will leave practice if ObamaCare is enacted. Some may not carry out their threat. But others, who do not now intend to leave medicine, will do so if they find a government-run system unbearable.
I don't see how much more evidence you want.
http://stolinsky.opinioneditorial.co...rationed-care/
wait I am going to some left wing blog to respond... :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
He qouted a survey of doctors, he didn't make the survey.
But i'm rigth wing biased, so i guess my own personal testimony wouldn't be enough.
don't be retarded.
Quote:
If they take effect, physicians' fees will be slashed 21 percent and hospital reimbursements for Medicare patients will be cut by $1.3 billion. Tens of thousands of doctors and thousands of health care institutions -- hospitals, hospices, outpatient clinics and such -- will refuse to treat Medicare patients.
Entire cities will be without one doctor in important specialties who will take care of the elderly on Medicare. Particularly in fields like G.I. care or arthritic and joint pain, doctors will simply refuse to accept the low reimbursement rates they are being offered and hospitals will refuse all but emergency care to Medicare patients. In effect, the elderly will experience a doctors' strike against Medicare patients.
Congress, faced with this massive revolt coming right on the verge of the election, may back down and postpone the cuts. Originally, doctor reimbursement rates were scheduled to drop on March 1 of this year, but Congress postponed it until the fall.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...es_104860.html
even thought the source is D. Morris. He articulates the reasons from the Doctor's survey.
yeah, all these doctors really hate it.Quote:
By Parija Kavilanz, senior writerMarch 22, 2010: 9:49 PM ET
.......Doctors weigh in: Some of the nation's leading physician groups called the new health care legislation a step in the right direction, but said that it still does not address all of their concerns.
The American Medical Association (AMA), the largest physician group, applauded new measures to increase payments for primary care physicians caring for Medicaid patients and give bonus payments to physicians who work in underserved areas.
"Those who have insurance will see improvements right away: lifetime caps on coverage end, children can stay on parents' policies until age 26, and insurance companies can't cancel coverage except in the case of fraud," AMA president Dr. James Rohack, said in a statement Monday.
At the same time, he lamented that the legislation does not repeal the Medicare physician payment formula that threatens to cut what doctors receive from the program.
Dr. Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said she was mostly pleased with the legislation.
"Our health care system has so many significant problems that no one legislation will rectify then in one fell swoop," Heim said.
She particularly liked a 10% increase in Medicare payments to all primary care physicians for certain services, including preventive visits, management of new diagnoses and related follow-up visits and management of acute medical problems.
However, Heim pointed out flaws not addressed, including malpractice reform, controlling costs and shifting the system to be more focused on patient outcome and not the number of procedures performed.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) said the legislation addressed most of its concerns.
From a coverage standpoint, the group said the measure comes closer to providing health care to every child in America, although families without legal documentation will still be barred from coverage unless its emergency care.
Under the new measure, insurers can no longer charge customers a co-payment for preventive visits, which include routine check ups and vaccination visits, until the age of 21.
However, one of the biggest concerns for the AAP is that Medicaid payments to providers typically are lower than what Medicare pays providers for services that are comparable. The AAP hopes the Senate will later this week pass a fix in a reconciliation bill that would put Medicaid payments on par with Medicare for comparable services.
........
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/news...try_reactions/
:rolleyes
:lmao @ gtown.
Which part of the bill forbids you from paying cash for a doctor's visit? Serious question. I'd like to see the actual part of the bill, not a blog.
And 50% of the doctors in your precious survey thought their income would go down without any reform. So your point about their feelings about their income is useless.
I await your butthurt attempt to make it about me.
Lmao @ Chumpdumper, is this a serious question? Can you come across less as a moron?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I don't go to the doctor to give a donation, i go to pay them for work done or diagnosis. This bill mandates me to pay for insurance i don't want. That's the problem.
This bill impacts my personal freedom to choose whether i elect to use insurance.
NM, i'm talking to the Austin Toros moron.
The AMA's endorsement was bought off for support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Quote:
Hijacking Of AMA’s Support Of ObamaCare
By ROBERT B. SKLAROFF and ROBERT R. GUZZARDI, For The Bulletin
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Did the American Medical Association (AMA) truly endorse ObamaCare this weekend? Not really, notwithstanding media reports.
To understand the dynamics of what transpired, it is necessary to depict the interaction of the House of Delegates – which convenes semi-annually – and the president, who conducts business in the interim. All actions of the latter must be divulged to and corroborated by the former, recognizing that public emergence of any schism would foment embarrassment, enervating to the AMA and, thus, to both.
Why physicians cannot, instead, become energized by the healthcare reform debate is dramatized by events of the past five days. They can easily be tracked by consulting one page on the AMA’s Web site – after one learns how to interpret both “commissions” and “omissions.”
Policy is Codified
What happened during this interim meeting of the House of Delegates can be gathered following a critical review of the hyperlinks originating on the “Meeting Highlights” page of the AMA Web site’s Interim Meetings link.
During this convocation, four core principles adopted at the annual meeting this past June were reaffirmed – pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients – and elucidated thusly:
• Health insurance coverage for all Americans.
• Insurance market reforms that expand choice of affordable coverage and eliminate denials for pre-existing conditions or due to arbitrary caps.
• Assurance that health care decisions will remain in the hands of patients and their physicians, not insurance companies or government officials.
• Investments and incentives for quality improvement and prevention and wellness initiatives.
• Repeal of the Medicare physician payment formula that triggers steep cuts and threaten seniors’ access to care.
• Implementation of medical liability reforms to reduce the cost of defensive medicine.
• Streamline and standardize insurance claims processing requirements to eliminate unnecessary costs and administrative burdens.
Chicago-Style Politics Intervene
In lieu of addressing the “public option” controversy, the AMA rendered this generic endorsement, even as other entities within the structure of organized medicine — both independent of the AMA and subsidiary thereto — opted to deviate from this script.
The not-so-silent hand that had created this discrepancy was unearthed during a site-visit this past summer to the Illinois Medical Society headquarters, which had staked-out a neutral posture.
The AMA’s imprimatur was juxtaposed by opposition by the Chicago Medical Society because the former had been garnered — at least in part — due to the Obama administration’s pledge to endorse the annual “doctor fix,” reversing the 21.5 percent Medicare reimbursement cut scheduled for January, 2010.
That physicians are paid less than they were at the beginning of this millennium (despite rising overhead) is to be ignored; rather, their endorsement is to be extorted, even if the payoff is subject to being rescinded during subsequent years. The shifting alliances and pledges afoot are illustrated by how endorsements were amassed from other stakeholders, only to be undermined by a classic “bait and switch” tactic. Recall that insurers had funded the iconic “Harry and Louise” kitchen-table discussion of complaints against ClintonCare, while this year’s couple had endorsed ObamaCare. Through it all, the Administration shoulder-shrugged, claiming Congress was merely functioning independently.
The President Pre-Empts
Immediately after the House of Representatives approved ObamaCare Saturday night, the AMA’s president hailed its passage. This transpired before the House of Delegates could assess resolutions in opposition thereto, scheduled for testimony on the following day in Reference Committee B. His awareness thereof, which was overtly phrased as intending to reign in his out-of-touch Board of Trustees – by, for example, mandating roll-call votes thereof – constituted a brazen challenge to this policy-making body to dare to undo what he had already trumpeted.
As anticipated, it relented. Gone were citations of policies promoting Health Savings Accounts and the need to rescind the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust pre-emption enjoyed by health insurers, for these were inimicable with ObamaCare. Inserted were specifications regarding insurers, “elimination of denials due to pre-existing conditions is understood to include rescission of insurance coverage for reasons not related to fraudulent representation,” and insurance exchanges, “be self-supporting; have uniform solvency requirements; not receive special advantages from government subsidies; include payment rates established through meaningful negotiations and contracts; not require provider participation; and not restrict enrollees’ access to out-of-network physicians.”
The House Sends a Message
How did the House transmit its displeasure with the president’s unilateral action, without communicating overt antagonism? By compiling its objections to key facets of ObamaCare, to wit:
• Reduced payments to physicians for failing to report quality data when there is evidence that widespread operational problems still have not been corrected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
• Medicare payment rate cuts mandated by a commission would create a double-jeopardy situation for physicians who are already subject to an expenditure target and potential payment reductions under the Medicare physician payment system.
• Medicare payments cuts for higher utilization with no operational mechanism to assure that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services can report accurate information that is properly attributed and risk-adjusted.
• Redistributed Medicare payments among providers based on outcomes, quality, and risk-adjustment measurements that are not scientifically valid, verifiable and accurate.
• Medicare payment cuts for all physician services to partially offset bonuses from one specialty to another.
• Arbitrary restrictions on physicians who refer Medicare patients to high quality facilities in which they have an ownership interest.
• Creation of an Independent Medicare Commission, or other similar construct, which would take Medicare payment policy out of the hands of Congress and place it under the control of a group of unelected individuals.
• Replacement of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) with a Medicare physician payment system that automatically keeps pace with the cost of running a practice and is backed by a fair, stable funding formula.
• Creation of a single-payer system.
This “something for everyone” approach served to beg the question of whether the specifics of ObamaCare should have been endorsed. Meanwhile, however, the weight of the AMA –representing all of 17 percent of practicing physicians – can now be used by the Obama administration to administer this poison-pill program to a reluctant America.
http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2...e487973886.txt
But you can still pay your doctor in cash?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Yes or no.
You haven't proved that at all.Quote:
This bill impacts my personal freedom to choose whether i elect to use insurance.
Show me the part of the bill that forces you to pay using insurance only.
I'm talking to the moron who wants to make it about me.Quote:
NM, i'm talking to the Austin Toros moron.
And you just did.
Again. :toast
That is like saying all the teachers agree with what their union does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
That follows no logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You've illustrated that you don't actually think things through, and i'm happy for having such an easy time debunking your silly arguments.
That's like saying, people know their going to die anyway, so a study illustrating the dangers of smoking is pointless.
rofl! butthurt! clever!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
THis dumbass thinks we're bitching because this bill wont allow for co-pay. :lmao.
That's not the argument. The argument is mandated insurance is an affront to personal liberty.
That's like saying all catholics have a soft stance on pedophillia because of the Vaticans lax rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
It's from your precious survey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Did you not read it?
You've illustrated that you don't even read the articles you google.Quote:
You've illustrated that you don't actually think things through, and i'm happy for having such an easy time debunking your silly arguments.
:lmao
No, it's like saying 50% of doctors think they are going to lose money even without health care reform, which shits all over your whining about your doctor's oncoming poverty.Quote:
That's like saying, people know their going to die anyway, so a study illustrating the dangers of smoking is pointless.
What part of that do you not understand?
Eh, it fits. If you were anything but a butthurt moron I would call you something else.Quote:
rofl! butthurt! clever!!!
This is so funny, after arguing with Chumpdumper, i feel as if Boutons, Nbadan and Random Guy is a more worthy cerebral opponent.
I mean this is like arguing with the "bitch Nbadan" bitch stewie version.
You said you wouldn't be able to pay your doctor in cash for services and would have to use insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Why are you trying to change your argument now?
It's not my fault you fucked up.
I understand the mandate for insurance, but are you required to use it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
That is my question to you. Serious question -- I don't know the answer.
Do you understand it now?
Yeah i do, but can you give me a serious question that was formed out of a sort of logical system rather than one that was formed as an evasion type moving the goal post type of procedure.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I don't believe we should be forced to pay for mandated insurance. anytyhing else is secondary. Whether i have the freedom to not use it after i already paid for it (chuckles, a serious question by this moron), is pointless, i also have the freedom to wear pancakes on my head while paying for mandatory insurance, that's not the crux of my argument. My argument is one shouldn't have to be forced to pay for a private insurance plan.
It wasn't. Quit whining. It was a direct question directed at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
So you aren't going to answer my question I have been asking all along and instead you will move your goalposts and try to evade it.Quote:
I don't believe we should be forced to pay for mandated insurance. anytyhing else is secondary. Whether i have the freedom to not use it after i already paid for it (chuckles, a serious question by this moron), is pointless, i also have the freedom to wear pancakes on my head while paying for mandatory insurance, that's not the crux of my argument. My argument is one shouldn't have to be forced to pay for a private insurance plan.
Fair enough.
when i said, "My personal liberty, the right to not have to buy insurance and instead pay out of pocket. ", any normal person would have understood it as the right to not pay for insurance and instead pay out of pocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
But instead the casual fuck up you are, read the argument as, "The govt won't let me pay out of my pocket" only type argument, which no one is making here.
It's not my fault you're a fuck up.
Dude, I already awnsered your question. You don't have to use the mandated insurance, but you do have to pay for it regardless whether you use it or not. I have a problem with being forced to pay for it in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
So you still won't answer my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Instead, you'll just whine about your failure to comprehend it.
Understood.
No, you didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
You see, gtown, there are people who will still not have insurance.
Will they be forbidden to pay out of pocket?
Yes or no.
So now that i answered your question, are you saying that we should be ok with Obamacare because it doesn't force us to use the insurance we paid for?
Yes, those people are called the congress and staffers, who are exempt from Obamacare.:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Great Bill!
I'm not saying you should be anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
I'm fine with letting the courts decide the constitutionality of the mandate. I can see arguments for both sides.
No, not those people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Think harder, if you can.
You mean to tell us that we have the right to tip doctors with Obamacare! yippy!!!!!
thanx Chump, you're full of wisom!
No, once again you've failed to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
It's OK. I'm used to it.
Jackass question deserves a jackass response. thanx!Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Yeah, those other people will have their freedom so long as they stay below the poverty line. What's your point?
It's ok, you failed to ask a relevant question.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
It's ok, I expect it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
why are you evading this question chump?
It's quite relevant, and you still haven't answered it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
So, you don't understand that?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Typical.
Tell me what part you didn't understand.
I understand the content of your question but don't understand the point of your question.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Why are you intent on asking whether we are banned from paying out of pocket? No one is griping because of that. We are griping because we have to pay for mandated insurance.
So again, what is the point of these questions, are these questions designed for you to claim cheap victories?
You were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Do you? Is there something else that can be done?Quote:
We are griping because we have to pay for mandated insurance.
No, they've pretty much illustrated that you are fairly ignorant of the issues and should just stick with personal insults and trolling.Quote:
So again, what is the point of these questions, are these questions designed for you to claim cheap victories?
:rollin,Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
like i said, there was no point to any of your questions that had to do with policy, they were just for cheap victories.
link?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Not at all. There are real answers to them. Showing just how ignorant you are is a bonus and completely expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
You want a link to your own post that you already quoted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
:rollin
i want a link were i said the govt is going to ban paying out of pocket like you asserted me saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Do it.
Not at all. My question was quite clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Thanks for acknowledging your ignorance.
What a douche.
I asked you a question about it because I didn't know the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
You avoided it for awhile, then finally answered it (not that you actually looked anything up, you just guessed), now you are avoiding other questions to avoid looking even more ignorant.
It's OK. I already know you are ignorant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
self pwnage sprinkled with contradiction is awesome.
:toast