Is Anyone Happy with TrumpCare?

Obviously it is. That's why it needs to be enforced at the point of a gun.

 

When people offer to opt out of treatment as well as monetary contributions, and that offer is met with vitriol, it gives the game away. Hades, I’ve even offered to opt out of treatment and still pay and been shouted down here in the past. It’s frighteningly bizarre.

 

.

A wolf with no teeth

 

That picture describes the current REPUBLICAN PARTY to a T,THE PARTY OF WHITE MEN!!!!

 

Nope... Read my sig.

I say "misinterpretation" to put lightly. I would get in trouble if I said what I'm sure is actually happening.

Great. Because in no place have I said anything different.

You seem to have a hard time understanding written English. First I'll quote myself.

Maybe if you read things three or more times before responding, you might not make so many mistakes.

But instead you say....

From your link:

"Survivors usually aren't responsible for debts, but there are exceptions"​

...

"In most cases, the answer is no. Exceptions can exist, such as if you're the surviving spouse and you live in a community property state, or if you cosigned on a particular debt, but for the most part, heirs don't "inherit" debt."
​

You send a link and you don't bother to read it?

As for the restaurant nonsense, it's too ridiculous. People who can't pay for food receive food benefits. Ever heard of food stamps? If they received some sort of "health stamps"... there might be a very peripheral resemblance. Though still not enough to compare in an intelligent discussion.

Exactly! And that would be the only way in which you could have made any logical sense of bringing up that example. Short of that, the comparison would be idiotic.

 

Freeloaders can only freeload when enabled. I suggest we stop enabling them.

I am up in arms against freeloaders. I thought I made myself clear.

 

Get government out of medical care.

Government can never improve a situation; it can only muck it up.

 

No soviet medical care

 

You're not worshipping the gov't hard enough.

 

Probably....

 

Same as above.

 

Me too. Restore the individual mandate!

 

Ah, a solution that involves pointing guns at people and making them buy something. Not cool. I don't think it's right to point guns at my neighbor to make them buy something, so I can't advocate your call to violence.

How about freedom, and let the freeloaders fall where they may?

 

I don't see much difference between your exaggerations and Trump's. If he said some so stupid as "Every word I have written has been thoroughly researched.", the media and democrats would be talking about it for days. It appears that the major difference between you and Trump is that you don't have a army of people looking for stupid comments.

 

Except I prove it and he doesn't.

 

Certainly. Prove you research every word.

 

Read my posts.

 

They corrected you. I corrected you. Live up to your sig.

You used the term uninsured Republicans. That is a fact. You claimed someone picks up their tab. This is false because the member never claimed to not cover any bill. You make a claim I will hold you to it. I did not misunderstand you.

In post #127 you claim the member admitted to not paying. At this point you need to quote or give me the post number where that happened. The member did no such thing. You made that up out of whole cloth. Don’t try and backtrack now. I’ve watched you do enough of that. It’s old and tiresome.

So you know how to quote. But not anything that shows your errors. Cute.

Your error is obvious. It only takes one reading to spot it.

First, anyone with any knowledge of estates and what happens to assets at death would spot your error. The linked article’s purpose is to put survivor’s mind’s at ease about inherited debt. The introduction you just quoted addresses survivor responsibility for debt. It is correct that survivors seldom personally inherit debt. The rest of the article (if you had read it) addresses how remaining bills are paid. This is how dead people write checks that you claimed can’t happen. Your error is in confusing survivors with estates. Solvent estates, of which we are dealing with in your scenario, pay the medical bills incurred. Always. Not the survivors, the estate. It’s the law. In your scenario the bill will be paid 100% of the time. Period.
From my link, past the intro, into the meat, where you failed to go, in spite of your sig line, is the explanation of how it all works. Read it.

This is as irrelevant as Walmart getting subsidized. Food producers are subsidized as well. Everybody is. My point concerned mandates on insurance and single payer. I’m sorry it’s all over your head. But again. It’s your idea, I just applied your idea to a different sector of the economy. You don’t have to like it. I don’t like you applying your idea to healthcare. It’s unintelligent for sure.

My example makes perfect sense to those who aren’t bent on authoritarianism. The point is we shouldn’t treat healthcare differently than freeloaders at Walmart or Whiskey Creek Steak House. Just because you don’t trust someone to pay a bill doesn’t give anyone the right to force everyone to buy a product or support single payer. It matters not what law exists or doesn’t. It doesn’t matter what is currently subsidized or isn’t. It only matters that it is just as stupid to require health insurance as it is to require restaurant bill insurance or shoplifter insurance. It’s all stupid. And the original case of health insurance mandate is your idea.

 

They don't prove you research every word. Only that you type out words.

 

And by "government", you're referring to the sociopaths who feel entitled to steal and enslave their fellow man?

 

Just before Obama you could buy affordable health insurance with a 10k deductible that came with a separate supplement plan rider that took care of a good chunk of the deductible iij n the case something happened.

I was trying to find insurance separate from my employer so that I could quit my job in the case I got cancer.

Obama care made that option nonexistent.

 

So is the ACA's regulations, such as their ban on insurance companies dropping patients simple because of a family history of a disease. What? You grandma had cancer, and now you have it? NO TREATMENTS FOR YOU!

 

Why would that not be a matter of contract law?

 

This thread proves there are sociopaths in and out of government that are actively working to enslave and steal from others. It is frustrating, but we must remember threads like this are actually a blessing in disguise. They rip the mask of feigned compassion and fairness away, exposing the vile, hideous face of blatant authoritarianism. I don’t think many want to gaze on that face, or hear it’s utterances any more. I’m glad the mask is off. It’s temporarily unsettling on many levels, but self-destruction is in progress...